A Look Under The Hood - A Study of SLA Beliefs and The Underlying Theories
A Look Under The Hood - A Study of SLA Beliefs and The Underlying Theories
A Look Under The Hood - A Study of SLA Beliefs and The Underlying Theories
Contents
1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………......................6
2.3.1 Interactionism……………………………………………………………………………….8
2.3.2 Connectionism………………………………………………………………………………8
3.1.1 Behaviourism……………………………………………………………..............................8
3.3.3 Connectionism……………………………………………………......................................12
4
4 Learner Beliefs……………………………………………………………………………12
5 Rationale……………………………………………………..............................................13
6 Participants……………………………………………………………………………….13
7 Method……………………………………………………………………………………13
8 Result………………………………………………….......................................................13
9.1.1 To learn successfully all you need is enough exposure to the target language……............14
9.1.5 The earlier a second language in introduced in school programmes, the greater the
9.1.6 The learner should try and use L2 as much as possible inside the classroom......................17
9.2.1 Learning a second language is the same as learning your first language………………….18
9.2.3 Mistakes by second language learners are usually due to interference from their first
language………………………………………………………………………………...….19
9.2.4 Teachers should use materials that expose students to structures that they haven’t been
taught yet…………………………………………………………………………………..20
9.2.6 The teacher should only use the student’s L2 when teaching……………………………..22
11 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...…………23
12 References……………………………………………………………………...…………24
13 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………..27
5
13.2 Appendix 2: SLA Questionnaire Results for Adult Students and Children’s Parents…..28
1 Introduction
‘For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened
which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk.’ (Gilmour, D. et al.
1994, Track 9)
Ever since those first primitive utterances, mankind has been trying to understand how we acquired
this gift. Is it simply an innate ability that we all possess from birth or is it a series of learned
structures and behaviours that we acquire over time from our environment and interaction with
others? Furthermore, how do learner beliefs and their understanding about the nature of language
and learning compare to the theories governing how we as teachers view the process of language
acquisition. In order to answer these questions we first need to understand how language is
acquired.
Children acquire their first language at an extraordinary speed and to a degree of proficiency
beyond pure chance. While we are able to recognize the different stages, the process remains a
mystery. According to Lightbown and Spada (2006, p.10) there are three main theoretical positions:
The traditional procedure for this approach is; stimulus, response followed by reward. Consequently,
imitation and exposure to positive reinforcement are major factors. As Brown (2007, p.26)
mentions:
Essentially, traditional behaviourism is the personification of the metaphorical donkey and the
carrot; the donkey is the child, the desired linguistic response is the cart and the reinforcement, is
the carrot.
This view however was challenged by Skinner, when he deemphasized the role of the stimulus
believing it was the reinforcers that follow a response that increase the probability of recurrence and
At the other end of the spectrum are the innatists who believe that we are born, preprogrammed
with all the knowledge to acquire language (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.15).
Noam Chomsky theorized that all human languages are innate and that the same universal
principles underlie them all (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.15). This was the basis of his theory of
Universal Grammar; a kind of hard disk pre-packed with all the basic properties and procedures of
the grammars of the world (Shortall in Willis and Willis, 1996, p.34).
