Novitas-ROYAL,
2007, Vol.: 1 (2), 112-136.[i]
BELIEFS AND AUTONOMY:
ENCOURAGING MORE RESPONSIBLE LEARNING
Abstract: This study examines the effects of integrating a structured and
explicit focus on goal setting and active learning into an English language and
study skills university preparation program. It discusses the findings from an
investigation conducted by the researcher at the National Centre for English
Teaching and Research (NCELTR) at
Keywords: beliefs, autonomy, anxiety, learning.
Özet: Bu çalışmanın amacı, etkin İngilizce öğrenimi ve çalışma becerileri alanlarında, hedef belirleme ve aktif öğrenmenin amaçlandığı bir kısmın üniversiteye hazırlık programına eklenmesinin etkilerini belirlemektir. Bu çalışma ile Avusturalya’da Macquire Üniversitesi, Ulusal İngilizce Öğretimi ve Araştırma Merkezinde (NCELTR) yapılan bir araştırmanın sonuçlarını tartışmak amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma katılımcıları Avusturalya’da yüksek öğretime başlamadan önce ikinci dil olarak İngilizce eğitimi alan 84 öğrencidir. Sonuçlar göstermektedir ki, uygulanan iyileştirme programı öğrencilerin inançları üzerinde, daha etkin öğrenme uygulamalarının artması ile açığa çıkan ve ölçümlenebilen olumlu bir etkiye sahip olmuştur.
Anahtar Sözcükler: inançlar, özerklik, endişe, öğrenme
1. INTRODUCTION
“It’s
a long step from saying to doing.”
Miguel de Cervantes
The challenges facing ESL students furthering their
studies in foreign countries are considerable, and have been well documented
(Acton, 2003; Nixon, 1996; Lucantonio, 1992; Ferris & Tagg, 1996; Walmsley,
1992). Generally, these students have limited time in which to adjust to their
new surroundings and for many it is their first time living away from their
home, family, and friends. New systems, social norms and confusing anomalies
surround them and all have to be processed and managed. In such a situation it
is very important to identify any specifically targeted strategies that may
assist these students and help them to cope. This is particularly important
when the belief systems and learning styles of the students in question are
considered.
In
Learner beliefs have long been a focus of attention by
many researchers (Benson & Lor, 1999; Peacock, 1999; Matsumoto, 1996;
Cotterall, 1995; Horwitz, 1988). This is partly because it is generally
accepted that the beliefs of a particular learner will affect how they learn
and as a result, how well they learn. If beliefs are identified that educators
feel inhibit successful learning then many would benefit from strategies
formulated to deal with and effectively manage them. Conversely, if positive
beliefs are identified and reinforced then learners may also benefit.
Information regarding student beliefs is therefore particularly valuable to all
educators, especially in the area of language education. The development (and
success) of programs of study better suited to particular groups of learners
could well depend upon this knowledge.
However, while it is agreed that beliefs
play a significant role in learner development, they do not always necessarily
translate into action or observable behaviour on the part of their holder. For
example, Sim (2004) found (through the use of a 75 item questionnaire) that
despite the fact that learners expressed views that showed support for the
making of mistakes in language learning, they also reported feelings that
suggested that their classroom behaviour was not in accordance with these
views. For example, the students’ original (stated) belief that it was
acceptable to make mistakes appeared to somewhat contradict the same learners’
report that they would start to panic when they had to speak without
preparation in their language classes. Despite their professed belief otherwise
they appeared to possess anxiety levels that were adversely affecting their
language learning performance and/or production. This further demonstrates the
value of using an array of related and varied items in assessments and measures
aimed at achieving a clearer picture of beliefs held by groups and
individuals.
This uncertainty about the role of student
beliefs does not leave English teachers in a very comfortable position and
perhaps they often become confused as to what is the best approach they should
take. However, there are definitely options available for the teacher prepared
(and able) to implement new methods. One potential strategy could involve the
teacher attempting to facilitate a reinforcement of positive student-held
beliefs and the learning of new ones (that would assist in their learning)
through the use of tasks aimed at their learning behaviour. Dörnyei (2005, p.
217) adds to this stating that “creating realistic learner beliefs is an
important motivational strategy”. However, how this is done is of critical
importance. A teacher, whilst meaning well, could potentially decrease
motivation and reinforce negative beliefs if inappropriate strategies are used.
