language learning belief factors affecting english...
Post on 19-May-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
173
English Teaching, Vol. 67, No. 4, Winter 2012
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement
*
Kyung Ja Kim
(Chosun University)
Kim, Kyung Ja. (2012). Language learning belief factors affecting English
achievement. English Teaching, 67(4), 173-194.
The purpose of the study was to identify Korean high school students’ beliefs about L2
learning and a structural model that best explains the belief factors associated with L2
achievement using structural equation modeling (SEM). It has furthermore explored
the effect of gender on the structural model of belief factors affecting L2 achievement.
A total of 447 students (253 boys, 194 girls) at two schools completed a questionnaire
containing 26 Likert-scale items. The results produced five underlying constructs: self-
efficacy of English learning, importance of grammar learning, role of teacher
feedback, importance of accuracy, and nature of English learning. The final SEM
model showed that both self-efficacy of English learning and importance of grammar
learning were positive, direct, and significant predictors of L2 achievement. Role of
teacher feedback and nature of English learning, however, were indirectly related to
the L2 achievement through the mediating role of self-efficacy of English learning.
The study also provided empirical evidence that gender moderated the causal
relationships among belief factors affecting L2 attainment. Based on the findings,
pedagogical implications to improve L2 instruction were suggested.
I. INTRODUCTION
Learners’ beliefs have been identified as an important individual difference variable in
understanding second or foreign language (L2) learning processes and outcomes.
Accordingly a substantial body of research has been conducted from multiple perspectives
since Horwitz’s (1985) pioneering study. Learners’ beliefs have influenced the way they
learn (Cotterall, 1999; Diab, 2006; Kern, 1995; Sakui & Gaies, 1999). Furthermore, such
beliefs have been linked with other learner variables, such as L2 learning strategies
*
This study was supported by research fund from Chosun University in 2011.
174 Kyung Ja Kim
(Abraham & Vann, 1987; Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Yang, 1999), L2 anxiety (Horwitz, 1988;
Truitt, 1995) and attitudes (Mantle-Bromley, 1995), and L2 proficiency (Kim, 2003;
Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Peacock, 1999). It should be noted, however, most of the previous
studies have their roots in the work of Horwitz (1985, 1987), who developed the Beliefs
About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), which triggered the so-called “BALLI
studies” (Kern, 1995; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Park, 1995; Rifkin, 2000; Sakui & Gaies,
1999; Yang, 1999). Thus, a methodological weakness could be leveled due to the use of
the same survey items across different cultural and learning backgrounds, including the
failure to account for the social contexts of L2 learners, and distinct settings and programs,
as argued by Barcelos (2003) and Kouritzin, Piquemal, and Renaud (2009). Therefore,
further research, in which survey items to explore learner beliefs deal with socially
conditioned and contextually embedded in the L2 learning setting, is needed.
Although a few studies (Kim, 2003; Kim, 2006; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Peacock, 1999)
explored the relationship between learner beliefs and L2 achievement, these studies
performed ANOVA or intercorrelations to assess the strength of such relations.
Correlation without reference to other factors that directly or indirectly influence L2
achievement limits the generalizability of the findings (Pae, 2008). No attempts have been
made to examine the structural relationship between belief factors and L2 achievement
including the effects of mediating or moderating variables in an EFL context. Thus, it is
necessary to examine the causal relationship among belief factors affecting L2
achievement using an instrument embedded in the EFL setting in Korea with a more
rigorous statistical analysis. Therefore, the overall objectives of the present study are to (1)
explore and describe beliefs about English learning of high school students in a Korean
EFL context, (2) identify a structural model that best explains the factors associated with
English achievement using structural equation modeling (SEM), and (3) examine gender
differences in the proposed causal path model.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1. Beliefs about L2 Learning
Researchers on learner beliefs have attempted to identify learners’ preconceived notions
about what is involved in learning an L2. Horwitz (1987) defined learner beliefs about L2
learning in five major areas dealt with by the inventory: foreign language learning aptitude;
difficulty of learning a foreign language; the nature of language learning; learning and
communicative strategies; and motivations and expectations about language learning. The
BALLI has been extensively used in several L2 learning contexts in the U.S. (Horwitz,
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 175
1988; Kern 1995; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Rifkin, 2000). A number of studies also used a
translated or modified version of the BALLI to investigate ESL or EFL learner beliefs.
Korean (Kim, 2003; Kim, 2006; Truitt, 1995), Japanese (Sakui & Gaies, 1999), Chinese
(Peacock, 1999, 2001), Taiwanese (Huang & Tsai, 2003; Yang, 1999), and Lebanese
(Diab, 2006) L2 learners or teachers have been targeted in the BALLI based studies. The
major findings of the studies were summarized as follows: (1) The ESL and American
foreign language students in the U.S. had more confidence in their L2 ability and more
integrative motivation than Korean EFL students, while the Koreans had more
instrumental motivations than the Americans; (2) similarities, however, appeared between
the Korean and Chinese students due to their similar culture, English education systems,
and the role of English in the two countries; and (3) the Chinese students displayed greater
confidence in their English ability than the Koreans.