The CPH suggests that there is a period in human development when the brain is predisposed to
acquire languages more easily than at any other time (Lightbown and Spada in Candlin and Mercer,
In contrast to behavourists who believe, they can teach it and to innatists who believe, we are born
with it, cognitivists and developmentalists believe that you only need to be exposed to language in
2.3.1 Interactionism
Interactionists feel that language acquisition is similar to and influenced by the acquisition of other
skills and knowledge and that it is directly related to the child’s experience and cognitive
development (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.19). Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky supported
this view and concluded that language develops primarily from social interaction and that in a
supportive interactive environment; children are able to advance to a higher level of knowledge and
performance than if left to develop independently (Brown, 2007, p.20). He called such an
2.3.2 Connectionism
While agreeing with the interactionist principle that exposure is essential to language acquisition,
connectionism goes even further by suggesting that exposure is all that is necessary:
‘…children acquire links or connections between words and phrases and the situations in
which they occur…when children hear a word or phrase in the context of a specific object,
event, or person, an association is created in the child’s mind between the word or phrase
and what it represents. Thus, hearing a word brings to mind the object and seeing the object
brings to mind the word or phrase.’ (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.23)
People have little problem achieving mastery of their first language. However, attaining the same
level of proficiency in a second language is a different matter. SLA theories can also be categorized
3.1.1 Behaviourism
Teaching approaches such as ALM and PPP have long been linked to behaviourist theory due to
their dependence on habit formation and the role of practice in their classes (Shortall in Willis and
9
Willis, 1996, p.31). Language development is viewed as the formation of habits and automated
responses to pre-rehearsed dialogues hence teaching materials and teacher training emphasize
In keeping with the then popular behaviourist theory, it was hypothesized that habits formed in the
first language would interfere with the acquisition of the second target language (Lightbown and
Spada, 2006, p.34). Essentially the CAH suggests that a first language can be contrasted with the
target second language to predict the errors that a learner will make (Shortall in Willis and Willis,
1996, p.31). Robert Lado (1957) cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) ( in Willis, 1997, p.65)
clarifies:
‘Those elements that are similar to the learner’s native language will be simpler for him,
Although Chomsky made no direct attempt to connect his theory of UG with SLA, other linguists
have argued that because learners end up knowing more about the target language than could
conceivably be learned from exposure alone, that UG must be available to second language learners
Influenced by Chomsky, Stephen Krashen put forward the Monitor Model for SLA defined by the
Krashen (1983) asserts that there are two language systems, one for conscious learning; where the
10
focus is on form and rule learning and the other for unconscious and natural acquisition; in which
no particular attention is given to language form. Krashen (1983) contends that the two systems are
completely separated and that what is learned does not filter into the acquired system (cited in
Krashen (1983) here states that all utterances are initiated by the speaker’s acquired system and that
the learned system merely plays a monitoring role, allowing for alterations or corrections. However,
such editing can only occur if the following three conditions are met: the speaker has enough time,
is concerned about correctness and has learned the relevant rules (Jordan, 2004, p.179).
As with FLA, grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable sequence; although this does not
apply to learned structures (Willis, 1997, p.87). The order of acquisition is not governed by
simplicity and is independent of the order in which the grammatical structures are taught (Jordan,
2004, p.179).
According to Krashen (1983), understanding comprehensible input leads to SLA (Brown, 2007,
p.295). He states that we acquire language by understanding input which is a little beyond our
current level of acquired competence (Willis, 1997, p.87). This is represented by the equation [i +
1], i symbolizing the level of acquired language up to now and + 1 corresponding to language that is
just one step beyond that level (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.37).
In order to explain individual variation in SLA and why some learners never acquire full
competence despite being exposed to large quantities of comprehensible input; Krashen (1983)
11
proposed the affective filter, a type of internal processing system that subconsciously screens input
based on the learner’s motivation, attitude, needs and emotional state (Jordan, 2004, p.180).
Negative factors such as lack of motivation, anxiety or dislike of the L2 culture prevent the learner
from making use of available input, thereby affecting the learner’s progress with regard to
Research supporting a CP in FLA seems absolute, as for SLA, the existence or non-existence of a
cut-off point such as in FLA is still a topic of debate (Singleton in McGroarty, 2001, p.82).
Regardless of their lack of success, adult learners are not total failures. Two speculations have been
advanced to explain this: Firstly, that there is a sensitive period rather than an all or nothing critical
period and secondly that this sensitive period affects different linguistic domains differentially (Han,
‘The sensitive period notion holds only that absolute, native like proficiency in all aspects
of language (including vocabulary and syntax) is impossible to attain for the adult learner;
it does not hold that extremely high, quasi-native levels cannot be attained in one or more
areas. Furthermore, it must be insisted that what is referred to as the eventual level of
proficiency attained after a sufficient period of exposure to and immersion in the target
Given that SLA often falls short of full success, cognitivists and developmentalists see SLA as the
building up of knowledge that will eventually become automatic. As with any other skill, at first
even simple tasks (like a greeting) require a lot of attention and concentration, but over time these
processes become automated requiring almost no thought at all and allowing several tasks to occur
According to this theory, language is acquired as learners interact and attempt to communicate in
the target language; in effect ‘learning by doing’ (Nunan, 1999, p.51). Michael Long (1983) (cited
As pointed out by Lightbown and Spada, (2006, p.44) modification can include elaboration, slower
While observing students in an immersion program in Canada, Merrill Swain (1985) found that
despite receiving massive amounts of comprehensible input, their second language development
was not supporting the input hypothesis. She concluded that output was at least as significant as
input, if not more so, suggesting that opportunities to produce language were important for
3.3.3 Connectionism
As introduced above as an explanation for FLA, connectionists believe that learners of a second
language gradually accumulate knowledge solely through exposure without ever needing to learn
the rules.