However, there still remains the possibility that through the use of a direct
classroom intervention strategy that both learner beliefs and behaviour may be
positively affected (as Dörnyei, 2005 suggests), with more effective learning
practices and learning experiences the final result.
2. THE STUDY
This study set out to investigate the
integration of a structured and explicit focus on active learning and goal
setting into an English language and study skills university preparation
program at the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
(NCELTR) at
2.1. The SSEPP Course
SSEPP is one of the many courses offered at NCELTR
with a focus on preparing students for their future studies. Students enrolled
in the SSEPP classes are preparing to enter university in
This study attempted to address this perception
through the administration of an active learning component to selected SSEPP
classes. It compared three classes that followed the standard SSEPP with three
classes in which an additional explicit and structured focus on active learning
behaviours and goal-setting was integrated into the program.
2.2. Instruments
The integrated ‘active learning’ strand used in this
study was based on research completed by Doye (1997). All three treatment
classes made weekly use of three components (Appendix I), namely (1) Monday
English Report (MER), (2) Midweek Goal Focus (MGF), and (3) Active Learner
Chart (ALC).
2.2.1 Monday English Report (MER)
The MER was very similar to Doye’s (1997) English
Report (ER). The intention of the MER was to encourage students to analyse and
reflect upon their use of English outside of class time. If a student found
this report difficult to fill out (due to lack of English usage in the
identified areas) then perhaps they needed to work harder (on their English
effort) outside of class. Students wrote down examples of English use in the
areas of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Soon after teachers checked
each individual report and provided brief written feedback. This also provided
students with an extra channel of communication with the teacher whereby they
could share ideas or ask further questions. The activity was facilitated by the
fact that students were always encouraged by their teacher to make suggestions
and share any feelings they had about their language learning experience.
2.2.2 Midweek Goal Focus (MGF)
The MGF aimed to encourage students to practice
goal-setting for their language study. Each week students had to think of a
major English goal for themselves and then to outline how they would actually
achieve it. This activity included encouraging students to think about how
achievable their goal really was and to list any extra strategies they could
come up with to increase their goal’s achievability. It was felt that if
students could set reasonable goals and practice planning more effectively then
their learning would benefit.
2.2.3 Active Learner Chart (ALC)
The ALCs closely followed the concepts introduced by
Doye (1997). However, there were several differences. Firstly, unlike Doye’s
study where the ALCs were used everyday, the ALCs in this study were used once a
week and focused on the previous week’s behaviour. This was done not only due
to time constraints but also because of the results of earlier testing that
showed students became disenchanted with the task when it was completed daily.
Secondly, the response method used for the ALCs by Doye was by a simple
checklist (YES or NO) for each item. This was felt to be inadequate as students
could just tick everything and not really think about each of their answers.
Therefore a different method was employed in this study, which encouraged
students to think more about their responses and to provide a higher degree of
information. The resultant ALCs consisted of items for which the student would
indicate their level of achievement (from 1 = very low, to 4 = very high) for
the week. For example, the items ranged from the simple “I took everything I
needed to class” to the more difficult “I spoke only English in class” and
“When my friends talk to me in my native language I reply in English”. Like in
Doye’s study, the statements in the ALCs were changed over time to reflect
increasingly higher level skills and strategies expected of the learners. A
total of four different versions were used over the ten-week period. With each
successive version the number of items increased in number and simpler items
were systematically replaced with more challenging ones.
All three of the above active learning techniques
sought to make it very clear to each individual that their success in English
was their own responsibility. In other words their efforts, in class AND
outside of class, would be instrumental in determining their future success,
and one of the principal factors in success was their own level of commitment.
All students in the treatment classes were given folders in which they kept all
of their completed MERs, MGFs and ALCs. This meant that students were able to
check their progress over the ten weeks, with the aim that this would increase
the legitimacy and importance of the exercise in the eyes of each student. At
the end of the ten weeks the folders were collected from the treatment classes
for qualitative analysis.
2.2.4 Beliefs and Anxiety Measure (BAM)
The outcomes of the study were measured in a variety of ways. General observations by teachers and feedback from students proved to be quite useful in fine-tuning the application of the instruments. Outcomes were also greatly determined by the Beliefs and Anxiety Measure (BAM), a questionnaire which was completed twice by all ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups (at the beginning and end of the ten-week program). The BAM (see Appendix II) is based on selected items from the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) by Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope (1986), a Targeted Beliefs Set (TBS) used by Murphey (1996), and the brief Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) scale by Leary (1983). Several other questionnaire items were added that more explicitly matched the overall aims of the study resulting in a total of 40 items. Participants in the study were required to answer each item using a five-point Likert scale from ‘Strongly Agree’ (1) through to ‘Strongly Disagree’ (5). Before completing this questionnaire it was made expressly clear to all students that their responses should be honest and reflect how they truly felt about each item. The final BAM questionnaire (administered at the end of the course), whilst otherwise identical to the first, was supplemented by two extra questions (Appendix III). The aim of this was to obtain supplemental data in addition to that already contained in the students’ folders.