Meanwhile, the BALLI based studies also examined the links between beliefs and L2
proficiency (Kyung Ja Kim, 2006; Mantle-Bromley, 1995), strategy use (Yang, 1999), and
anxiety (Horwitz, 1988; Truitt, 1995), and the effect of gender on beliefs (Bacon &
Finnemann, 1992; Rieger, 2009). However, some researchers (Kuntz, 1996; Rieger, 2009)
have raised concerns about the validity and reliability of the BALLI. Most studies using
the BALLI (e.g., Kern, 1995; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Peacock, 2001) reported the results
of the individual items employing descriptive statistics. But the results of the individual
BALLI items cannot be called factors in a statistical sense, as they were not the actual
results of factor analysis. For this reason, previous studies may provide an incomplete
picture of what factors make up L2 learner beliefs and the different roles that these factors
play.
Horwitz (1999) examined differences in beliefs among different cultural groups of
learners and found that L2 learning contextual differences may be important sources of
between group variations. Diab (2006) has given theoretical support to Horwitz’s (1999)
findings that learners’ beliefs about the difficulty of and motivations for L2 learning
seemed to be contextualized in politically and socio-culturally bound learning situation.
Furthermore, in a more recent survey of more than 6,000 university students in Canada,
Japan, and France, Kouritzin et al. (2009) found differences in language learning beliefs in
the three countries. More specifically, learners from Japan believed that knowledge of an
L2 carries value in and of itself, and such beliefs can lead the students to either have
unrealistic expectations, engage in ineffective learning, or play a self-fulfilling prophesy
(Kouritzin et al., 2009). This is an indication of the fact that beliefs are situated within the
socially and culturally conditioned context where learning takes place. For these reasons,
without examining the learner beliefs within the socially and culturally specific
instructional practices, a true understanding of a possible causal relationship between
beliefs and L2 achievement is incomplete.
176 Kyung Ja Kim
2. The Relationship between Beliefs and L2 Achievement
Horwitz (1988) and Mantle-Bromley (1995) theorized that learner misbeliefs about L2
learning may hinder their progress and persistence in L2 study and ultimately negatively
affect L2 achievement. To date, quite a few empirical studies appeared to have researched
the relationship between learner beliefs and L2 achievement. Ehrman and Oxford (1995)
reported that believing that one can learn languages well was significantly correlated with
L2 proficiency in speaking and reading. Peacock (1999, 2001) in studies with Chinese
EFL students also found statistically significant association between certain belief items
and proficiency: students who (1) underestimated the difficulty of learning L2; (2)
believed that L2 learning is a matter of memorization of vocabulary and grammar rule; (3)
thought that being allowed to make mistakes in the beginning meant they would find it
hard to get rid of them later on; and (4) believed that they should not say anything in L2
until they could say it correctly were significantly less proficient than students who
thought otherwise. Similar results have been reported that learner beliefs about L2 learning
are of critical importance to gains in L2 competence (Hinenoya & Gatbonton, 2000; Mori,
1999).
The hypothesis that high-proficiency learners tend to have more positive L2 learning
beliefs than low-proficiency learners has been supported by Huang and Tsai’s (2003)
findings. They discovered that there were significant belief discrepancies between high-
and low-proficiency L2 learners. When it comes to the Korean EFL context, few studies
researched such relationship. Kim (2003) and Kim (2006), in their studies with college
students within the context of English for a compulsory course, found that some of learner
belief items positively or negatively affected L2 achievement. Kim (2001), however,
reported that the correlation between learner beliefs and L2 proficiency was not significant
(r = -.07). In sum, while some of previous studies suggested a link between beliefs and L2
achievement, some found inconclusive findings about whether learner briefs varied by L2
proficiency or were simply related to individual differences in instructional settings.
Although some researchers have attempted to find the relationships between learner
beliefs and L2 achievement, most of them employed correlation, t-test, or ANOVA in
order to assess the strength of the associations. A correlation analysis does not provide
information about the causality among factors of interest, thereby failing to identify direct
and indirect paths that lead to learners’ L2 achievement. Accordingly, it is still open to
question which learner belief factor has the predictive power in accounting for variances
associated with L2 achievement. Therefore, it is necessary to make a systematic
investigation using an instrument embedded in a Korean EFL learning context with a more
rigorous statistical analysis. Through the SEM analysis of the relationship between learner
beliefs and L2 achievement, the findings of the present study might suggest how L2
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 177
classroom instructors and curriculum developers could most profitably direct their efforts
to promote successful L2 learning.
3. The Relationship between Beliefs and Gender
Although researchers have long been interested in the relationship of gender to behavior
and cognition, and have found significant gender-related differences, there is a paucity of
systematic and empirical research on how gender impacts learner beliefs. Furthermore,
only recently have gender differences been investigated with respect to L2 learner beliefs.
Bacon and Finnemann (1992) in their study with Spanish learners found that female
subjects than males were more motivated and had a more positive attitude and belief
toward L2 speakers, which is in line with several previous studies, suggesting that the
general female superiority on L2 learning (Boyle, 1987; Nyikos, 1990). However, Siebert
(2003) added interesting details to gender differences in L2 learner beliefs. Findings
revealed that male students were more likely than female students to rate their abilities
highly. Males also were much more optimistic, indicating that male and female students
differ in their assessments of beliefs related to ability. Siebert also reported that 23% of
females, as opposed to 47% of males either strongly agreed or agreed that the most
important part of learning a foreign language is learning grammar. Furthermore, Bernat
and Lloyd (2007) found that females enjoyed talking to natives less than males did.
Meanwhile, Tercanlioglu (2005) found no statistically significant gender differences in L2
learner belief factors. The role of gender might be context specific (Nyikos, 1990) and the
findings of the previous studies yielded such inconsistent results, and thus the effect of
gender is worth examining in the Korean EFL context.