4 Learner Beliefs
Beliefs about the nature of language and learning are built up over time by the learner and include
all that they understand about themselves as learners and thinkers, including their goals and needs.
Hence, they can be viewed as a component of metacognitive knowledge (Bernat and Gvozdenko,
2005, p.1). With regard to teacher beliefs, Bailey et al explained in Freeman and Richards (1996,
13
p.11) “…we teach as we have been taught…” assuming that this is also true of the learner; the way
a learner has studied will undoubtedly affect how they perceive the process of language acquisition.
Perception of success and expectancy can also play major roles in the creation of learner beliefs,
realistically high levels can help to build confidence whereas unrealistically high levels tend to
5 Rationale
The perceptions, attitudes and metacognitive knowledge that learners bring with them to the
classroom are recognized as significant contributory factors to learning performance and success
(Bernat and Gvozdenko, 2005, p.1). Therefore, it is only logical that when studying SLA these
beliefs are also looked at and their implication to the acquisition process assessed.
6 Participants
The participants in this study were 54 adults, 35 adult students and the parents of 19 small children.
7 Method
For this study a Likert-scale questionnaire based on Horwitz’s (1988) Beliefs about language
learning inventory (BALLI) was administered. The statements used in the survey (see appendix 1)
were adapted from similar inventories by Horwitz (1988), Cotteral (1995) and Lightbown and
Spada (2006) as a means of assessing the students’ and the children’s parents’ beliefs towards the
8 Results
Data collected from the questionnaires was charted and percentages calculated to facilitate
inter-group comparison (see appendices 2 and 3). Areas of agreement, disagreement or uncertainty
were then colour coded to aid in distinguishing areas of interest, particularly statements that resulted
14
in agreement or disagreement between the two groups (see appendix 3). The data was then
processed and the statements were changed to reflect the opinions of the respondents and ranked in
The following discussion will look at some of the main areas where the adult students and the
children’s parents agreed and try to account for this concurrence (see appendices 4 and 5).
9.1.1 To learn successfully all you need is enough exposure to the target language
Both groups showed significant support for the connectionism idea that exposure to language is the
key mechanism in acquisition. Many of the parents explained their desire for their children to be
taught by a native English speaker on the basis that they would ‘absorb’ the language. A possible
rationale for this is the parents’ own experience studying English in the Japanese school system
where the emphasis was on grammar translation rather than communication, with very little
exposure to the target language. However, as pointed out by Singleton, (in Mayo, 2003, p.17) time
spent in the company of native speakers only seems to help with the quality of L2 pronunciation.
While it is true that performance will improve with exposure, chances to produce meaningful
language should not be overlooked and neither should the possibility that a lack of formal
instruction could lead to fossilization (Willis, 1997, p.51). Ellis, (referred to in Nunan, 1999, p.45)
also concluded that it was quality rather than quantity of the exposure that mattered.
This age old adage fits almost any situation where a new skill is being learned, be it learning how to
write the alphabet or remembering a speech, the importance of practice cannot be denied. That
being said, this behavourist assumption that by we can improve simply by practicing is very
attractive and misleading. With regard to more mechanical skills the merits of practice can easily be
15
observed and evaluated. However, it has been suggested by Lightbown in Willis (1997, p.44) with
regard to language learning and in particular the production of spontaneous language that controlled
practice will not make production automatic and that even successful production under controlled
conditions may not guarantee spontaneous production. In order to see the benefits of practice on
language learning we need to expand the traditional parameters of practice to include, exposure to
and comprehension of a language feature and not only rely on repetitive drills such as those found
Taking into account different language backgrounds, learning experiences and the fact that people
are told throughout their lives that they are unique, the statement above appears logical. This deep
belief in individuality may be the reason why this notion is popular among the adult students and
the children’s parents. Nevertheless, testament agreeing with Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis
has been discovered in the developing interlanguage of learners from different language
backgrounds. These developmental sequences were found to be similar to those observed in the first
language acquisition of the same language, which shows that, just as in FLA, there are also
predictable developmental sequences in SLA (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.82, 92).
