Dissertation-International Students' Beliefs and Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia
252
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ BELIEFS AND PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING ENGLISH IN MALAYSIA SHARIFAH AYESHAH BINTI SYED MOHD. NOORI DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2011
Transcript of Dissertation-International Students' Beliefs and Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ BELIEFS AND
PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING ENGLISH IN MALAYSIA
SHARIFAH AYESHAH BINTI SYED MOHD. NOORI
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
2011
ii
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION
Name of Candidate: Sharifah Ayeshah binti Syed Mohd. Noori
I/C No.:730927-14-5366
Matric No.: TGB070009
Name of Degree: Master of English as a Second Language
Title of Dissertation (“this Work”):
International Students’ Language Learning Beliefs and Perceptions of Learning English in
Malaysia
Field of Study: Second Language Acquisition
do solemnly and sincerely declare that:-
(1) I am the sole writer/author of this Work;
(2) This Work is original;
(3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for
permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of
any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the
work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work;
(4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do I ought reasonably to know that the making
of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work;
(5) I hereby assign all and every copyrights in this Work to the University of Malaya
(“UM”), who henceforth shall be the owner of the copyright in this Work and any
reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the
written consent of UM having been first had and obtained;
(6) I am fully aware that if in the course of this Work, I have infringed any copyright
whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action
as may be determined by UM.
Candidate’s Signature Date:
Subscribed and solemnly declared before,
Witness’s Signature Date:
Name: Dr. Ng Lee Luan
Designation: Supervisor
iii
Abstract
Among the cognitive and affective variables thought to influence language learning are
language learning beliefs (Horwitz, 1987; Wenden, 1998; Ellis, 2008). These assumptions
influence learners’ strategy choices and, as a result, their potential success. Therefore, it is
necessary for language teachers and language programme administrators to understand the
language learning beliefs of each new group of learners. One relatively new group of
English language learners in Malaysia is the international student population. Since recent
research in language learning beliefs, as well as in second language acquisition, has
advocated a contextual, socio-cultural approach to studying the language learning process,
the contextual aspects of the language learning experience of international students learning
English in Malaysia should be considered when examining their language learning beliefs.
This study utilized Horwitz’s (1987) Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)
to measure the language learning beliefs of 102 international students who were learning
English to prepare for admission into Malaysian universities. In addition, contextual factors
related to the participants’ language learning experience were studied using a specially-
designed questionnaire called the Perceptions of English Language Learning Experience in
Malaysia (PELLEM) to measure participants’ perceptions of their language learning
experience in Malaysia. Data collected from these Likert-type questionnaires was analysed
using SPSS for descriptive analysis and factor analysis. Furthermore, the quantitative data
collected using the PELLEM was supplemented with semi-structured interviews for more
insight into the factors influencing the learners’ perceptions of their language learning
experience. Findings of the study reveal that the language learning beliefs of the participants
were similar to those of other groups of learners in previous studies in terms of items
concerning the general process of language learning. However, although the international
students in this study were more confident and optimistic than learners in other studies, they
seemed to have more misconceptions on what language learning comprises and unrealistic
estimations of the difficulty of language learning. With regard to participants’ perceptions
iv
about learning English in Malaysia, findings show that participants have an overall positive
perception of Malaysia as a destination for learning English when compared to their home
countries, mainly because of the presence of foreign teachers and the increased opportunity
to practice speaking English in Malaysia. However, participants perceived Malaysia as
being a less favourable place to learn English when compared to native English speaking
countries like the U.S. and the U.K. This was largely due to factors outside the classroom,
including a lack of opportunity for authentic English communication and negative
perceptions of Malaysian English. The international students in this study also
underestimated the level of English proficiency needed to succeed at university. The
findings of this study show that English courses for international students in Malaysia
should include aspects of learner training, in order to dispel learners’ misconceptions which
may hinder their language learning. Opportunities for social interaction and authentic
practice outside the class are also necessary components in English courses for international
students.
v
Abstrak
Kepercayaan tentang pembelajaran bahasa adalah salah satu daripada variabel minda dan
afektif yang dianggap mempengaruhi proses pembelajaran bahasa (Horwitz, 1987; Wenden,
1998; Ellis, 2008). Kepercayaan ini mempengaruhi pelajar dalam pemilihan strategi
pembelajaran, dan ini seterusnya mempengaruhi prestasi pelajar dalam pemerolehan bahasa
asing. Oleh sebab itu, guru bahasa serta pengurus kursus bahasa perlu memperolehi
maklumat yang lebih mendalam mengenai kepercayaan tentang pembelajaran bahasa yang
dipegang oleh setiap kumpulan pelajar baru yang mengambil sesuatu kursus bahasa. Pelajar
antarabangsa merupakan sekumpulan pelajar bahasa Inggeris yang agak baru di Malaysia.
Oleh kerana penyelidikan terkini di bidang kepercayaan mengenai pembelajaran bahasa,
mahupun di bidang pemerolehan bahasa kedua, telah mengutamakan pendekatan dari segi
konteksual and sosio-budaya, aspek konteksual dalam pengalaman pembelajaran bahasa
yang dialami oleh pelajar antarabangsa di Malaysia tidak boleh di abaikan. Penyelidikan ini
mengguna Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) oleh Horwitz (1987) untuk
mengkaji kepercayaan tentang pembelajaran bahasa yang dipegang oleh 102 orang pelajar
antarabangsa yang sedang mempelajari Bahasa Inggeris di Malaysia untuk tujuan
pendidikan tinggi. Seterusnya, faktor konteksual yang berkaitan dengan pengalaman
pembelajaran pelajar-pelajar tersebut dikaji dengan menggunakan soal-selidik Perceptions
of English Language Learning Experience in Malaysia (PELLEM), yang telah dirangka
khusus untuk kajian ini. Maklumat yang dikumpul dari kedua soal-selidik ini telah dianalisi
dengan SPSS untuk analisa data deskriptif serta analisis faktor. Data kuantitatif yang
dihasilkan oleh kedua soal-selidik tersebut telah ditambah dengan data kualitatif dari
temuramah mengikut kaedah semi-struktur. Hasil dari penyelidikan ini menunjukkan
bahawa dari segi pembelajaran bahasa asing secara am, terdapat banyak persamaan di antara
kepercayaan tentang pembelajaran bahasa yang di pegang oleh sampel dibanding dengan
penyelidikan terdahulu. Namun begitu, walaupun pelajar antarabangsa yang diselidik
mempunyai tahap kepercayaan diri dan sifat optimis yang tinggi, mereka mempunyai
vi
miskonsepsi tentang proses pembelajaran bahasa asing. Sampel ini juga membuat perkiraan
yang terlalu rendah tentang tahap kesusahan dalam mempelajari bahasa asing. Dari segi
persepsi pelajar tentang mempelajari Bahasa Inggeris di Malaysia, hasil penemuan
menujukkan bahawa secara am, pelajar tersebut mempunyai anggapan positif mengenai
Malaysia sebagai destinasi untuk pembelajaran Bahasa Inggeris jika dibanding dengan
negara asal mereka kerana terdapat guru-guru yang tidak boleh bertutur dalam bahasa
pertama pelajar tersebut, serta peluang yang lebih tinggi untuk berinteraksi dalam Bahasa
Inggeris. Tetapi pelajar dalam penyelidikan ini juga memegang persepsi bahawa Malaysia
adalah destinasi pembelajaran Bahasa Inggeris yang kurang baik jika dibanding dengan
negara di mana Bahasa Inggeris adalah bahasa pertama, seperti Amerika Syarikat dan
United Kingdom. Ini disebabkan oleh faktor di luar kelas terutamanya kekurangan peluang
untuk berkomunikasi dalam Bahasa Inggeris serta persepsi yang negatif terhadap Bahasa
Inggeris yang digunakan di Malaysia. Hasil penemuan dari penyelidikan ini juga
menunjukkan bahawa kursus Bahasa Inggeris untuk pelajar antarabangsa harus
mengandungi aspek ‘pelatihan pelajar’, di mana pelajar diajar mengenai proses
pembelajaran bahasa serta cara-cara efektif untuk mempelajari bahasa asing untuk tujuan
membetulkan miskonsepsi yang dipegang pelajar tersebut mengenai pembelajaran bahasa
asing. Kursus Bahasa Inggeris untuk pelajar asing juga harus mengandungi aktiviti yang
memberi peluang kepada pelajar untuk berinteraksi-sosial dan untuk menjalankan
komunikasi yang sahih di luar kelas.