2.3. Participants
The investigation, conducted at the
National Centre for English Teaching and Research (NCELTR) at
Three of the six classes were ‘control’
groups who completed the standard SSEPP course. These control groups were also
given the opportunity to participate in follow-up classes which included the
goal-setting and active learning focuses at the completion of the initial
study. This was done in accordance with the strict ethical requirements for
research employed by the university.
2.4. Procedure
Students were recruited across the SSEPP
course following the ethical guidelines set down by the university. All
students participating in the research were given the opportunity to take part in a lottery for a shopping
voucher at a local shopping centre. As a result, all students agreed to take
part in the study and written permission was obtained from the treatment
classes as the study’s design made complete anonymity difficult to achieve.
After obtaining this permission, the BAM was given to all six classes (three
treatment and three control) at the beginning and end of the ten-week course.
This procedure followed that used by Murphey (1996) and sought to
highlight/explain any changes that occurred as a result of the active learning
program.
Each week students in the three ‘treatment’ groups
filled out one (a) Monday English Report (MER), (b) Midweek Goal Focus (MGF),
on Wednesday, and (c) Active Learner Chart (ALC), on Friday. As mentioned
earlier the active learner charts changed (i.e. increased in complexity) every
two weeks while both the MER and MGF remained unchanged. Usually the three
activities were completed in minimal time at the start of each class. The MER
and MGF both generally took about ten to fifteen minutes to complete and the
ALC about ten minutes. Over the course this added up to around 3% of available
class time and therefore did not unduly disadvantage the treatment classes by
using up excessive amounts of instruction time. Treatment classes received the
same SSEPP program offered to the control classes.
When the MER, MGF, and ALC were completed the teacher
would collect them and briefly go over them at the first opportunity (for eg.
while students completed another task, such as writing, during the class). These would be returned to the students by the end of
class, who would then place the checked activities into their personal folders.
Teachers of these treatment classes were all informed in a training session as
to how to deliver these active learning strategies in order for the whole
process to be as consistent as possible between classes.
It was hypothesised that the application of these
reports (MER & MGF) and the ALCs would produce an increase in the awareness
among learners of the expectations and responsibilities placed upon them in their
new environment. Through this process, it was anticipated that learners would
acquire improved self-confidence and more autonomous learning strategies and
behaviours, which in turn would empower them to assume greater levels of
responsibility for their individual progress in developing both their English
language and university study skills.
At the completion of the ten-week treatment period a
final administration of the BAM to all classes took place and this included the
two supplementary open-ended questions. The responses to this final
questionnaire were then compared to the initial questionnaire (administered in
the first week) using the SPSS statistical program. This was done in order to
see if there were any differences between the treatment and control classes. In
effect, if differences were discovered, they would provide possible evidence of
the effect of the additional treatment program on the treatment classes, versus
the control classes.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS
The results obtained from the analysis of the first
and second delivery of the BAM appeared to indicate that the treatment program
did indeed have an effect on the treatment classes. Out of the forty items
contained in the BAM, seven were of particular individual interest and they
displayed significant differences between the treatment and control classes.
Using SPSS a series of graphs were constructed displaying the response
variations from the first delivery of the BAM along with the second. These
graphs displayed a compressed version of the five possible responses to each
item on the BAM (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree).
This meant that the resultant graphs displayed the changes not in five
responses but three (Disagree, Neutral, Agree). This was done to better
highlight the changes and make the graphs more readable. The results for the selected seven items,
which compare the control group (on the left) with the treatment group (on the
right), are as follows:
This item displayed a big shift in agreement (from the
1st Delivery to the 2nd Delivery) for the treatment group
(T-group) at +29%, versus the control group (C-group) with only +9% in
comparison. Perhaps the T-group realised through their extended effort/attempts
that their grammar needed more work. However, this cannot be claimed with much
certainty because the p-value for this item was very high (.146). In statistics
the p-value is like a measurement of
chance and the higher the p-value the higher the results are due to chance,
and not due to the treatment. Only if
the p-value is small enough (usually less than .05) can the idea that the
difference could have happened by chance be rejected. In the case of the first
item above it can be seen that the p-value of .146 means that chance alone
would produce such a result 14.6 times in every 100 studies. Therefore, no
definitive conclusions can be drawn.