A plausible explanation is that the adult students and the children’s parents view success as a means
perceived to be a better learner than someone who is still struggling. This variation could be
developmental stages are not closed and that learners can utilize sentences typical of several stages
at the same time and that progress to a higher stage does not always mean the learners produce
Motivation can be defined in terms of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation depending on the learner’s
goals and needs. Van Lier (in Candlin and Mercer, 2001, p.97) adds that extrinsic rewards can have
a negative effect on intrinsic motivation and diminish a learner’s motivation and desire to learn. A
student’s motivation cannot be controlled by the teacher, but creating a supportive environment
where students can experience success can help (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.85). The idea that a
learner’s motivational state might affect their success is in keeping with Krashen’s Affective filter
hypothesis illustrated above and as expected, all of the participants agreed with this statement. It is
reasonable to presume that all of them have at some stage in their lives experienced the benefits of
motivation.
9.1.5 The earlier a second language in introduced in school programmes, the greater the
The concept that younger is better is generally accepted by SLA researchers and lends itself to the
critical period hypothesis. This is corroborated by Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson’s (2000) claim
‘Younger learners acquire second languages automatically from mere exposure, while older
This inferred difficulty for post-puberty learners is the likely reason why both the children’s parents
and the adult students agreed with this idea. The children’s parents might view early English
education as a chance to give their children an opportunity that they perceive they never had. By
learning from a younger age they hope their children will succeed where they had failed. As for the
adult students they probably see their late introduction as a potential reason for their fossilization
and lack of improvement. Ellis (1985), on the other hand asserts, that it may not be as simple as
that:
‘…while age does not alter the route of acquisition, it does have a marked effect on rate
17
and ultimate success…For example, in terms of rate, adults appear to do better than
children (6 to10 years), while teenagers (12-15 years) appear to outperform both adults and
Furthermore the decision of when to introduce a second language into a school should be based on
the student’s needs and the school’s language objectives, and not age related generalizations.
‘When the objective is native-like performance in the second language, then it may be
desirable to begin exposure to the language as early as possible,…when the goal of the
educational programme is basic communicative skill for all students,…it can be more
9.1.6 The learner should try and use L2 as much as possible inside the classroom
No one can deny that using a language being learned is a good thing. Two theories that share this
observation; the interaction hypothesis and the output hypothesis, agree that “learners need to speak
target language…’ and that ‘…acquisition will be maximized when learners engage in
This is expanded on by Swain (2005, 1995) (cited in Brown, 2007, p.298-299) with her definition
of the three major functions of output in SLA: For learners to notice their own linguistic
shortcomings, to try out and test various language hypotheses and to reflect on language through
As implied earlier, the parent’s memories of studying English may not be pleasant. It is possible
that they associate more communicative classes with being fun and interesting, unlike the grammar
18
While they stated that they believe speaking in class is important, many of the adult students are
reluctant speakers (Nunan, 1999, p.231). However, the fact that they acknowledged its importance
leaves this researcher with a sense of hope of someday seeing them gain the confidence to speak.
Although, according to Nunan (1999, p.45), Ellis (1984) found that those learners who interacted
least in class appeared to improve the most, inferring, maybe that they are just fine the way they are.
The following discussion will look at some of the main areas where the adult students and the
children’s parents disagreed and try to shed light on the source of the difference of opinion (see
appendix 6).
9.2.1 Learning a second language is the same as learning your first language
What is interesting here is the disparity between the two groups. The children’s parents are clearly
of the opinion that the above view is true whereas the adult students completely reject it. Without
In the case of young learners, differences in learner characteristics and the environments in which
first and second language acquisition occur are major determining factors (Lightbown and Spada,
2006, p.29). Given that all children achieve perfect mastery of their first language; the notion that
their child can effortlessly acquire a second language could be intoxicating for the parents. If so,
they fail to allow for the amount of exposure to language, communication opportunities and error
correction their children face on a daily basis in their L1. Also, assuming that language acquisition
is facilitated in the interactionist or connectionist manner, one hour of second language instruction a
week cannot be compared to 7 days of mother tongue exposure. By asserting that SLA is the same
as FLA, the parents may in fact be declaring that they believe there is no need for them to actively
19
Concerning adult learning, Willis (1997, p.86) points out that a major difference between FLA and
SLA is that a second language learner already has knowledge of one language system and is likely
to view the second language in light of this. Taking this into consideration, as well as the time spent
studying and the obvious lack of success felt by the adult students it is easy to see why they
Communicating effectively in a language involves more than knowing a few words and phrases.