vii
Acknowledgements
This dissertation may have been written by me, the researcher, but it could not have been
completed without the support and guidance of many family members, friends and
colleagues. In addition, there were several very important individuals without whom this
dissertation may not even have been started, let alone finished. First of all, I would like to
thank my parents, Syed Mohd Noori and Farida Jamal for their encouragement, love and
home-cooked dinners that sustained me through this period, and throughout my life. I would
also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Ng Lee Luan, who went above and beyond her
responsibilities as a supervisor. In addition to her time and guidance, she gave me a valuable
learning experience and taught me a great deal about the process of research. To my
husband, Holky Priadi: thank you for your love and understanding. Big hugs also go out to
Chewy, who kept me company through all those all-night writing sessions.
This study was also made possible by the management of Kasturi College International
(KCI), where I worked while I was completing my dissertation. I greatly appreciate the
support given to me by KCI management and staff during this period. I would also like to
express my appreciation to all the academic and administrative staff of the Faculty of
Languages and Linguistics, University Malaya who assisted and guided me throughout my
time in the Masters of English as a Second Language programme. Finally, I should also
acknowledge all my students, who are tackling the challenging task of acquiring the English
language. Their comments, observations and actions over the years have taught me a
tremendous amount about the many different aspects that comprise the process of learning
English, and particularly, of learning English in Malaysia.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Original Literary Work Declaration.................................................................................ii
Abstract............................................................................................................................iii
Abstrak..............................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................vii
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................viii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................xii
List of Tables..................................................................................................................xiii
List of Terms & Abbreviations.........................................................................................xv
List of Appendices...........................................................................................................xvi
Chapter 1-Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Background ................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1. World Englishes .................................................................................................. 5
1.2.2. International Students Learning English in Malaysia ......................................... 7
1.3. Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 01 08
1.4. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................ 11
1.4.1. Research Questions ........................................................................................... 12
1.5. Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 12
1.5.1. The Education Industry in Malaysia ................................................................. 13
1.5.2. Research into Learner Beliefs & Perceptions ................................................... 15
1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study ......................................................................... 16
1.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2-Literature Review ................................................................................... 17
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 17
2.2. Beliefs, Knowledge and Learning ........................................................................... 18
2.3. The Importance of Language Learning Beliefs in Second Language Acquisition
Research ................................................................................................................... 19
2.4. Definitions of Language Learning Beliefs in Second Language Acquisition
Research ................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1. The Issue of Stability of Language Learning Beliefs ....................................... 22
2.4.2. Culture, Context and Language Learning Beliefs ............................................. 23
2.5. Approaches to Measuring Beliefs about Language Learning .................................. 24
2.5.1. Normative Approach ......................................................................................... 25
2.5.2. Metacognitive Approach ................................................................................... 26
2.5.3. Contextual Approach ........................................................................................ 27
2.5.4. Metaphorical Approach..................................................................................... 27
2.5.5. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 29
2.6. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) ............................................ 33
2.6.1. BALLI Studies .................................................................................................. 34
2.6.2. BALLI Studies of English Learners in Other Countries ................................... 34
2.6.3. BALLI Studies in Malaysia .............................................................................. 37
2.6.4. BALLI studies with Other Factors .................................................................... 38
2.6.5. Weaknesses & Criticisms of the BALLI ........................................................... 39
2.7. Learner Perceptions and Language Learning .......................................................... 40
2.7.1. Perception Studies involving International Students in a Host Country ........... 41
2.7.2. Perception Studies in ESL and FL Classrooms ................................................ 42
2.7.3. Perception Studies on Learning Environment in Higher Education ................. 43
ix
2.8. Studies on International Students in Malaysia ......................................................... 44
2.9. Studies on English Language Learning in Outer Circle Countries .......................... 47
2.10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 49
Chapter 3-Research and Methodology ................................................................. 51
3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 51
3.2. Research Methods used in SLA Research on Beliefs and Perceptions ................... 51
3.2.1. Questionnaires ................................................................................................... 52
3.2.2. Interviews .......................................................................................................... 55
3.2.3. BALLI Studies Featuring a Second Variable ................................................... 56
3.3. Overview of Research Design Used in Present Study ............................................. 57
3.4. Participants .............................................................................................................. 59
3.4.1. Selection of Participants.................................................................................... 61
3.4.2. The English Language Programme at a Malaysian College ............................. 62
3.5. BALLI ...................................................................................................................... 64
3.5.1. Rationale for Using the BALLI ........................................................................ 64
3.5.2. Amendments made to the BALLI ..................................................................... 65
3.6. PELLEM .................................................................................................................. 66
3.6.1. Rationale for Using the PELLEM ..................................................................... 67
3.6.2. Development of the PELLEM .......................................................................... 67
3.6.3. Pilot Studies ................................................................................................... 69
3.7. Translation of the BALLI and PELLEM Questionnaires ........................................ 73
3.8. Interview .................................................................................................................. 74
3.8.1. Rationale for Using Interviews ......................................................................... 74
3.8.2. Selection of Interview Participants ................................................................... 75
3.8.3. Interview Questions .......................................................................................... 78
3.9. Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................................... 79
3.9.1. Questionnaire Administration ........................................................................... 79
3.9.2. Interview Administration .................................................................................. 79
3.10. Summary of Data Analysis .................................................................................... 80
3.10.1. Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................. 80
3.10.2. Qualitative Data Analysis ............................................................................... 81
3.11. Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................... 81
3.12. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 82
Chapter 4-Quantitative Results and Discussion ................................................. 83
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 83
4.2. Results of BALLI questionnaire .............................................................................. 83
4.2.1. Foreign Language Aptitude .............................................................................. 84
4.2.2. Difficulty of Language Learning ...................................................................... 88
4.2.3. The Nature of Language Learning .................................................................... 91
4.2.4. Learning and Communication Strategies .......................................................... 94
4.2.5. Motivation and Expectations ............................................................................ 97
4.2.6. Reliability of the BALLI ................................................................................... 99