This item displayed a reduction in agreement by the
C-group (-3%) versus a rise in agreement by the T-group (22%). Perhaps the
treatment could have been responsible and the T-group realised the extra effort
needed to learn effectively. However, once again the p-value was very high at
.136 rendering this result as inconclusive.
The results for this item showed that the C-group remained largely unchanged while the T-group registered a large increase in agreement (+31%). The treatment may have been responsible for this but the p-value of .072 was still just outside the generally accepted minimum of .05.
This item was particularly interesting because both
the T-group and the C-group had nearly identical results for the first delivery
of the questionnaire, similar to Item 1. However, the second delivery displayed
a sharp rise in agreement for the T-group (+24%) and a smaller rise for the
C-group (+8%). Also the T-group completely lost their initial disagreement for
this item while the C-group maintained theirs. The p-value was quite high once
again, however, and this prevents any strong claim that the treatment was
responsible.
Despite vastly different responses in the first
delivery of the BAM, both the T-group and C-group displayed quite similar responses
for the second delivery. The T-group increased their agreement (+26%) and lost
a very large amount of disagreement. The C-group, however, lost agreement
(-14%) and even slightly increased their level of disagreement. This item
displayed a very low p-value of .002 which meant that it was now possible to
say that the treatment may have been
responsible for the observed changes in the T-group. In other words, chance
alone would produce such a result only twice in every thousand studies. This
result could have been due to the intensive and repetitive approach of the
treatment.
This item, with a relatively high statistically
significant p-value of .042, appeared to indicate the C-group moving away from
agreement (-12%) and towards disagreement (+9%). The T-group, however, moved
towards agreement (+9%) and away from disagreement (-14%). While both groups
maintained majority agreement, the observed changes were significant and it is
possible that the treatment was responsible for the changes in the T-group.
The final individual item displayed a very statistically significant p-value of .004, and appeared to show the C-group losing agreement (-9%) and gaining disagreement (+12%). The T-group once again reacted very differently losing all their disagreement (-9% → 0%) and increasing their agreement (+23%). The treatment may have been responsible for this result, increasing the T-group members’ realisation that they were responsible for their language learning. Despite these encouraging individual item results that appeared to indicate that the treatment had had at least some effect on the T-group when compared to the C-group, further analysis was needed.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR GROUPED ITEMS
The need for further analyses resulted in
the grouping of particular individual items contained in the BAM to form three
distinct sets: Anxiety (BAM Items 7, 9, 11, 13, 27), Confidence (BAM Items 7,
15, 17, 21, 39), and Autonomy (BAM Items 6, 12, 19, 21, 23, 37, 40).
Grouping the items not only had the advantage of allowing the
formation of the three distinct sets (seen above) but provided statistical
advantages as well. By adding items such as these together (or averaging them),
the random variation associated with and unique to each item, is averaged out.
As a result, the overall error is reduced and the resulting scale is much more
reliable than any single item (
The first grouping of ANXIETY (above) showed that
anxiety did not appear to be affected or influenced by the treatment. Even
though both groups decreased slightly in anxiety from the first delivery to the
second delivery of the BAM, the p-value of .711 was very high and rendered the
results inconclusive. Anxiety does not appear to have been directly affected,
positively or negatively, by the treatment and/or the measure (BAM) was not an
accurate measure for this grouping.
The second grouping of CONFIDENCE (above) showed that
confidence did appear to be affected in a positive manner by the treatment.
Despite the T-group beginning the treatment period (first delivery of the BAM)
with less confidence then the C-group, the T-group significantly increased
their level by the second delivery. This was in contrast to the C-group which
remained largely unchanged. The p-value for this grouping was also very low at
.023 and added statistical significance to the result. It appears that the
treatment may have increased the confidence of the T-group. This is interesting
as the previous grouping’s results for ANXIETY were inconclusive yet this
grouping appeared to show that CONFIDENCE had been positively affected. This
raises questions about the relationship between confidence and anxiety; and may
require further investigation.