With respect to the research studies in which Korean students have been targeted, only a
few BALLI based studies have appeared in relation to the use of learning strategies (Kim,
2001; Park, 1995) and learners’ anxiety (Truitt, 1995). More recently, Kim (2003) and Kim
(2006) identified and compared L2 learning beliefs between students and their English
teachers. Thus, there has been a lack of empirical research on Korean students’ beliefs
about L2 learning. Besides, little effort has been made to empirically test the issue that
there is an association between certain belief factors and L2 achievement. Therefore, the
present study aims to bridge these gaps in the literature and examine the causal
relationship between learner beliefs and L2 achievement in order to promote the
theoretical underpinning of the foundations of L2 beliefs. The present study focused on the
following research questions:
1. What underlying constructs are present in Korean learners’ beliefs about English
learning?
178 Kyung Ja Kim
2. What is the structural relationship between learner beliefs and L2 achievement?
3. Does the structural model differ according to students’ gender?
III. RESEARCH METHOD
1. Participants
A total of 447 students from two public high schools in Gwangju Metropolitan City
took part in the present study. In one school, there are 253 boys from eight intact classes,
while there are 194 girls from six intact classes in the other school. The students were all
Korean natives and 11th-graders. They all have previously studied English as a
compulsory school subject for at least 8 years from their grade 3 in elementary school. A
small number of the participants (n = 76, 17%) have traveled abroad, and about half of the
students (n = 219, 49%) enrolled in at least one English class in a private institute. When
asked to rate themselves on their self-perceived English proficiency 40.5% (n = 181) of the
students rated themselves as either “very poor” (n = 68, 15.2%) or “not good” (n = 113,
25.3%), and 25.5% (n = 114) rated themselves “good” (n = 76, 17%) or “excellent” (n =
38, 8.5%). One hundred fifty-two (34%) students rated their level as “medium” compared
to other students in their class.
2. Instruments
1) Beliefs about English Learning
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: a Likert scale response section and a
background information section. In order to assess students’ beliefs about English learning,
the present study initially adapted 9 items from Horwitz’s (1987, 1988) studies. Additional
items were included to explore Korean EFL high school students’ culture- and context-
specific beliefs. These new items were constructed based on discussion with Korean high
school English teachers and learners and the review of previous studies (Amuzie & Winke,
2009; Cotterall, 1999; Kim, 2003; Loewen et al., 2009; Polat, 2009; Sakui & Gaies, 1999).
The new items were intended to reflect the Korean EFL learning context such as role of
teacher feedback, and importance of grammar learning and school classes with regard to
L2 success. In order to complete the items in participants’ native language, the items
without established Korean counterparts were translated into Korean and slightly modified
to provide a better suited measure to the Korean EFL context. The items included in the
questionnaire were confirmed through an iterative item analysis procedure. If an item
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 179
showed a low or negative item value, the item was deleted. The final set of questionnaire
contained 26 items. All the items were based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) for the students to self-report the extent to which
the statements applied to themselves. Demographic information such as gender, self-
assessed English proficiency, and travel experience to English-speaking countries was also
collected.
2) English Achievement
For the English achievement measure, the present study employed the raw score of the
final exam. The exam included vocabulary, grammar, and reading sections with a mainly
multiple-choice format and few short-answers. The researcher acquired students’ test
results from their English instructors based on individual participants’ agreement to
disclosure of their scores. Three hundred eighty-three English achievement data out of 447
participants were collected for the analysis.
3. Procedures
Data collection was made on a regular class session by classroom English teachers.
Thus, relatively high response rates were achieved approaching 97% for boys and 99% for
girls. Each participant was asked to complete an informed consent by providing his or her
name and identification number. The entire data collection process took approximately 15
minutes.
4. Data Analyses
Initially, in order to identify the underlying factors of learner beliefs, an exploratory
factor analysis was conducted. A Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation method was
chosen because there is theoretical and empirical basis for assuming psychological
constructs to be correlated to one another. Accordingly, this may yield a more accurate and
realistic representation than Principal components analysis (Costello & Osborne, 2005;
Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). The extracted factors then served as
the subscales (e.g., latent variables) throughout the rest of the analyses. Cronbach’s alphas
were calculated to estimate the reliability coefficient for each subscale of L2 beliefs.
Next, the SEM analysis was conducted among factors affecting English achievement
using Amos 18 via maximum likelihood estimation procedure (Byrne, 2001). More
specifically, a baseline measurement model representing the relationship between latent
variables and L2 achievement was proposed and specified based on the previous literature.
180 Kyung Ja Kim
This proposed SEM model was tested in order to identify a structural model that best fits
the sample covariance matrix observed in the present study. After identifying the structural
model, the effects of gender on the targeted causal model was further examined.
IV. RESULTS
1. Learner Beliefs about English Learning
The Cronbach alpha for the questionnaire was .78, which indicated sufficient reliability
coefficient for conducting a factor analysis. Four items were excluded from all further
analyses for some reasons. Items 16 (English learning success depends on what I do
outside the classroom) and 20 (English education at school is enough to speak English
well) were deleted because their item-total correlation coefficients were below .30. Items
17 (I can improve my English by taking English lessons at school) and 21 (English success
depends on what the teacher does in the classroom) loaded on multiple factors
simultaneously at the loading of less than .40, which is often regarded as a critical value in
the factor analysis, and consequently these two items were excluded.