4.2.7. Factor Analysis of BALLI Results.................................................................. 100
BALLI Factor One-Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English ....... 104
BALLI Factor Two-Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English107
BALLI Factor Three-Formal Learning Beliefs ..................................................... 109
4.3. Results of the PELLEM Questionnaire ................................................................. 112
4.3.1. General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia ......................................... 113
4.3.2. Out-of-Class Experience ................................................................................. 115
x
4.3.3. Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities .......................................... 119
4.3.4. Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute .................................. 122
4.3.5. Reliability of the PELLEM ............................................................................. 125
4.3.6. Factor Analysis of PELLEM Results .............................................................. 126
PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia: the Classroom
and Beyond ............................................................................................................ 128
PELLEM Factor Two-Perceptions of Malaysian English & its Speakers and
Expectations about English Use at University ...................................................... 130
PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of English Proficiency in
Malaysia ................................................................................................................ 131
4.4. Correlation Between the BALLI and PELLEM .................................................... 133
4.4.1. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM Factor One ......... 136
4.4.2. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor One and PELLEM Factor Three ....... 140
4.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 144
Chapter 5-Qualitative Results and Discussion ................................................. 146
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 146
5.2. Overview of the Semi-structured Interview Stage ................................................. 146
5.3. Analysis of Interview Transcripts .......................................................................... 146
5.4. Summary of Themes Emerging from the Interviews ............................................ 147
5.5. Theme One: Perceptions of Malaysia as an English Language Learning Destination148
5.5.1. Malaysia offers Better Opportunities to Learn English than My Home Country…
................................................................................................................................... 148
5.5.2. Learning English in Malaysia is Good, but I Would Rather Learn English in an
English Speaking Country ........................................................................................ 151
5.6. Theme Two: Communication and Interaction Outside Class ................................ 153
5.6.1. Limited Opportunities for Communication..................................................... 153
5.6.2. Perceptions of Malaysian English and the English proficiency of Malaysians155
5.6.3. Social Isolation and Limited Access to English-speaking Malaysians ........... 160
5.7. Theme Three: Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities ......................... 164
5.7.1. Underestimation of Importance of English in an Academic Programme ....... 165
5.7.2. Optimism and Overconfidence-Expectations about Academic Programmes . 167
5.8. Theme Four: Language Learning .......................................................................... 171
5.8.1. What Makes a Good Language Learner? ........................................................ 171
5.8.2. Language Learning Strategies ......................................................................... 175
5.8.3. Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute .................................. 176
5.9. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 178
Chapter 6-Conclusion ............................................................................................. 180
6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 180
6.2. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 180
6.2.1. Key Findings: Inside the Classroom ............................................................... 182
6.2.2 Key Findings: Outside the Classroom ............................................................. 185
6.2.3. Key Findings: Individual Learner Factors ...................................................... 187
6.3. Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................ 189
6.4. Methodological Implications ................................................................................ 190
6.5. Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................... 195
6.6. Suggestions for Future Studies .............................................................................. 198
6.6.1. Studies on English Language Learning Destinations Outside the Inner Circle198
6.6.2. Studies on International students Learning English in Malaysia .................... 200
6.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 201
xi
Bibliography................................................................... ..............................................203
Appendices
Appendix A-Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) ............................209
Appendix B-Perceptions of English Language Learning Experience in Malaysia
Questionnaire (PELLEM)........................................................................214
Appendix C-List of Questions for Semi-structured Interview.......................................218
Appendix D-Consent Form...........................................................................................223
Appendix E-BALLI: Initial Factor Solution & Scree Plot............................................227
Appendix F-BALLI: Final Factor Solution ..................................................................230
Appendix G-PELLEM: Initial Factor Solution & Scree Plot .....................................232
Appendix H-PELLEM: Final Factor Solution .............................................................235
xii
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
Figure 2.1. Ellis (2008)’ Framework for Investigating Individual Learner
Differences
30
Figure 3.1. Research Design Flowchart............................................................
58
Figure 6.1. Summary of Key Findings.............................................................
180
Figure 6.2. Key Findings- Factors Inside the Classroom.................................
184
Figure 6.3. Key Findings- Factors Outside the Classroom...............................
186
Figure 6.4. Key Findings: Individual Learner Characteristics.........................
188
xiii
List of Tables
Table Title Page
Table 3.1. The PELLEM Questionnaire..........................................................
68
Table 3.2. Changes Made to the PELLEM based on the Item Reliability
Test.................................................................................................
71
Table 3.3. Results of Inter-Item Reliability of Pilot Study II.........................
73
Table 3.4. Demographics of Interview Participants.......................................
77
Table 4.1. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on Foreign
Language Aptitude........................................................................
85
Table 4.2. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on the
Difficulty of Language Learning…................................................
89
Table 4.3. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on the
Nature of Language Learning........................................................
92
Table 4.4. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on
Learning and Communication Strategies.......................................
95
Table 4.5. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on
Motivation and Expectations..........................................................
97
Table 4.6. Rotated Factor Structure of the BALLI variables..........................
103
Table 4.7. BALLI Factor One: Motivational and Affective Aspects of
Learning English............................................................................
105
Table 4.8. BALLI Factor Two: Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of
Learning English............................................................................
108
Table 4.9. BALLI Factor Three: Formal Learning Beliefs.............................
109
Table 4.10. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on General Opinion
of Learning English in Malaysia....................................................
113
Table 4.11. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Out-of-Class
Experience .....................................................................................
116
Table 4.12. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Perceptions of
English in Malaysian Universities .................................................
119
Table 4.13. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Perceptions of
Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute ................
123
xiv
List of Tables-continued
Table Title Page
Table 4.14. Rotated Factor Structure of the PELLEM variables....................
128
Table 4.15. PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in
Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond ........................................
130
Table 4.16. PELLEM Factor Two-Perceptions of Malaysian English and its
Speakers and Expectations about English Use at Malaysian
Universities...................................................................................
131
Table 4.17. PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of English
Proficiency in Malaysia ...............................................................
132
Table 4.18. Summary of BALLI and PELLEM Factors…..............................
134
Table 4.19. Correlations of BALLI and PELLEM Factor Scores...................
135
Table 4.20. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM
Factor One.....................................................................................
137
Table 4.21. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor One and PELLEM
Factor Three..................................................................................
142
Table 6.1. Statistical Analysis of PELLEM Structure ..................................