The final grouping of AUTONOMY (above) appeared to indicate that autonomous beliefs (and possibly behaviour) were positively affected by the treatment. While the C-group showed a slight decrease the T-group displayed a significant increase. The low p-value of .002 further validated the possibility that the treatment may have been responsible for the observed changes in the responses from the T-group. This was a very encouraging result that appears to provide evidence of the overall effectiveness of the treatment employed throughout the study.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR QUALITATIVE ITEMS
As mentioned earlier the final BAM also
included the addition of two final questions (Appendix III). The responses to
these final two questions revealed some interesting results that appeared to
further complement the quantitative findings of the study.
Table 1: Responses to final BAM questionnaire –
Question 1.
|
“If you had to choose one thing that would improve your English,
what would it be?” |
|
|
Control Group |
Treatment Group |
|
|
The responses from both the treatment and
control groups to this first question (If
you had to choose one thing that would improve your English, what would it be?)
were quite similar. The above selections are a collation of all of the various
answers appearing on the final BAM and represent the most common responses. It
appeared that many members of both groups felt that they needed to make more
English-speaking friends and expose themselves to English more often in their
daily lives.
Table
2: Responses to final BAM questionnaire – Question 2.
|
“What is a good English language
learner?” |
|
|
Control Group |
Treatment Group |
|
Someone who:
popular response)
|
Someone who:
with all kinds of people
just rely on the teacher
ideas of how to learn, and knows their importance. Doesn’t just watch one or
two points
in their life
best to correct themselves
|
The comparative responses to the second
question (What is a good English language
learner?) displayed significant differences between the control and
treatment groups. It appears that the treatment group’s responses were of a
greater variety and possess a much higher level of sophistication and detail
compared to that displayed by the C-group. The C-group responses appear to
focus on innate ability and character and the non-specific idea of ‘working
hard’. Conversely, the T-group focuses on individual effort and more specific
language-learning strategies and study skills. This encouraging result was
somewhat unexpected and it appears that when the above responses are analysed the differences in
detail are quite apparent and somewhat striking.
The table appeared to indicate that perhaps the
treatment could have been responsible for the T-group members possessing such
an in-depth range of ideas, beliefs and strategies (which tended to centre on
the topic of autonomous learning) that could enable them to ultimately improve
their own English language learning. Perhaps the treatment improved not only
the methods but also the goal-setting and self-reflection strategies of the
T-group members.
6. OVERAL FINDINGS
The results of this study have produced a
number of interesting and important findings regarding the application of the
aforementioned treatment that can be summarised as follows:
- The
treatment appeared to bring students’ attention to their areas of
weakness.
- The
treatment did not appear to reduce the levels of fear and anxiety
experienced by the T-group. Their levels either remained relatively stable
or, in some instances, actually increased. One potential reason posited
for this could have been the added pressure of feeling greater responsibility/need
to take action.
- The
treatment did not adversely affect confidence and appeared to give the
T-Group increased confidence in their English skills and abilities.
- The
treatment also appeared to significantly increase the strength and levels
of autonomous beliefs (and potentially behaviour) among members of the
treatment group.
7. LIMITATIONS
OF THE STUDY
The limitations of the study were quite
numerous and a great deal was learned from their identification.
7.1 Pre and Post Linking of Subjects
This was found to be a major limitation that prevented
the study from achieving a higher degree of statistical significance. Because
individual responses were unable to be compared (first delivery against second
delivery) due to ethical and privacy concerns, the results observed in the
study were in effect very conservative, because if the responses of subjects
can be linked the statistical power of the data is increased considerably.
However, this study was only able to compare the results for each group
(Treatment and Control). In any future follow-up study this will need to be
addressed so that individual responses (pre and post) will be able to be linked
and analysed.
7.2 Sex of Subjects
Another limitation highlighted
by this initial research project was the need to be able to identify the sex of
individual subjects and to build this variable into the study. This will be
done in any future studies.
7.3 Small Sample Size
The sample sizes involved in this
project were seen as quite modest (although still statistically significant) at
42 Control and 42 Treatment. In future research the numbers of subjects
employed will be a major consideration.
7.4 Time Stresses/Classroom Realities
During the course of the study
teachers reported that they found it hard to always complete the three weekly
treatments and to provide additional feedback to students. This was to be
expected for such an intensive ten-week program such as SSEPP. However, the
study did indicate that the level (and quality) of teacher feedback was a
contributing factor to the overall effectiveness of the treatments. The checking by the teacher appeared to
give students greater confidence in the whole process and teachers reported
that they seemed to enjoy the fact that the teacher was taking notice of what
they were writing down. This also allowed the teacher to keep an eye on the
progress of each student and to develop an even deeper understanding of each
individual.