The results of the factor analysis produced five factors based on eigenvalues greater
than 1, inspection of the scree plot, and interpretability, accounting for 63.2% of the
variance. Table 1 presents the factor loading, mean, and standard deviation for each item
of the five extracted factors. Factor 1, labeled self-efficacy of English learning, contained
items that concern students’ beliefs and confidence in their ability to succeed in English
learning. Some items (e.g., Items 3 & 13) assessing this factor have parallels in Horwitz’s
(1987, 1988) construct, L2 aptitude. Factor 2 containing three items demonstrated the
importance of grammar learning. Items in this factor addressed the value of grammar
learning and grammatical knowledge and the benefit of a focus on grammar in English
learning. Factor 3 was labeled a role of teacher feedback because the items in this factor
related to the role and effectiveness of teacher intervention. Factor 4 contained five items,
which were labeled importance of accuracy because the items reflected a necessity of error
correction and emphasis on error-free production. Factor 5 was labeled nature of English
learning because involving items reflected characteristics of L2 learning. Although the
label of this factor is identical to one from the BALLI studies (Horwitz, 1987, 1988;
Hyeon-Okh Kim, 2003), items contained under the same labeling are different from one
another.
Among the mean scores in Table 1, a few are worth pointing out. Firstly, the mean
scores of each item representing the role of teacher feedback and importance of accuracy
were higher than those of the other three factors. This indicates that student level of beliefs
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 181
in these two factors compared to those in the three was stronger. In contrast, the mean
score of each item representing importance of grammar learning appeared lowest, which
suggests that students were least likely to be favorable toward a focus on grammar in L2
learning.
TABLE 1
Five-Factor Solution in Learner Beliefs about English Learning
Item Loading M SD
Factor 1: Self-efficacy of English learning
3. I will ultimately learn to speak English very well. .772 3.10 .89
2. I have the ability to learn English successfully. .635 2.38 .78
12. I know my strengths and weaknesses in English learning. .619 3.19 1.03
6. I know how to study English. .547 2.16 .77
13. Everyone can learn to speak English. .490 3.73 .90
23. I set my goals for learning English. .467 3.07 1.17
Factor 2: Importance of grammar learning
25. The most important part of learning English is learning grammar. .930 2.34 1.06
24. Grammar learning is equal to English learning. .890 2.34 1.08
26. Knowing grammar rule helps communication in English. .860 2.52 1.07
Factor 3: Role of teacher feedback
19. Teachers know best how well I am learning. .809 3.43 .88
18. Feedback from the teacher makes me study English. .698 3.35 .98
22. Teacher feedback helps me learn English effectively. .645 3.99 .84
15. Teacher comments on my learning encourage confidence. .525 3.43 .89
Factor 4: Importance of accuracy
9. If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning, it will be
difficult to get rid of them later on. .710 3.63 1.06
4. It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation. .634 3.81 .90
14. All student errors should be corrected. .621 3.47 .93
11. English speaking is not good if it has a lot of grammar errors. .544 2.71 .92
5. It is necessary to know the English culture in order to speak
English. .492 3.55 .96
Factor 5: Nature of English learning
8. Girls are better than boys at learning English. .708 2.58 1.06
182 Kyung Ja Kim
10. Those who love to talk will learn English better. .578 3.34 1.09
1. It is easier for young students than adults to learn English. .551 3.86 .93
7. The most important part of learning English is learning new
vocabulary. .479 3.69 .89
After the factor analysis identified the five factors, Cronbach alphas, mean and standard
deviation scores were calculated for each of the scales. Table 2 shows the reliability
coefficients and descriptive statistics. Each subscale indicated reasonably good internal
consistency having a value greater than .70 except for importance of accuracy. The mean
scores of three subscales above the median score of 3.0, meaning that the participants
characterized themselves as believed in with respect to the role of teacher feedback (M =
3.57), importance of accuracy (M = 3.44), and nature of English learning (M = 3.37).
Among the five factors, students showed the strongest endorsement of the role of teacher
feedback. However, mean scores of self-efficacy of English learning (M = 2.93) and
importance of grammar learning (M = 2.40) had the below the median, indicating that the
students did not endorse their competence to learn English successfully or the benefits of
grammatical knowledge and focusing on grammar learning in the L2 class. Although the
mean score of the importance of grammar learning factor was showed the lowest among
the five, it had the highest value for Cronbach’s alpha, indicating good internal consistency
of the item in the scale.
TABLE 2
Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Summary for Learner Belief Scales
Subscale Number of items Alpha M SD
F1: Self-efficacy of English learning 6 .78 2.93 .59
F2: Importance of grammar learning 3 .90 2.40 .97
F3: Role of teacher feedback 4 .72 3.57 .61
F4: Importance of accuracy 5 .69 3.44 .56
F5: Nature of English learning 4 .71 3.37 .65
2. The Structural Relationship between Beliefs and L2 Achievement
Prior to examining the structural relationship between learner beliefs and L2
achievement, 64 students’ data, who did not sign the informed consent about the disclosure
of their test scores, were excluded from the further analysis. Although some of the five
factors had more than three items that loaded strongly (e.g., self-efficacy of English
learning and importance of accuracy), the researcher retained only three items for each
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 183
factor for the subsequent SEM analysis. The reason for the limitation of the number of
indicator variables per factor to three was to have a baseline model that would be less
complex (Kouritzin et al., 2009) and that, therefore, would be easily replicable across both
gender groups. A total of 15 items were thus used as observed variables for the five latent
variables. The mean and standard deviation for each indicator appear in Table 1. The
baseline measurement model representing the relationship between five belief factors and
English achievement was analyzed using the SEM methodology. Figure 1 displays a visual
representation of the initial relations among five latent variables affecting L2 achievement,
which shows the five latent variables (ovals) and their representative indicator variables
(e.g., questionnaire items shown in rectangles).