193
xv
List of Terms and Abbreviations
BALLI Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory
CALL Computer Aided Language Learning
CEFR Common European Framework
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL English as a Second Language
EAP English for Academic Purposes
IELTS International English Language Testing System
PELLEM Perceptions of English Language Learning Experience in Malaysia
Questionnaire
SLA. Second Language Acquisition
THE Times Higher Education
UCAS Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
xvi
List of Appendices
Table Title Page
Appendix A BALLI Questionnaire.............................................................
209
Appendix B PELLEM Questionnaire.........................................................
214
Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Questions.....................................
218
Appendix D Consent Form..........................................................................
223
Appendix E BALLI: Initial Factor Solution & Scree Plot..........................
227
Appendix F BALLI Final Factor Solution..................................................
230
Appendix G PELLEM: Initial Factor Solution & Scree Plot......................
232
Appendix H PELLEM: Final Factor Solution.............................................
235
1
Chapter 1-Introduction
1.1. Introduction
In recent years, researchers in the area of language learning and teaching have become
increasingly interested in the various demographic, cognitive and affective variables that
make up an individual learner’s contribution to the process of language learning. Among the
variables thought to influence language learning are age, ethnicity, learning style and
personality; and motivation, beliefs and perceptions. Of these variables, beliefs are one of
the few that are susceptible to manipulation by teachers, considering that many individual
learner differences appear to be more stable constructs, for example, personality, learning
style and intelligence. By understanding how learners view the language learning process, a
teacher can identify beliefs that contradict what is currently accepted by language educators
and attempt to correct these beliefs. For example, Bernat (2004) found that more than half
the Vietnamese migrants learning English in her study believed that ‘You shouldn’t say
anything in English until you can say it correctly’. This contradicts a commonly held view
among language teachers that mistakes are an essential part of language learning. The
significance of language learning beliefs is that they are said to influence the way a learner
approaches the task of language learning (Horwitz, 1988; Ellis, 2008), which in turn has
implications on the outcome (Horwitz, 1988). For example, a student who believes mistakes
are detrimental to one’s language proficiency may be less likely to participate in
communicative classroom activities and may even be dissatisfied with a teacher who does
not correct every mistake he makes. If teachers are aware of the misconceptions held by
their learners, they can set out to correct them, for example, by explaining why these beliefs
are misconceptions, or by conducting activities that demonstrate the flaws in these beliefs.
On the other hand, other variables like personality and learning style are inherent to learners
and are difficult to change, whether through the actions of teachers or those of learners
themselves.
2
The term ‘beliefs about language learning’ is used to refer to a learner’s preconceived ideas
about the language learning process that can be formed by past experience, socio-cultural
context (Horwitz, 1999; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006a) and other factors like gender (Bernat &
Lloyd, 2007) stage of learning and learning environment (Tanaka & Ellis, 2003; Horwitz,
1999). Horwitz, who is often credited with pioneering the systematic study of learner
beliefs about language learning, studied these beliefs as stable cognitive constructs, utilising
closed-choice Likert-type questionnaires, in a survey instrument called the Beliefs about
Language Learning Inventory, or BALLI (Horwitz, 1987, 1988). However, more recently,
other researchers such as Barcelos (2000) have argued that language learning beliefs should
not be studied in isolation from the socio-cultural context in which they were formed.
Researchers who take a socio-cultural perspective on beliefs about language learning
advocate the examination of these beliefs as socially-constructed contextualised in the class-
room and experience-based (Barcelos 2000; Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). These researchers
believe that studies on learner beliefs should focus on learning more about how and why
certain beliefs are constructed instead of simply measuring them as numbers on a scale.
While the term ‘beliefs’ is often used in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research to
refer to the notions a learner has about the language learning process, ‘perceptions’ is
generally used in reference to participants’ views or feelings about a wide range of issues,
including matters related to the language learning process. For example, while Horwitz
uses the term ‘beliefs’ in the BALLI, she also uses the term ‘perceptions’, in another paper
focusing on the role of beliefs and language learning anxiety (Horwitz, 1989). In this study,
the term ‘beliefs’ is used to refer to learners’ ideas about the language learning process,
while the term ‘perceptions’ refers to learner’s opinions about factors outside the classroom
in their experience of learning English in Malaysia.
The study of learner beliefs and perceptions is in line with the shift of focus in language
learning and teaching, moving away from generalized views of language learning and
3
towards deeper investigation of individual factors in language learning. In addition,
examining language learning beliefs is the starting point in the process of encouraging
learner autonomy, or self-directed learning, which should be the final goal of any good
language course. Therefore, the value of studying learner beliefs and perceptions lies in the
insight they give us on how learners view the learning process as well as how they view
their present learning situation, with the goal of informing teaching practices and learner
training activities.
Learner training, which is the explicit teaching of language learning strategies to improve
their ability to learn a language, goes hand in hand with the encouragement of learner
autonomy. After a language course has ended, it is often necessary for learners to continue
developing their language skills, particularly in the context of learning English prior to
enrolment in an English medium academic programme. Because of this, learner training has
become a component of language courses which is gaining importance along with the usual
components of language input and skills practice. Since beliefs are thought to affect
language learning success through their influence on a learner’s choice of learning
strategies, beliefs and strategies have been studied together by researchers such as Yang
(1999), who studied the language learning beliefs and strategy use of Taiwanese ESL
learners, and Mokhtari (2007), who studied the language learning beliefs and language
learning strategies of Americans learning Persian. On a related topic, Wenden (1998) states
that metacognitive knowledge, or beliefs about language learning should be a component of
learner training, in addition to teaching learners about effective language learning strategies.
Knowing how learners view the language learning process is useful for both teachers and
administrators. Language teachers can identify unrealistic, or misguided, beliefs which are
affecting a learner’s progress and strategy use while both teachers and administrators may
be able to increase learner satisfaction with a course by adapting classroom activities and
materials to meet, to a certain extent, learner expectations.
4
1.2. Background
English language learning and teaching is becoming an increasingly significant part of
Malaysia’s education industry, as it is in many other parts of the world. The Malaysian
population is made up of three major ethnic communities, with more than three languages or
dialects being spoken widely. Bahasa Malaysia is the official language of Malaysia. In
addition, English, which was the language of the former British colonials, is spoken quite
widely and is the language used in many offices and institutes of higher education, both
public and private. The English spoken by Malaysians is commonly referred to as
Malaysian English, and, even in its standard form, it has numerous differences from British
or American English in terms of vocabulary use, structure and pronunciation. However,
many Malaysians speak a colloquial or ‘low’ dialect of Malaysian English, that has been
referred to as a patois or pidgin (Baskaran, 1994), and this variety is often hard for
foreigners to understand due to its lexical, syntactical and phonological variations. Due to
concerns about the standard of English among Malaysian students, various measures have
been taken to improve English proficiency among locals at both the school and tertiary
levels. Not only is Malaysia a multilingual country with its own host of language related
complications, but the increasing number of international students coming to Malaysia
poses another language-related situation that has become a matter of concern to educators
and administrators in public and private institutes of higher learning. Most international
students will enrol in English medium academic programmes and, in many cases, they may
need to undergo language proficiency courses before being accepted into their intended
academic programme. As beliefs about language learning are considered to influence a
learner's approach, and possibly ultimate success, in language learning, these learners’
assumptions about the language learning process could have implications on their success in
learning English.