7.5 BAM Review
Due to the questions raised by
the apparent conflict between the measures of confidence and anxiety the BAM in
its current form may require a review of individual items to make it a more
reliable and valid measure of the three major constructs (Anxiety, Confidence,
Autonomy) investigated in the study.
7.6 Treatment Needs to be Made Part of whole
SSEPPP Program
This final limitation was also
deemed an important consideration. Better results could have been seen if all
of the classes in SSEPP had undergone the treatment and there were no control
classes. This could possibly have led to the creation of a “group culture”
among all SSEPP students. This would have eliminated the pressure on T-group
members to put aside newly acquired language learning strategies arising out of
the treatments due to peer pressure from C-group members before classes, during
break times, and after classes. However, this would of course have made it
difficult to measure/compare actual results.
8. CONCLUSION
The study showed that beliefs
can be affected in a positive way by teachers through the use of an integrated,
structured and explicit focus on active learning and goal setting. This focus
appeared to encourage more active, responsible and autonomous learning
behaviours which were evidenced in the changing beliefs of participants.
However, the focus employed in this study did not appear to significantly
affect the anxiety levels of participants in the treatment group. Other methods
may need to be employed to address this or, alternatively, the current methods
in this study need to be modified in an attempt to help control learner anxiety
levels; especially if this anxiety moves into the range of debilitating anxiety
which directly (or indirectly) affects performance in the second language
(English).
This study also
provided much-needed experience into the implementation of a classroom
treatment program which is expected to be repeated and refined in the near
future. This
research, however, is not expected to be the only method used in response to
the language learner beliefs and anxiety issues which were observed in this
study. Instead, it is expected that anxiety (in the context of the language
classroom) will need to be addressed using various other methods and strategies
that have a proven track record. Therefore, in conclusion, further research is
needed to fully explore not only the role of anxiety in the classroom (and
beyond) but also how best to manage anxiety to provide the best learning conditions.
The role of beliefs and autonomous learning will most likely play a major role
in this endeavour as both clearly have significant roles in the learning
process and resultant performance outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I would like to express my sincere thanks
to Carol Floyd, of NCELTR, and Dr. Peter Roger of the Department of Linguistics
for their input. Many thanks also to Dr. Alan Taylor of the Department of
Psychology,
REFERENCES
Acton, L. (2003). In best practice:
Rhetoric or reality? Proceedings of the
16th English
Benson, P. & Lor, W. (1999).
Metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning. System, 27(4), 459-472.
Burke, E. &
Wyatt-Smith, C. (1996). Academic and non-academic difficulties: Perceptions of
graduate non-english speaking background students. TESL-EJ, 2(1), A-1. Retrieved
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for
autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System,
23(2), 195-205.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner.
Doye, C. (1997). It made me think…About
making assumptions. Modern English
Teacher, 6(1), 43-47.
Ferris, D. & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic
listening / Speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and
implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2),
297-320.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope,
J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about
language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3),
283-294.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social, personality, and clinical
perspectives.
Lucantonio, D. (1992). The cross-cultural
business of self-directed learning. EA
Journal, 10(2), 45-50.
Luhr, S. (2001). New perspectives on old
problems: Re-examining the needs and problems of high school preparation
students. Proceedings of the 14th EA Educational Conference,
Matsumoto, K. (1996). Helping L2 learners
reflect on classroom learning. ELT
Journal, 50(2), 143-149.
Murphey, T. (1996). Changing language learning
beliefs: “Appreciating” mistakes. Asian
Journal of English Language Teaching,
6, 77-84.
Nixon, U. (1993). Coping in
Nixon, U. (1996). Adjusting to
Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language
learning and their relationship to proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 247-265.
Sim, M. S. (2004). Have no fear: An investigation into the possible existence and
prevalence of cultural traits and beliefs across nationalities for ESL
students. Unpublished masters dissertation,
Taylor, A. (2005, November 25). SPSS Analysis of Data. (Interview).
Walmsley, E. (1992). Cross-cultural awareness: A two-way street. EA Journal, 10(2), 51-55.
Appendix I:
ALC
#1 Name:__________________ Class:________ Date/Week:_________/____
For each item indicate your level of achievement for the
week:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Very
Low Low High Very
High
1.
I told my teacher that they were really intelligent
( )
2.
I went to class (
)
3.