Even learners with a substantial vocabulary and a good grasp of syntax and morphology can
encounter difficulty. Gaining the knowledge to understand and be able to interpret requests, respond
to polite compliments or apologies, recognize humour and manage conversations is equally if not
more important for the learner in order to survive outside the classroom (Lightbown and Spada,
2006, p.101).
With a 77 percent majority in agreement it is obvious that the adult students understand this and see
the potential from its study. Most have probably at some point been in a situation where they could
understand the words, but had no idea of their implied meaning. From the opposing results it is
apparent the children’s parents do not share this belief. Perhaps they feel that pragmatics is better
suited to more mature learners who already have a strong background in grammar and syntax.
English language education in Japan is for the most part focused towards high school and university
9.2.3 Mistakes by second language learners are usually due to interference from their first
language
L1 is a significant factor in the acquisition of L2 and the effect can either facilitate or interfere with
20
production and comprehension of the new language. The most visible effect is of course
interference in the form of errors. In the early stages many of the errors can be attributed to the
learner trying to operate L2 in the same fashion as L1 (Brown, 2001, p.65-66). As Lightbown and
Spada (2006, p.187) explain not all errors are causes for alarm:
‘Learners from different language backgrounds often make the same kinds of errors, and
some of these errors are remarkably similar to those made by first language learners. In
such cases, second-language errors are evidence of the learners’ efforts to discover the
structure of the target language itself rather than attempts to transfer patterns from their
first language.’
Just over half of the adult students embraced this idea compared to an almost equal number of the
children’s parents who opposed it. For the adult students being able to blame L1 for errors could be
a means to explain away their own mistakes. More than likely though, they have noticed first hand
errors influenced by their native language. The children’s parents on the other hand might not notice
when the child’s L1 is interfering and may conclude any errors they make are the result of
9.2.4 Teachers should use materials that expose students to structures that they haven’t been
taught yet
Explained earlier with regard to Krashen’s input hypothesis, exposure to material beyond a learner’s
current level may be a key factor in facilitating acquisition. This approach helps to promote
motivation by providing a challenge to keep the learner interested and motivated (Brown, 2007,
p.295). When communicative competence is the desired result it is important to remember that
outside the classroom the learner will be exposed to many forms and structures that they have not
neither mastered nor come across before (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p.191). Knowing how to
manage these situations could be the difference between success and failure.
21
The adult students’ disagreement could be interpreted as permission to use resources that better
reflect the real world as opposed to the sterile, prefabricated and level conscious content they are
accustomed to. The children’s parents’ agreement could be the result of past experiences with
English. Having themselves not been taught strategies for dealing with the unknown, the prospect of
their children being exposed to such resources and being able to learn maybe beyond their
comprehension.
Anyone who has tried to teach a language can tell you that this is simply not the case. Recalling
Krashen’s natural order hypothesis, Krashen claims that acquisition does not apply to learned
structures and is independent to teaching (Jordan, 2004, p.179). Rod Ellis (1993, p.4) adds:
‘…what is taught is not necessarily learned since what is learned is controlled by the
learner and not the teacher, not the textbooks, not the syllabus.’
As shown in the results, the children’s parents regard learning English to be different to learning
other academic subjects. Whereas subjects like math and science are viewed as compulsory,
English’s voluntary nature and the fee involved put it in a different light. English class is maybe
seen as no different from any other service that can be purchased. Therefore, it is this researcher’s
hypothesis that the parents set higher expectations on English. This is alluded to by actions such as
immediately quizzing their children on the contents of a class directly following its conclusion and
their lack of willingness to help with and monitor their child’s homework. If their child is having
The adult students alternatively appear to realize that the above position is not true. Experience
gained from years of studying and the continued trouble with patterns that they have had numerous
9.2.6 The teacher should only use the student’s L2 when teaching
‘The rule of thumb is usually to restrict classroom language to English unless some
distinct advantage is gained by the use of their native language, and only then for brief
stretches of time’.