5
In addition, the fact that Malaysia is not considered a country where English is a native
language means that these learners will be learning English in a situation that is far different
from that of international students learning English in countries such as the United States,
Australia and the United Kingdom. It is also a slightly different situation from that of
learners of English as a foreign language in their native countries, for example, Taiwanese
learners of English in Taiwan or Turkish learners of English in Turkey. The context of
foreign learners of English in Malaysia differs from that of learners of English in their home
countries as they are learning English whilst simultaneously adapting to a new environment,
both inside and outside the classroom. In addition, when compared to international students
learning English in an English-speaking country, international students in Malaysia face the
added challenge of learning English in an environment in which the variety of English they
encounter outside the classroom may not be the same as the variety they are being taught in
their language course.
1.2.1. World Englishes
Kachru (1985) proposed a model of English language use as being made up of three circles:
namely, the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle, and the Expanding Circle. In Kachru’s model,
the Inner Circle comprises what is known as English-speaking countries: the U.K., the U.S.,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia, while the Outer Circle comprises countries in which
English holds a special place in government and commerce, in other words, former British
colonies such as Malaysia, Singapore, India and Kenya. Furthermore, Expanding Circle
countries are defined as all other countries, in which languages other than English are used
but in which English is steadily gaining importance as a link to international communication
(Kachru, 1985).
A key difference between the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries is that the former
have adopted the English language and made grammatical, lexical and phonological
6
variations leading to the creation of distinct local varieties of English (Kachru, 1985). The
Expanding Circle, on the other hand, prefer to emulate the Inner Circle countries in terms of
grammar, vocabulary and, more significantly, pronunciation. In Expanding Circle countries,
such as Japan, Iran and China, accent training and teaching of colloquialisms are a popular
part of English language teaching. In contrast, in Outer Circle countries acceptance of the
local variety of English is gaining acceptance and people no longer look towards the Inner
Circle countries as a model.
In the past, English language training in Expanding Countries was largely to prepare
students for overseas education in countries such as the United States and the United
Kingdom. These countries, and others such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, were the
traditional destinations for overseas education. However, in recent years, factors such as
foreign exchange values, post-911 immigration regulations and improving standards in
developing nations, have led students around the world to consider other destinations.
Among the countries that have been receiving international students is Malaysia, which has
seen an increase in international student enrolment. In terms of Kachru’s Circles of English,
this has brought about an interaction between the Outer and Expanding Circles.
Learners of English from countries such as Iran, China and Libya, who may have undergone
English language training in their own countries, are now learning English in order to use it
in an Outer Circle country. Often, they are taught by Outer Circle teachers. These students
are then put in a situation where certain factors, such as accent, which were previously
considered important, are no longer valued as much. In addition, they may be exposed to
variants from standard British or American English in their interactions with locals. This
unique situation may have brought about an interesting phenomenon that is significant in
the learning and teaching of English, for example, changes in learner beliefs and conflicts in
learner perceptions about their learning context, teachers and language use.
7
1.2.2. International Students Learning English in Malaysia
The international student group in Malaysia is a mixed group of students. In 2008, Chinese
students made up the largest group of international students followed by Indonesian and
Middle Eastern students (“Foreign students turn”, 2009). However, recent reports have
stated that Iranian students are now the largest student group (“New 120,000-foreign student
target”, 2010). According to statistics from the immigration department, at the end of 2008,
there were at least 12 nations which had more than 500 students each in the country, while
the overall student population came from 148 different countries. In the institution where
this study was conducted, however, the majority of students were from Libya, followed by
Sudan, Somalia and Iraq. Moreover, the faculty at this institute was equally diverse, with
teachers from more than eight different countries, and many of these teachers were teaching
African and the Middle Eastern learners for the first time. Based on the discussions held in
teachers’ meetings, the teachers have found that learner expectations of the language course
and their beliefs about what language learning should involve are often at odds with
teaching practices and classroom activities. For example, many Libyan students profess they
prefer to learn grammar rules than engage in speaking practice and, against their teacher’s
advice, will often take two days’ study leave to ‘revise’ for a simple progress test.
As an administrator and a teacher, I listen to the concerns of these learners on a daily basis
and have found, contrary to my expectations, few learners talk to me about language points
or skills development. Their worries usually concern how various aspects of their learning
situation do not conform to their expectations of what language learning is, or should be.
Some examples of learner comments I have heard include the following: “I am too old for
this.” “If I could talk to native-speakers every day, I would not be in the Beginner level.”
and “If my teacher spoke my first language, learning would be easier.”
From listening to students’ concerns, it has become apparent that the success of a particular
teaching technique or activity is influenced by learner opinions and beliefs. If learners’
8
expectations are not met or if they have negative perceptions of a particular method or
teacher, they may not engage fully in the learning process. It then becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy, whereby the learners’ lack of engagement in the learning process leads to poor
results. Learning a second language is an emotional process, particularly for international
students, who are far from home and under pressure. Examining their beliefs and
perceptions will allow instructors to better understand these learners and others like them
and, hopefully, make changes to teaching practices that will help them face the challenges
of language learning.
1.3. Statement of the Problem
It is generally accepted that a learner’s view of the language learning process, of language
use and of his own ability to learn a language can determine the steps a learner takes to learn
the target language. In addition, as learners are the end-users or clients of language learning
courses, the beliefs a learner has about the language learning process are important because
they can also affect a learner’s satisfaction with the course (Horwitz, 1989). When learners
have realistic beliefs and positive perceptions about their language learning experience, they
are more likely to make good progress in their attempts to learn a language. Likewise,
unrealistic beliefs and negative perceptions can result in failure to learn a language well
because they can lead learners to approach the task of language learning in ineffective ways.
As experience is among the factors thought to play a role in shaping beliefs and socio-
cultural context (Barcelos, 2000; Ellis, 2008), teachers and administrators dealing with
international students may not have an understanding of the experiences and socio-cultural
background that these students bring into the classroom, in the form of their beliefs about
language learning. Because of this, identifying learners’ beliefs about the language learning
process places teachers and administrators in a better position to provide instruction, not
only on the target language, but also on how students should approach language learning.
9
As with other areas of SLA research, research into language learning beliefs has recently
emphasised the socio-cultural approach towards examining the language learning beliefs
held by different groups of learners. This approach highlights the need to understand
language learning beliefs as grounded in the context of individual learners’ current learning
experience, past language learning experiences as well as individual, social and cultural
factors. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the learning environment of each
learner group when examining any aspect of their learning experience, for example, their
language learning beliefs. The language learning experience of international students
learning English in Malaysia involves not only their past learning experiences, but also their
experiences and perceptions related to using the English language, both inside and outside
the classroom. Since the development of language skills depends largely on practising the
target language in authentic situations, factors outside the classroom may play an important
role in these learners’ overall learning experience. Thus, the perceptions held by
international students about Malaysia as an English learning destination will have an impact
upon their language learning beliefs as well as their overall performance and their
satisfaction with their language learning course. In addition, because English proficiency
has far reaching implications on an international student’s academic and social life, the
beliefs and perceptions held by these learners can determine whether a student has a positive
or negative learning experience in Malaysia.