I didn’t go to sleep in class ( )
4.
I took everything I needed to class ( )
5.
I completed all my homework ( )
6.
I tried not to speak my native language ( )
7.
I tried to speak English as much as possible ( )
8.
I listened closely to the teacher when they were
speaking ( )
9.
I listened to my other classmates when they were
speaking ( )
10. I wrote new
words down in my vocabulary book (
)
11. I followed the
instructions given by the teacher (
)
12. I asked the
teacher to explain things I didn’t understand ( )
13. I answered a
question in English most days ( )
14. I kept my
phone off while I was in class (
)
15. I was polite
and/or friendly to EVERYONE in my class ( )
16. I thought
about the reasons why I need English in my life ( )
Your
ideas for other target behaviours:
(What
else do you think you need to focus on to help your English study?)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ALC
#1 Name:__________________ Class:________ Date/Week:_________/____
For each item indicate your level of achievement for the
week: (1) (2) (3) (4) Very
Low Low High Very
High 1.
I told my teacher that they were really intelligent
( ) 2.
I went to class (
) 3.
I didn’t go to sleep in class ( ) 4.
I took everything I needed to class ( ) 5.
I completed all my homework ( ) 6.
I tried not to speak my native language ( ) 7.
I tried to speak English as much as possible ( ) 8.
I listened closely to the teacher when they were
speaking ( ) 9.
I listened to my other classmates when they were
speaking ( ) 10. I wrote new
words down in my vocabulary book (
) 11. I followed the
instructions given by the teacher (
) 12. I asked the
teacher to explain things I didn’t understand ( ) 13. I answered a
question in English most days ( ) 14. I kept my
phone off while I was in class (
) 15. I was polite
and/or friendly to EVERYONE in my class ( ) 16. I thought
about the reasons why I need English in my life ( ) Your
ideas for other target behaviours: (What
else do you think you need to focus on to help your English study?) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ |
ALC #4 Name:_________________ Class:________ Date/Week:_________/______
For each item indicate your level of achievement for the
week:
(1)
(2) (3) (4)
Very Low Low High Very High
1.
I told my teacher that they were very professional and
pragmatic ( )
2.
I went to class on time and came back on time after the
break ( )
3.
I took everything I needed to class including all my
materials ( )
4.
I completed all my homework to the best of my ability
(ie. not rushed!) ( )
5.
I stopped myself from speaking my native language all
day (ie. self-policing) ( )
6.
I spoke in English all the time ( )
7.
I listened closely to the teacher and stopped what I was
doing when my teacher spoke ( )
8.
I wrote all new words down in my vocabulary book/list AND
tried to use them in my conversations (
)
9.
I followed the instructions given by the teacher and
questioned anything that was not clear (
)
10. I asked the
teacher to explain things I didn’t understand and things which were
interesting ( )
11. I told my
friends to speak English to me and not my native language ( )
12. I tried to
revise every class each night and thought about my progress ( )
13. I only spoke
English outside of the classroom (
)
14. I had a
successful English Only Day (EOD)
this week ( )
15. I listened
actively and critically to my classmates while they were speaking English
and I commented (in English) on what they had to say ( )
16. I read the
interesting parts of a newspaper/magazine and I watched the TV last night
( )
17. I asked and
answered a lot of questions in class (
)
18. I didn’t speak
my native language ( )
19. I spoke only
English in class ( )
20. I spent some
time going over my latest English vocabulary every night ( )
21. When my
friends spoke to me in my native language I replied in English ( )
22. I expressed
and listened to many views, opinions and ideas and enjoyed it ( )
23. I thought
about my weak points and what new things I could do to improve my
English ( )
Your
ideas for other target behaviours: (What else do you need to do to improve
your English level?)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
ALC #4 Name:_________________ Class:________ Date/Week:_________/______
For each item indicate your level of achievement for the
week: (1)
(2) (3) (4)
Very Low Low High Very High 1.
I told my teacher that they were very professional and
pragmatic ( ) 2.
I went to class on time and came back on time after the
break ( ) 3.
I took everything I needed to class including all my
materials ( ) 4.
I completed all my homework to the best of my ability
(ie. not rushed!) ( ) 5.
I stopped myself from speaking my native language all
day (ie. self-policing) ( ) 6.
I spoke in English all the time ( ) 7.
I listened closely to the teacher and stopped what I was
doing when my teacher spoke ( ) 8.
I wrote all new words down in my vocabulary book/list AND
tried to use them in my conversations (
) 9.