In order to test the quality of the model’s fit, the chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used.
Since chi-square statistic tends to be inflated in a larger sample size, other fit indices were
also reported. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI: Bentler, 1990), which compares the
improved fit of the hypothesized model with a null model, was checked. CFI with values
that approximate or exceed .95 represents a well-fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, Browne & Cudeck, 1993), which
shows the fit between the implied and the population covariance matrix, is a parsimony-
adjusted index. A RMSEA less than .05 indicates a good fit, with lower values (i.e., closer
to 0) being more desirable.
Table 3 presents model-data fit statistics of each model tested. Model 1, which
examined the causal relationships of the baseline measurement model as in Figure 1,
resulted in unsatisfactory fit indices (X2 = 349.20, X2/df = 4.16, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .084).
In Model 2, the structural relationships among latent variables retained the same with those
in Model 1, but the direct path between role of teacher feedback and L2 achievement was
deleted. The results of Model 2 showed a chi-square of 186.68 with 89 degrees of freedom.
The ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom (X2/df = 2.10) was slightly more than the
recommended cutoff value of 2.0 for concluding a satisfactory model-data fit. Other fit
statistics (CFI = .91, RMSEA = .069) also demonstrated unacceptable fit of the model.
Model 3 tested the structural relationships without the importance of accuracy variable in
addition to Model 2, which was without the direct path between role of teacher feedback
and L2 achievement. The results of Model 3 produced the best fit to the data (X2 = 103.64,
X2/df = 1.96, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .056) out of the three tested models. This demonstrates
that learner beliefs in the role of teacher feedback and importance of accuracy were not
significant predictors of their English achievement; instead, these two latent variables
played a minimal role in the EFL classroom and thus removed from the model. This final
model was used for the subsequent analysis of gender differences.
184
Measu
Note. SE: Se
grammar lea
M
Model
1
2
3
Note. SE: Se
grammar lea
Model 3
diagram in
investigatio
Students’ b
their Engli
beliefs in th
of English
measured
rement Model
elf-efficacy of E
arning; AC: Imp
Model-fit Indice
Latent variables
SE, TF, GR, AC
SE, TF, GR, AC
SE, TF, GR, NA
elf-efficacy of E
arning; AC: Imp
3 proved to b
ncluding path
on. All the pa
belief in self-e
ish achieveme
he role of teac
learning, wh
by final exam
of the Relation
English learning
portance of accu
es for the Relat
s X
C, NA 349
C, NA 186
A 103
English learning
portance of accu
be the only m
h coefficients
ath coefficient
efficacy of Eng
ent in the Ko
cher feedback
hich in turn s
m scores. This
Kyung Ja Kim
FIGURE 1
nship Between
g; TF: Role of te
uracy; and NA:
TABLE 3
tionship Betwe
X2 df
9.20 84
6.68 89
3.64 53
g; TF: Role of te
uracy; and NA:
model that ade
of Model 3
ts were signifi
glish learning
orean EFL co
showed a pos
ignificantly pr
s means that
Learner Belief
eacher feedback
Nature of Engli
een Beliefs and
p-value X2
.001 4.1
.001 2.1
.001 1.9
eacher feedback
Nature of Engli
equately repre
is presented
ficant at the al
g was the mos
ontext. Further
itive direct rel
redicted their
EFL students
fs and L2 Achie
k; GR: Importan
ish learning
L2 Achieveme
2/df CFI
16 .87
10 .91
96 .95
k; GR: Importan
ish learning
esents the data
d in Figure 2
lpha level of .
st significant p
rmore, studen
lation to their s
English achi
s who tend to
evement
nce of
ent
RMSEA
.084
.069
.056
nce of
a. The path
2 for close
.05 or .001.
predictor of
nts’ level of
self efficacy
evement as
o appreciate
teacher fee
heightenin
which in tu
nature of E
English lea
means that
believe the
was also d
mediating
English lea
EFL stude
learning p
feedback a
their direct
Note. *mean
3. Gende
As show
English sc
Languag
edback are like
g self-efficacy
urn make a si
English learn
arning, as dem
t students who
eir own comp
directly influen
role in the rel
arning. Overa
ent beliefs in
predicted sign
and nature of E
t causal influen
The Final
ns significant pa
er Difference
wn in Table 4,
ores, t-tests pr
ge Learning Belie
ely to believe
y, and these s
gnificant cont
ning was a sig
monstrated by t
o tend to perc
etence to lear
nced by impor
lationship betw
all, the results
self efficacy
nificantly dire
English learnin
nces on self eff
l SEM Model f
ath loading at p
es in the Str
although girls
roduced statis
ef Factors Affect
they are capab
students tend
tribution to the
gnificant pred
the significant
ceive the char
rn L2 successf
rtance of gram
ween nature o
of the curren
of English l
ectly their L2
ng were indire
fficacy of Engl
FIGURE 2
for Learner Bel
< .05 and ** at
ructural Rel
showed a rela
tically insigni
ting English Ach
ble of perform
to have willi
eir L2 exam s
dictor of their
t path coefficie
racteristics of
fully and reac
mmar learning
of English lear
nt SEM analy
learning and
2 achievement
ectly related to
lish learning.