Existing studies on international students in Malaysia have already identified language
issues as being a particularly significant concern to these students and their educators. For
example, Hamzah, Moloudi, and Abdullah (2009) found that international postgraduate
students at a local university were dissatisfied with their language course. Another study by
Kaur (1999) found some dissatisfaction among international postgraduates at another
university with regards to their English placement test. Social issues were also identified by
another researcher, Pandian (2008), who reported that many international students wanted
10
more opportunities to interact with locals, while a few participants also reported
discrimination from local students. Since language is a significant part of international
students’ learning experience, an examination of this group’s beliefs and perceptions about
learning English in Malaysia could provide useful insights that might lead to a better
understanding of the challenges faced by these students. In addition, with more information
about how these learners view language learning and their experience of learning English in
Malaysia, language course providers would be better equipped to design language
programme that cater to this specific group.
In conducting a literature search on international students learning English in Malaysia, it
was found that there is a paucity of data, particularly on international students from Middle
Eastern and African nations, which is an increasingly significant demographic to Malaysian
higher education.. Since little is known about how these students view the process of
language learning, or how they perceive their learning experience, there could be many
social, cultural or educational differences that Malaysian English language teachers will
have to become acquainted with. In addition, most of the recent studies on international
English learners in Malaysia have centred on students who are already enrolled at
university, yet there is a large number of international students undertaking English courses
in various local language schools and colleges for the purpose of applying to Malaysian
universities. Because these language schools and colleges serve as feeders to universities
around the country, the successful teaching and learning of English in these programmes
will have implications not only for those students and teachers in the language centres and
colleges, but also for the educators and university administrators who will eventually be
responsible for proving instruction to these international students.
The research context of this study serves to fill gap in existing research by providing data on
the beliefs and perceptions of international students learning English in Malaysia, in
addition to providing more data on the learning of English by Middle Eastern and African
11
students in this country. Since the participants were enrolled in an English programme at a
local college with the aim of applying to Malaysian universities, this study will also provide
insight into the learning experience of English language learners in this particular context.
1.4. Objectives of the Study
This study aimed to identify the language learning beliefs held by international students
learning English at a local college in addition to exploring their perceptions about learning
English in Malaysia. The objectives of the study were to:
1) to investigate the language learning beliefs of international students learning English at a
college in Kuala Lumpur,
2) to explore the participants’ perceptions of learning English in Malaysia.
3) to identify whether there is a statistical relationship between the participants language
learning beliefs and their perceptions of leaning English in Malaysia.
4) to explore the underlying factors that influence participants’ perceptions of learning
English in Malaysia.
Although the terms ‘beliefs’ and ‘perceptions’ are sometimes used interchangeably, for
the purpose of this study, the term ‘beliefs’ will refer to the beliefs learners have about
the language learning process in general. On the other hand, the term ‘perceptions’ will
be used to refer to learners’ opinions about their language learning experience, more
specifically, about learning English in Malaysia and the learning and teaching activities
at the institution. Data was collected using Elaine K. Horwitz’s Beliefs about Language
Learning Inventory (BALLI) (Horwitz, 1987), a questionnaire about learners’
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia (PELLEM) and a semi-structured interview
in order to answer the research questions which are listed in the next section.
12
1.4.1. Research Questions
In order to fulfil the objectives of the study, four research questions were formulated. With
these research questions, the focus of the research was narrowed to two variables, language
learning beliefs and perceptions of learning English, in the context of international students
learning English in Malaysia. The research questions are listed below.
1) What are the language learning beliefs of international students learning English at a
local college in Kuala Lumpur?
2) What are their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia?
3) Is there a statistically significant relationship between their language learning beliefs and
their perceptions about learning English in Malaysia? and
4) What are the other factors that influence the learners’ perceptions of learning English in
Malaysia?
The research questions above aim to guide the study in finding out more information about
the beliefs and perceptions held by international students learning English in Malaysia.
While a number of similar studies have been conducted in other contexts, the significance of
this study lies in its context, which is that of international students learning English in
Malaysia. The next section will describe the significance of this study.
1.5. Significance of the Study
The context of English as a second language (ESL) learning in Malaysia provides an
interesting opportunity to look at learner beliefs and attitudes in a country where English
holds a special position although it is not a native language to most. ESL studies in
Malaysia have focused largely on Malaysian students; however, there is also a growing
number of international students enrolled in ESL courses. These international students are
an important learner group to the Malaysian Education Industry, which has experienced a
large amount of growth in the past decade. The data collected from the study could be of
direct benefit to the participants of the study as it will identify any beliefs that might have a
13
negative impact on their language learning and highlight specific problems the participants
are facing as English learners in Malaysia. The teachers in the college would be able to
address participants’ misconceptions about language learning as well as suggest ways in
which they could better develop their language skills outside the classroom. In addition,
since most international students enrolled at the college in question are of the same
nationalities as the participants, the teachers and administrators at this college would be able
to use the findings to improve the Intensive English course that the participants were
enrolled in. This study would also be invaluable to other language teachers and
administrators dealing with this student group and the universities to which these students
are applying. In addition, the study will also provide data that will have implications for the
education industry in Malaysia. The next sub-section will give a brief overview of the
internationalisation of the Malaysian Education Industry and the role of English in
Malaysia’s goal to develop this industry into an education hub for students from around the
world.
1.5.1. The Education Industry in Malaysia
In March 2009, Malaysia surpassed its target of 80,000 international students, prompting the
Higher Education ministry to set a higher target of 120,000 international students by 2015
(“New 120,000-foreign student target”, 2010). According to the Minister of Higher
Education, there were 75,000 international students enrolled in Malaysian colleges and
universities in 2008, which was a forty percent increase from the previous year (“Foreign
students turn”, 2009). The Ministry has also announced the government’s intention to
develop the country into an education hub in the region. While the majority of international
students in Malaysia come from Asian countries, an increasing number of students from the
Middle East (“Foreign students turn”, 2009) and Africa are enrolling in undergraduate,
postgraduate and other tertiary level academic courses. According to Sirat (2008), the post-
911 visa requirements in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have
14
resulted in an opportunity for the Malaysian Education industry to grow. The country now
sees a much higher influx of students from the Middle East and Africa, and, according to the
most recent reports, students from Iran have now overtaken those from China and Indonesia
as the largest population of international students (“New 120,000-foreign student target”,
2010). Regardless of their country of origin, many of these students will need to take
language courses to meet university language proficiency requirements.
However, there is a paucity of data about aspects of ESL learning by international students
in Malaysia. In addition, there have been very few studies on the language learning beliefs
and perceptions of this student group. As language proficiency has academic and social
implications, understanding the beliefs and attitudes of the different groups of foreign ESL
learners in Malaysia will enable educators to better meet their needs; thereby, facilitating
their entry to academic programmes as well as their interactions with the local and
expatriate communities.