Foreign language classes are inherently different to those of a second language, in that they usually
have very limited target language exposure. For that reason, using the learner’s L1 could severely
undermine any attempt by the teacher to create an environment where real communication can be
facilitated. Once that happens, it is conceivable that the need to use L2 in the classroom would
Monitoring the amount of L1 used in the classroom seems to be the main issue here. The adult
students obviously disagreed with this assumption on the grounds that they now and then need to
confirm difficult grammar points, whereas the children’s parents are coming with the idea that an
English only class is like a mini immersion programme. Both points of view are warranted and
acceptable.
Research (Cotterall, 1995) suggests that attitudes towards learning, and the perceptions and beliefs
that determine them may have an effect on learning behaviour and conceivably success (Bernat and
Gvozdenko, 2005, p.4). By being aware of the nature of these beliefs and their underlying
philosophies it is possible to predict potential areas of resistance and enhance the process of
language learning. These beliefs will shape overall lesson planning, the selection of content and the
form of interaction decided on by the teacher (Burns in Freeman and Richards, 1996, p.158). In
addition, through identification of these beliefs and reflection on their likely impact on language
learning and teaching; areas where there is a positive effect can help with future syllabus design and
23
teaching practices (Bernat and Gvozdenko, 2005, p.2). In short the valuable insights provided will
result in better classes and parental encounters that encourage and facilitate learner development
Where unsuccessful learning experiences have resulted in the formation of negative beliefs toward
language and learning, as may be the case with the children’s parents; it is necessary to attend to the
affective and cognitive components of their attitudes and develop a pedagogical base from which to
defend and teach (Bernat and Gvozdenko, 2005, p.9). If these beliefs are the result of limited
knowledge and or experience; providing new information or simply discussing the nature of
It is important to remember that the beliefs profiled here were selected by the researcher and may
not accurately represent the beliefs held by the participants. The normative approach used
obviously fails to capture the true complexity of a personal belief system and may have lead to
11 Conclusion
What can be seen from the results of this study is an eclectic nature towards theories, with both
groups accepting truths from each of the three defined perspectives. There is a definite lean towards
innatism with a hint of behaviourism and cognitivism /developmentalism; in that both groups
believe that learning a language is as natural as breathing but also accept that exposure and practice
are important factors. Before any final conclusions can be made further study is necessary. However,
trying to pinpoint the learner’s position on various beliefs may be a futile pursuit, due to the
dynamic nature of learner beliefs, what they believe today may be different from what they believe
tomorrow.
24
12 References
Bailey, K.M., Bergthold, B. and Braunstein, B. et al. (1996) “The language learner’s autobiography:
Bernat, E. and Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge,
Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions. TESL-EJ [online], 9/1. Available from:
http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej33/a1.html
Brown, H. D. (2001) Teaching by Principles. (2nd edn.) White Plains NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (2nd edn.) White Plains NY:
Longman.
Burns, A. (1996) “Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners.” In Freeman,
Cotterall, S. (1995) Readiness for Autonomy: Investing Learner Beliefs. System, 23/2, 195-205
Ellis, R. and Hedge, P. (1993) Second language acquisition research: how does it help teachers? An
Gilmour, D., Wright, R. and Samson, P. (1994) “Keep Talking.” On Pink Floyd: The Divison Bell.
Horwitz, E.K. (1988) The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2001) “Factor Affecting Second Language Learning.” In Candlin, C.
N. and Mercer, N. (ed) English language teaching in Its Social Context. London: Routledge. Pp.
28 - 43
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle and
Heinle.
Shortall, T. (1996) “What Learner’s Know and What They Need to Learn.” In Willis, J and Willis,
D. (ed) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. Pp.31- 41
Singleton, D. (2001) “Age and Second Language Acquisition.” In McGroarty, M. (ed) Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics. Volume 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 77 - 89
Singleton, D. (2003) “Critical Period or General Age.” In Mayo, M. P. (ed) Second language
Acquisition, 4: Age and the Acquisition of English As a Foreign Language. Clevedon, GBR:
Van Lier, L. (2001) “Constraints and Resources in Classroom Talk.” In Candlin, C. N. and Mercer,
N. (ed) English language teaching in Its Social Context. London: Routledge. Pp. 90 -107
Acquisition. Birmingham: The Centre for English Language Studies, The University of
Birmingham.