liefs and L2 Ac
p < .001.
ationship
atively higher
ificant differen
hievement
ming L2 learni
ingness to stu
scores. Studen
level of self
ent between th
L2 learning a
ch goals. L2 a
g, which also
rning and self
ses revealed t
importance of
t, while role
o L2 achievem
chievement
mean scores t
nces (t = -.965
185
ing tasks by
udy the L2,
nts’ belief in
f efficacy of
he two. This
are likely to
achievement
played as a
f efficacy of
that Korean
of grammar
of teacher
ment through
than boys in
5, p = .335)
186
between th
the data tha
Boys (n = 2
Girls (n = 16
Figure 3
achieveme
the most p
between se
role of tea
to the stude
Note. *mean
The stru
L2 achieve
English lea
estimate fo
revealed n
he two gender
an girls, as eva
Model Fit
Mea
19) 53.0
64) 55.0
3 presents th
ent for boys. T
powerful varia
elf-efficacy of E
cher feedback
ents’ exam sco
ns significant pa
uctural relation
ement showed
arning. Howe
or the direct pa
non-significant
groups. How
aluated by sev
t Statistics for B
an SD
03 19.62
02 20.30
he path diagra
The students’ b
able in predic
English learni
k and nature of
ores through th
The SEM M
ath loading at p
nships for girl
d a significant,
ever, unlike th
ath between im
t. The parame
Kyung Ja Kim
ever, the mod
veral fit statisti
TABLE 4
Beliefs and L2
X2 p
110.14
133.16
am of the SE
belief level of
cting their L2
ing and L2 ach
of English lear
he mediating r
FIGURE 3
Model for the B
< .05 and ** at
s, as shown in
positive, dire
he SEM mode
mportance of g
eter estimates
del for boys de
ics.
Achievement b
p-value X2
.001 2.0
.001 2.5
EM model of
f importance o
2 achievement
hievement was
rning were po
role of self-effi
Boys Group
p < .001.
n Figure 4, de
ct association
l for boys, the
grammar learn
for the paths
emonstrated a
by Gender
2/df CFI
08 .94
51 .91
f learner belie
of grammar le
t. The direct r
s also observe
ositively indire
ficacy of Englis
emonstrated th
with their self
e standardized
ning and L2 a
between role
better fit to
RMSEA
.068
.071
efs and L2
earning was
relationship
ed. However,
ectly related
sh learning.
hat students’
f-efficacy of
d parameter
achievement
e of teacher
feedback a
learning an
nature of E
the mediat
path coeffi
Note. *mean
V. DISC
This stu
English lea
has further
affecting L
constructs,
efficacy of
importance
the multidi
However,
importance
beliefs abo
The stud
Languag
and self-effica
nd nature of E
English learni
ting role of se
icient between
ns significant pa
USSION A
udy has sough
arning and to
rmore explore
L2 achieveme
, which were p
f English learn
e of accuracy,
imensional ch
certain belief
e of grammar
out how to lear
dy also found t
ge Learning Belie
acy of Englis
English learn
ing was positi
lf-efficacy of E
n nature of Eng
The SEM M
ath loading at p
AND CONC
ht to identify
examine the c
ed the effects
ent. The resul
present in Kor
ning, importan
, and nature of
haracteristics o
constructs of
r learning) we
rn the L2 in th
that the mean
ef Factors Affect
sh learning a
ning yielded in
ively indirectly
English learni
glish learning
FIGURE 4
Model for the G
< .05 and ** at
CLUSIONS
y Korean EFL
causal links b
of gender on
lts of the fact
rean EFL learn
nce of gramm
of English lear
of L2 belief v
the present stu
ere socially co
e Korean EFL
score of role o
ting English Ach
and between
nsignificant re
y related to th
ing, as demon
and self-effica
Girls Group
p < .001.
S
L high schoo
between belief
n the structura
tor analysis p
ner beliefs abo
mar learning, r
rning. This fin
variables (Hor
udy (e.g., role
onditioned and
L high school c
of teacher feed
hievement
importance of
esults. Student
heir exam sco
nstrated by the
acy of English
l students’ be
fs and L2 achi
al model of be
produced five
out English lea
role of teache
nding provided
rwitz, 1985, 1
e of teacher fe
d contextually
context.
dback (M = 3.
187
of grammar
ts’ belief in
ores through
e significant
learning.
eliefs about
ievement. It
elief factors
underlying
arning: self-
er feedback,
d support to
987, 1988).
eedback and
y dependent
57) was the
188 Kyung Ja Kim
highest, whereas that of importance of grammar learning (M = 2.40) was the lowest. This
means that the students were the most positive about their teacher intervention, while they
were least positive toward the role of grammar in L2 learning. The students’ lowest
endorsement of importance of grammar learning is in line with several previous studies
(Kern, 1995; Kim, 2003; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Park, 1995), but in contrast with others
(Polat, 2009; Yang, 1999). Although the students did not endorse importance of grammar
learning, they showed a strong belief in the importance of accuracy (M = 3.44). These two
findings appear to contradict each other because the role of grammar instruction in L2
acquisition theory can be framed in relation to an accuracy issue (Ellis, 2006; Long, 1991).