The ultimate success of these international students in acquiring the level of proficiency
necessary to cope with academic study in English and life in Malaysia has long-term
implications. Firstly, from the monetary aspect, the tuition fees paid by international
students make up a significant portion of the potential earnings of both public and private
institutes. In addition, other industries, such as housing, automobile, entertainment and
leisure, will also benefit from catering to this group of consumers, who will bring foreign
exchange into the country. More importantly, the positive experiences and academic
achievements of international students in Malaysian educational institutes will attract
students from other nations. Increased internationalisation of local campuses will not only
enhance global recognition of local institutes but also promote an increase in the standards
of local colleges and universities, which will benefit local students as well. The success of
existing international students is a key factor that will determine whether Malaysia is to
succeed in becoming an education hub which attracts well-qualified students from around
15
the world. Considering the social and academic functions of language, the effective learning
and teaching of English as a second language to this student group would play a major role
in this equation. Therefore, this study will provide useful information not only on the
participants’ language learning beliefs, but also on their perceptions of context and course
specific factors related to learning English in Malaysia. While this section has described the
importance of this study in relation to the Malaysian education industry, the following
section looks at the significance of this study in terms of research into learner beliefs and
perceptions.
1.5.2. Research into Learner Beliefs & Perceptions
Language learning beliefs have been studied in a variety of cultural contexts, with different
learner groups and target languages. For example, using the BALLI and other
questionnaires, researchers have examined the language learning beliefs of international
ESL learners in the United States (Horwitz, 1988), English for Academic Purpose (EAP)
learners in Australia (Bernat, 2006) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in
Taiwan (Yang, 1999), Turkey (Altan, 2006) and Finland (Rantala, 2002).
In Malaysia, the BALLI has been used by Nikitina and Furuoka (2006, 2006a, 2007) to
examine the language learning beliefs of Malaysian university students learning Russian as
a foreign language. Up to the time of writing, the language learning beliefs of international
students learning English in Malaysia have yet to be described. Although this study will
generate useful information for stakeholders in the Malaysian education industry and
researchers looking at learner beliefs and perceptions, there are also certain limitations to
the applicability of the data collected. These limitations, as well as the scope of the study,
will be outlined in the next section.
16
1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study involved a small group of participants studying in one college in Kuala Lumpur.
In addition to the relatively small sample of 102 participants, the results were also limited
by the nationalities of the participants, who were largely from the Middle East and Africa.
Thus, the results of this study cannot be generalised to the greater population of
international students in Malaysia.
Another limitation of the study was that it largely depends on self-reports from participants.
Both the questionnaires and interviews relied on the responses provided by participants. In
such situations, there is always the risk that participants respond in the way they believe
they should respond, and not in the way they really feel. Nevertheless, using both
questionnaires and interviews enabled triangulation of the data.
1.7. Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the background to the study as well as provided a statement of the
problem. In addition, the objectives of the study along with the research questions were
presented in this introductory chapter. Finally, the significance of the study was discussed.
The following chapters are ordered as follows: Chapter Two reviews the relevant literature
on language learning beliefs as well as learner perceptions. Next, Chapter Three presents a
discussion of the methodology used in this study, including the research design, the
participants, instruments, data collection methods, research questions and data analysis
methods. The results of this study have been divided into two chapters, Chapter Four and
Chapter Five. Chapter Four presents the quantitative results and discussion of the BALLI
and PELLEM questionnaires. This is followed by the qualitative results and discussion of
the semi-structured interviews in Chapter Five. The final chapter, Chapter Six, summarises
the key findings of the study and their implications as well as recommendations for future
research.
17
Chapter 2-Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
The objectives of this study, as described in the previous chapter, are to explore the beliefs
about language learning held by learners of English as a second language, and examine the
perceptions they have of their language learning experience in Malaysia. The study takes its
cue from existing research into learner beliefs and perceptions. The notion that the cognitive
and affective aspects of individual learners play a significant role in both the process and
product of language learning (Horwitz, 1987; Ellis, 2008) has prompted investigations into
learner beliefs about the language learning process as well as into learner attitudes or
perceptions towards contextual aspects of their learning situation. This chapter presents the
theoretical framework of this study and reviews the literature related to the beliefs and
perceptions held by language learners regarding different aspects of the language learning
process. To begin with, the review of literature summarizes existing research on beliefs
about language learning, starting with a discussion of beliefs and learning. Within the same
topic of language learning beliefs, the summary of research moves on to cover different
definitions of beliefs about language learning, which leads to an overview of the approaches
used to measure this construct. The sections on beliefs about language learning close with a
detailed discussion of the BALLI questionnaire (Horwitz, 1987) and the findings of several
relevant BALLI and BALLI-inspired studies in different learning contexts. After the
discussion of literature related to beliefs about language learning, the literature review
proceeds to discuss the second variable in this study, learner perceptions. Since studies on
learner perceptions have focused on a wide range of aspects, both inside and outside the
classroom, only perception studies related to international students, classroom factors and
learning environment in higher education were considered relevant to the focus of this
study. Finally, the literature review ends by reviewing several studies which are pertinent to
18
the context of international students learning English in Malaysia: studies on international
students in Malaysia and studies on learning English in Outer Circle countries.
2.2. Beliefs, Knowledge and Learning
In Chapter One, a distinction was made between the terms ‘beliefs’ and ‘perceptions’ as
used in this study, with the former being used to describe learners’ notions about language
learning in general, and the latter referring to the way learners view the specifics of their
learning context. However, what is termed as ‘beliefs’ in this study has been studied under
many different terms by various researchers. Bernat & Gvozdenko (2005) cite a number of
different terms used by researchers who have studied language learning beliefs, including
‘conceptions of learning’ (Benson & Lor, 1999), ‘assumptions’ (Riley, 1980), and ‘mini-
theories’ (Hosenfeld, 1978). Wenden (1998) has also referred to the same construct as
‘metacognitive knowledge’. While these terms have been used specifically in terms of
language learning, learning psychology has also looked at learner beliefs about knowledge
and knowing in general, also known as ‘epistemic beliefs’ (Beuhl, 2008). In terms of
language learning and teaching, however, the terms ‘metacognitive knowledge’ and
‘language learning beliefs’ are the most commonly used terms to refer to the preconceived
ideas about learning a language that learners bring into a language course.
Beliefs can be defined as an individual’s representations of the world, whether correct or
incorrect. According to Nola and Gurol (2005), most of our beliefs are not constantly
present in our minds. Instead, they are accessed only when a certain stimulus, such as a
question, evokes them (Nola & Gurol, 2005). Essentially, there is no clear way of
distinguishing beliefs and knowledge, as beliefs are independent of truth. In addition, Nola
and Gurol (2005) state that beliefs can be affected (by experience) and can affect (our
actions). It is this feature of beliefs that has the greatest bearing on learning and teaching
because what learners believe about the language learning process will influence the way
19
they approach it (Horwitz, 1988; Ellis, 2008), particularly in the strategies they choose.
