language learning belief factors affecting english...

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


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


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


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


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


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.


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)


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: [email protected]

Received in September, 2012

Reviewed in October, 2012

Revised version received in November, 2012

language learning belief factors affecting english...

Documents