However, such findings can be clarified by the following explanations: 1) students’ lack of
perceptions about the relationship between accuracy and grammar learning; and 2) their
dissatisfaction with the grammar instruction they have received. Students might think that
the grammatical accuracy of English production is essential, but the participants who are
all high school students could not be convinced that one of the important benefits of
grammar instruction is to reduce errors and achieve accuracy by drawing their attention to
linguistic elements (Long, 1991). Furthermore, the students might have negative attitudes
toward grammar-based teaching in which lots of drills and memorization of arbitrary
linguistic rules and an application of those rules in disconnected sentences and exercises
have been emphasized. Thus, although students may believe that accuracy while learning
L2 is important, they do not know how this accuracy might be achieved.
With regard to the SEM model of the relationship among learner beliefs affecting L2
achievement, the present study produced several important findings. The latent variable
importance of accuracy did not fit the structural model of L2 achievement as specified in
the present SEM analysis. Importance of accuracy was neither significantly correlated
with importance of grammar learning nor directly related with nature of English learning,
and thus it was deleted in the further SEM analyses. This nonsignificant role in L2
achievement is in line with the previous one (Kim, 2003), which reported that the degree
of beliefs in error tolerance did not associate with L2 proficiency.
Both self-efficacy of English learning and importance of grammar learning were direct,
significant predictors of L2 achievement. These findings concerning the importance of
self-efficacy in L2 learning provided empirical evidence, which are consistent with the
previous findings (Cotterall, 1999; Wenden, 1999). Although the mean score of self-
efficacy of English learning (M = 2.93) was below the median score, indicating that the
students did not believe in their competence of learning L2 successfully, this factor was the
most significant predictor of L2 achievement. Bandura (1984) claimed that self-efficacy is
concerned with persons’ beliefs in their ability and the beliefs in personal efficacy affect
task choices, levels of motivation and effort, persistence, and quality of functioning. In
other words, students’ perception of self-efficacy such as greater degree of beliefs in their
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 189
ability in the L2, about the use of appropriate strategies, and about learning motivation,
may lead to L2 achievement (Bandura, 1984; Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Therefore, the
present study proved that learners’ self-efficacy of their L2 learning was the most
influential factor in L2 attainment.
Although students, as stated earlier, had the least positive beliefs about the importance
of grammar learning, the degree of belief about the role of grammar was a significant
predictor of their L2 achievement. This is consistent with the previous findings about the
benefits of grammar instruction to L2 attainment (Horwitz, 1988; Kim, 2006; Polat, 2009).
Furthermore, it is provable that such a positive, direct, statistically significant causal path
between importance of grammar learning and L2 achievement may have been attributed
to the characteristics of test items of the final exam, which was used for the L2
achievement measure. The final exam consisted of vocabulary, grammar, and reading
comprehension items. Horwitz (1988) and Peacock (1999) stated that students with highly
positive beliefs about the role of grammar instruction in L2 proficiency may focus on
grammar rules while preparing the L2 exam. The students in the present study who
deemed the role of grammar important seemed to like grammar learning and as a result
study grammar more as opposed to other language skills such as speaking and writing.
According to the final path diagram, role of teacher feedback and nature of English
learning were positively, indirectly related to the L2 achievement through the mediating
role of self-efficacy of English learning. These results imply that role of teacher feedback
or nature of English learning alone are not sufficient to bring out students’ enhanced L2
achievement, although the students strongly endorsed the beliefs about the role of teacher
feedback (M = 3.57) and nature of English learning (M = 3.37). Only when the teacher
feedback is connected with a higher level of the students’ self-efficacy in L2 learning does
the students’ beliefs about the benefits of teacher intervention lead to better L2 exam score.
The same pattern was discovered for nature of English learning, meaning that the students
with a higher level of perception about the characteristics of L2 learning tend to show a
higher degree of beliefs in their ability to succeed in L2 learning, which in turn make an
important contribution to their L2 achievement.
The present study found that girls had higher average ability than boys in L2 learning,
which is consistent with previous L2 literature concerning females’ superiority (Bacon &
Finnemann, 1992; Payne & Lynn, 2011). It also reported that there were gender effects on
the causal relationship among belief factors affecting L2 achievement. In other words,
student gender operated as a moderator variable, with each path diagram of both gender
groups and the magnitude of the path coefficients demonstrating fairly different. The
greatest difference showed the boys presenting importance of grammar learning as the
most significant predictor of their L2 achievement, while the girls presenting self-efficacy
of English learning as the only causal factor in their L2 attainment. Another notable
190 Kyung Ja Kim
difference was that the relationship among latent variables for girls nature of English
learning alone was directly related to self-efficacy of English learning, while for boys
more complex causal relationships were observed. This may suggest that the main reason
behind the differences in causal factors influencing L2 achievement between boys and
girls relates to contextual effects. Why belief factors affecting L2 achievement differed by
student gender is a question in need of further investigation.
In sum, Korean EFL students had a unique set of beliefs about L2 learning, and some of
them act as facilitating forces in their L2 achievement, while others played a minimal role
in the classroom such as frustration, lack of motivation, and slow progress with L2
learning. The findings of the present study, therefore, may lead to a number of pedagogical
implications for L2 teachers. Students’ self-efficacy beliefs should be promoted in a way
where the students feel confident about what they can achieve and are highly resilient in
relation to failure; and the use of inductive, task-based, communicative, and the
contemporary grammar teaching techniques in addition to the traditional ways of teaching
and learning grammar should be included in L2 classes (Pae, 2008; Polat, 2009). By
identifying student beliefs about L2 learning, classroom instructors can design effective
instructional planning and carry out productive lessons; simultaneously, L2 learners can
gain self-efficacy of L2 learning and autonomy that lead them to more effective in- and
out-of-classroom learning behaviors and positive attitudes toward L2 learning (Cotterall,
1999; Horwitz, 1988; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Rifkin, 2000; Sakui & Gaies, 1999). In
addition, teachers should be prepared to intervene in students to help them develop
realistic beliefs in order to promote their L2 learning (Kern, 1995; Peacock, 1999).