I followed the instructions given by the teacher and
questioned anything that was not clear (
) 10. I asked the
teacher to explain things I didn’t understand and things which were
interesting ( ) 11. I told my
friends to speak English to me and not my native language ( ) 12. I tried to
revise every class each night and thought about my progress ( ) 13. I only spoke
English outside of the classroom (
) 14. I had a
successful English Only Day (EOD)
this week ( ) 15. I listened
actively and critically to my classmates while they were speaking English
and I commented (in English) on what they had to say ( ) 16. I read the
interesting parts of a newspaper/magazine and I watched the TV last night
( ) 17. I asked and
answered a lot of questions in class (
) 18. I didn’t speak
my native language ( ) 19. I spoke only
English in class ( ) 20. I spent some
time going over my latest English vocabulary every night ( ) 21. When my
friends spoke to me in my native language I replied in English ( ) 22. I expressed
and listened to many views, opinions and ideas and enjoyed it ( ) 23. I thought
about my weak points and what new things I could do to improve my
English ( ) Your
ideas for other target behaviours: (What else do you need to do to improve
your English level?) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ |
Appendix II:
|
SSEPP Questionnaire |
||||||||||
|
Please
remember that this survey is anonymous. Answer honestly
expressing your true feelings about each statement. |
||||||||||
|
For each item, indicate your
response from the following five options: |
||||||||||
|
1 = Strongly Disagree |
2= Disagree |
3= Neutral |
4 = Agree |
5 = Strongly Agree |
||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Item: |
|
Circle your
response: |
||||||||
|
1 |
I must speak English in grammatically complete sentences to be
understood. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
2 |
Native speakers of English speak English correctly. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
3 |
I must not make mistakes when I speak English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
4 |
To improve my English I must speak with native speakers of English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
5 |
One of the most important jobs of a teacher is to correct your
English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
6 |
I should make opportunities to use and practice my English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
7 |
I don’t feel confident when I speak English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
8 |
I can do and achieve anything if I really want to. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
9 |
I am afraid of making mistakes in English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
10 |
Speaking English with others from my language group can really improve
my English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
11 |
I feel foolish when I speak incorrectly in English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
12 |
No matter how many English classes I go to, I still have to use
English a lot after school if I want to really learn it. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
13 |
If I make mistakes in English my fellow students will lose respect for
me. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
14 |
My success in English depends largely on how good my teacher is. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
15 |
The language I am trying to learn is: (1) a very difficult language,
(2) a difficult language, (3) a
language of medium difficulty, (4) an easy language, (5) a very easy
language. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
16 |
If I have many opportunities to use English I will eventually speak it
very well. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
17 |
I believe I will eventually (one day) learn to speak English very
well. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
18 |
It is important to speak a foreign language with a good accent. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
19 |
Learning English can involve trying new ideas and never giving up. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
20 |
You shouldn’t say anything in the foreign language until you can say
it correctly. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
21 |
If I heard someone speaking the language I am trying to learn, I would
try to speak to them so that I could practice using the language. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
22 |
It’s OK to guess if you don’t know (or forget) a word in English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
23 |
If I try to speak English outside the classroom I will improve much
faster. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
24 |
I have foreign language aptitude (i.e. the skills needed to learn a
L2). |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
25 |
Learning English is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new
vocabulary. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
26 |
It is important to practice English a lot every day. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
27 |
I feel self-conscious (nervous/shy) speaking English in front of other
people. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
28 |
If you are allowed to make mistakes at the start, it will be hard to
get rid of them later on. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
29 |
My level of success depends on me and my effort NOT just the skills of
my teachers. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
30 |
It is more important to read and write English than it is to speak and
understand it. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
31 |
Learning English is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar
rules. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
32 |
To learn faster you should practice English every chance you get. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
33 |
If I speak English very well, I will have many opportunities to use
it. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
34 |
Learning a foreign language is different from learning other school
subjects. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
35 |
Learning English is mostly a matter of translating it. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
36 |
It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand
it. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
37 |
Learning a language requires a constant effort and a lot of positive
thinking. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
38 |
People who speak more than one language are very intelligent. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
39 |
Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||
|
40 |
I am ultimately responsible for my progress learning English. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
||||
|
Thank
you & good luck with your studies!!! |
||||||||||
Appendix III:
2.
Please answer
the following questions in your own words: A.
If you had to choose one thing that would improve your English, what would
it be? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ B. What is a good learner of English? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________