27
13 Appendices
13.2 Appendix 2: SLA Questionnaire Results for Adult Students and Children’s Parents
Agree Undecided Disagree
SLA Beliefs: Questionnaire Results AS CP AS CP AS CP
Q1 It is possible to learn a language in a short time. 7 3 6 3 22 13
Q2 Making mistakes is harmful in language learning. 1 3 2 2 32 14
Q3 Learning a second language is the same as learning your first language. 7 10 9 4 19 5
Q4 It is easier for children to learn a language than it is for adults. 24 15 12 3 2 1
Q5 It is important for learners to be able to pronounce all the individual sounds in the second language. 27 18 4 1 4 0
Q6 You shouldn't say anything in your second language until you can say it correctly. 1 2 3 5 31 12
Q7 It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one. 13 3 13 4 9 12
Q8 Learning a second language is different than learning other academic subjects. 18 10 4 6 13 3
Q9 Learning about pragmatics is important. 27 4 6 5 2 10
Q 10 It is easier to learn something in your second language if it is similar to your first language. 27 12 6 4 2 3
Q 11 To learn successfully all you need is enough exposure to the target language. 34 18 0 0 1 1
Q 12 Practice makes perfect. 2 0 2 2 31 17
Q 13 People learn languages in the same way. 1 0 2 3 32 16
Q 14 It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation. 21 11 9 8 5 0
Q 15 Languages are learned through imitation. 24 15 10 3 1 1
Q 16 Motivation is an important factor in language learning. 35 19 0 0 0 0
Q 17 Mistakes by second language learners are usually due to interference from their first language. 18 6 11 3 6 10
Q 18 It is necessary to know about English-speaking cultures in order to speak English. 23 6 8 3 4 10
Q 19 Grammatical rules should be presented one at a time. 14 9 11 9 10 1
Q 20 Simple structures should be presented before more complex ones. 30 12 5 8 0 0
Q 21 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programmes, the greater the likelihood of success in learning. 29 17 3 2 3 0
Q 22 Learners' errors should be corrected by the teacher immediately to prevent the formation of bad habits. 26 18 6 1 3 0
Q 23 Teachers shouldn't use materials that expose students to structures they haven't been taught yet. 1 9 6 6 28 4
Q 24 The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning grammar. 10 4 11 10 14 5
Q 25 Students learn what they are taught. 8 10 7 6 20 3
Q 26 Teachers should rephrase learners' errors rather than focusing on the mistake. 22 13 8 5 5 1
Q 27 The teacher should be an expert at language teaching. 19 12 10 5 6 2
Q 28 The teacher should be an expert at learning languages. 17 12 13 6 5 1
Q 29 The teacher should be an expert at showing students how to learn languages. 21 10 11 8 3 1
Q 30 The teacher should be a native speaker. 15 9 15 9 5 1
Q 31 The teacher should be able to speak a second language. 10 5 17 12 8 2
Q 32 The teacher should only use the student's L2 when teaching. 6 12 10 7 19 0
Q 33 The learner should try and use L2 as much as possible outside the classroom. 26 15 6 3 3 1
Q 34 The learner should try and use L2 as much as possible inside the classroom. 32 18 2 1 1 0
Q 35 The learner should never question the teacher. 16 12 12 7 7 0
Q 36 The learner should only use patterns that they have been taught. 1 0 6 7 28 12
Q 37 The learner should correct their own mistakes. 29 14 3 3 3 2
Q 38 The learner should correct their peers' mistakes. 12 10 12 7 11 2
AS and CP agree with the statement. AS and CP are both under a 50 percent consensus regarding the statement.
AS and CP disagree with the statement. AS and CP disagree with each other.
29
RANK
NB: The rankings are based on the percentage of agreement or disagreement with the statements. The statements have been changed to reflect that
agreement or disagreement. Where there are undecided opinions the highest value in either the agree or disagree column was used.
30
RANK
NB: The rankings are based on the percentage of agreement or disagreement with the statements. The statements have been changed to reflect that
agreement or disagreement. Where there are undecided opinions the highest value in either the agree or disagree column was used.