As much as the present study has certain limitations, it also provides the potential to
offer future directions for further studies. The findings of the study can only be generalized
to students at high schools in a region of Korea since implementing a research design and
using a research instrument developed for a specific research site in another setting can
lead to doubtful analyses and results. Had the self-reported data triangulated with
secondary sources, for example, interviews, classroom observations, and documents been
collected, more in-depth analyses regarding the reasons behind the construction of beliefs,
particularly with gender differences in the structural model would have been possible. A
combined research design of quantitative and qualitative methodologies for further
research, as suggested by Kern (1995), will not only allow opportunities to cross-validate
instruments but also assist the identification and interpretation of more reliable learner
belief factors. Finally, the responses of the participants in both genders might have within-
group variance due to the individual differences. These individual differences might distort
the students’ perceptions about the survey items and consequently could produce
discrepancies in results. Future research can investigate the nature of possible individual
difference-related reasons behind the discrepancy.
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 191
REFERENCES
Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study.
In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp.
85-102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Change in language learning beliefs as a result of
study abroad. System, 37, 366-379.
Bacon, S. M. C., & Finnemann, M. D. (1992). Sex differences in self-reported beliefs
about foreign language learning and authentic oral and written input. Language
Learning, 42, 471-495.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 8, 231-255.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. The Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja &
A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7-33).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bernat, E., & Lloyd, M. (2007). Exploring the gender effect on EFL learners’ beliefs about
language learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental
Psychology, 7, 79-91.
Boyle, J. P. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, 273-
284.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:
Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved September 14, 2011, from
the World Wide Wed: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf.
Cotterall, S. M. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe
about them? System, 27, 493-513.
Diab, R. L. (2006). University students’ beliefs about learning English and French in
Lebanon. System, 34, 80-96.
192 Kyung Ja Kim
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning
success. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4, 272–299.
Hinenoya, K., & Gatbonton, E. (2000). Ethnocentrism, cultural traits, beliefs, and English
proficiency: A Japanese sample. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 225-240.
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the
foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 333-340.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. L. Wenden
& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’
beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557-576.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Huang, S. C., & Tsai, R. R. (2003). A comparison between high and low English
proficiency learners’ beliefs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 482
579)
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28, 71-92.
Kim, Hyeon-Okh. (2003). Mismatches between students’ and teachers’ beliefs and their
relation to proficiency. Foreign Languages Education, 10(4), 163-190.
Kim, Hyun Jin. (2001). Language learning strategies, learning styles, and beliefs about
language learning of Korean university students. Journal of Pan-Pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31-46.
Kim, Kyung Ja. (2006). Language learning beliefs in relation to English proficiency: A
Korean sample. English Teaching, 61(4), 27-49.
Kouritzin, S. G., Piquemal, N. A., & Renaud, R. D. (2009). An international comparison of
socially constructed language learning motivation and beliefs. Foreign Language
Annals, 42, 287-317.
Kuntz, P. S. (1996). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz model. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 649)
Language Learning Belief Factors Affecting English Achievement 193
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009).
Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction.
The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91-104.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.
de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-
cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency.
The Modern Language Journal, 79, 372-386.
Mori, Y. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to the ability to
integrate information from word parts and context in interpreting novel Kanji
words. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 534-547.
Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and
memory factors. The Modern Language Journal, 3, 273-287.
Pae, Tae-Il. (2008). Second language orientation and self-determination theory: A
structural analysis of the factors affecting second language achievement. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 27, 5-27.
Park, Gi-Pyo. (1995). Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning of
university students learning English in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Payne, T. W., & Lynn, R. (2011). Sex differences in second language comprehension.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 434-436.
Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to proficiency.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 247-265.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A
longitudinal study. System, 29, 177-195.
Polat, N. (2009). Matches in beliefs between teachers and students, and success in L2
attainment: The Georgian example. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 229-249.
Rieger, B. (2009). Hungarian university students’ beliefs about language learning: A
questionnaire study. WoPaLP, 3. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from the World Wide
Web: http://langped. elte.hu/WoPaLParticles/W3Rieger.pdf.
Rifkin, B. (2000). Revising beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 33, 394-420.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language
learning. System, 27, 473-492.
Siebert, L. L. (2003). Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language learning.
The ORTESOL Journal, 21, 7-39.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2005). Pre-service EFL teachers’ beliefs about foreign language learning
and how they relate to gender. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
194 Kyung Ja Kim
Psychology, 53(1), 145-162. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/5/english/Art_5_58.pdf.
Truitt, S. N. (1995). Beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean university students
learning English. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2(1). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 703)
Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in
language learning beyond the basics. System, 27, 435-441.
Yang, N. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use.
System, 27, 515-535.
Applicable levels: secondary education
Key words: learner beliefs, L2 achievement, structural equation modeling, gender difference
Kyung Ja Kim
Dept. of English education
Chosun University
309 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu
Gwangju 501-759, Korea
Tel: (062) 230-6994
Email: kyung9@chosun.ac.kr
Received in September, 2012
Reviewed in October, 2012
Revised version received in November, 2012
top related