Consequently, strategy choice determines how well learners progress in their attempts to
learn a language.
Thus, conceptions of how languages are learned are invisible, but highly influential, factors
in the language learning classroom, on the part of both teachers and students. In the case of
teachers, language learning beliefs influence the methods and activities they use to teach a
particular language. Similarly, how learners view the language learning process and their
learning context determines the way they respond to and participate in teaching and learning
activities in the classroom and during self-study. It is understandable then, that learner
beliefs have captured the attention of many researchers in the field of second language
acquisition. The importance of learner beliefs about language learning to this field of study
will be discussed in further detail in the following section.
2.3. The Importance of Language Learning Beliefs in Second Language Acquisition
Research
The move away from teacher-centred classrooms towards a learner-centred approach has
shifted the focus of research in language learning and teaching towards the learner as an
individual. Individual learner differences thought to influence language acquisition have
included various physical, cognitive and affective factors, such as age and gender, aptitude
and beliefs, as well as anxiety and attitudinal factors. Horwitz (1989:62) defines beliefs
about language learning as “preconceived ideas about the language-learning process rather
than attitudes toward the target language and the target language group”. The examination
of these beliefs as a key factor in language learning seems to be of particular relevance to
the context of foreign language learners learning English because of the special status of
English as a language of commerce and education around the world. The international status
of English and its multitude of speakers mean that socio-cultural theory, such as
Schumann’s Acculturation model for second language acquisition (Schumann, 1978), would
20
be somewhat unsuited to application in many English language learning contexts around the
world. This is because the concept of ‘social distance’ from the community which speaks
the target language has limited relevance to the context of learners who are trying to
improve their English language skills to communicate with other non-native speakers of
English, for example, in English-medium education in a country where English is not the
native language. In situations like these, there is no clear ‘target language group’; therefore,
‘acculturation’ may not come into play in the process of language learning. On the other
hand, belief theory, which connects a priori beliefs to ultimate success in the language
learning classroom, could be of particular importance in explaining the problem of variable
success in language learning by English language learners around the world. Also, as beliefs
are among the few individual learner differences that can be modified by teachers (Horwitz,
1987), research in this area could translate into improvements in the teaching and learning
of languages.
Flavell (1979) describes ‘metacognitive knowledge’ as being a determining factor in a
variety of cognitive activities related to language learning, language acquisition and self-
instruction. He further states that beliefs can be deliberately activated, for example, when
tasks are new or when learning has been incorrect or incomplete; beliefs can also be
automatically activated when evoked by cues within a task (Flavell, 1979).
Research on language learning beliefs across various contexts has pointed to a clear link
between the beliefs held by learners and the strategies they choose. From her study of EFL
learners in Taiwan, Yang (1999) suggested that there was a close relationship between
learner beliefs and strategy. Other studies, such as those conducted by Hong (2006) on ESL
learners, also found a relationship between language learning beliefs and strategies. Park
(1995), on the other hand, found a medium link between the two variables and stated that
the relationship varied based on individual beliefs and strategies. Other areas in which
language learning beliefs are thought to play a significant role include learner training and
21
autonomy. Wenden (1986) and Coterall (1995) advocate the investigation of learner beliefs
as a first step towards improving learner autonomy, while Mantle-Bromley (1995) linked
positive attitudes and realistic beliefs to learner proficiency.
2.4. Definitions of Language Learning Beliefs in Second Language Acquisition
Research
While researchers working in this area tend to agree on the link between language learning
beliefs and how learners approach the learning process (Horwitz, 1987, 1999; Wenden,
1998; Coterall, 1995; Ellis, 2008), they differ in their views on the nature of learner beliefs
as well as the ways in which they conceptualise and measure them. The main approaches to
studying language learning beliefs will be described in this section. The conceptualisation
of beliefs in SLA research largely derives from different schools of psychological theory.
Cognitive theory views learner beliefs as a part of ‘metacognitive knowledge’, but this
definition was adopted by Wenden (1999) and is used interchangeably with ‘beliefs’ in
second language acquisition research. Constructivist psychology, on the other hand,
contributes the notion of learning as a construction of theories (Wenden, 1999). The term
‘learner representations’ is used when beliefs are seen to be constructed from a learners’
representation of an experience, according to the way he perceives it. Other terminology
used in second language acquisition to refer to beliefs, such as, ‘naive psychology of
learning’ and ‘mini-theories’ are also derived from constructivist psychology (Wenden,
1998; Sakui and Gaies, 1999). Social psychology, conversely, highlights the socio-cultural
context in belief formation as a result of a person’s life and educational experiences (Sakui
and Gaies, 1999).
In second language acquisition research, beliefs are widely viewed from the cognitive
perspective. For example, Wenden (1999) uses Flavell’s cognitivist definition of
metacognitive knowledge as “the specialised portion of a learner’s acquired knowledge
base, which consists of what learners know about learning and to the extent a learner has
22
made distinction, language learning” (Wenden, 1999:44). Furthermore, Wenden (1999)
provides three dimensions of metacognitive knowledge: task knowledge, person knowledge
and strategic knowledge. In other words, language learning beliefs can be classified as those
which focus on the learning task, the learner, or the process of learning (Wenden, 1999).
Horwitz (1989), on the other hand, restricts her definition of learners’ language learning
beliefs as referring only to beliefs related to the language learning process in particular and
pays little attention to the role of beliefs about learning in general to a learner's beliefs about
language learning. Another conceptualization of language learning beliefs comes from Yang
(1999), who studied language learning beliefs and strategies of ESL learners in Taiwan. She
proposed a theoretical construct of beliefs as comprising metacognitive and motivational
aspects. Beliefs have also been distinguished based on type and level of analysis, in other
words, whether the beliefs are generalised or specific.
In addition to differing conceptualisations of language learning beliefs, researchers also hold
different views on certain aspects of beliefs. Among the commonly debated aspects are the
stability of beliefs and the extent to which they are influenced by culture and context. The
following sub-sections present an overview of the discussions on these elements of beliefs.
2.4.1. The Issue of Stability of Language Learning Beliefs
Initially, beliefs about language learning were thought to be stable constructs and were
distinguished from knowledge by their ‘idiosyncratic’ and ‘value-related’ nature, which
Wenden (1998) interpreted as meaning that they would be less likely to change (Wenden,
1998). However, research is beginning to show that there is more variability in these beliefs,
depending on the type of beliefs they are and the level of analysis involved in their
formation. Studies that attempt to examine shifts in language learning beliefs, for example
those conducted by Lee (2007) and Peacock (2001), have shown that beliefs do change as a
result of learning experience. Lee’s (2007) study on the metacognitive beliefs of Korean
23
learners of English at different stages of a study abroad programme found changes in beliefs
as a result of experience; however, Peacock’s study on the language learning beliefs held by
pre-service English teachers over a three year period identified three key beliefs that remain
the same (Peacock, 2001). As described in this section, there has been some difference in
findings about whether beliefs are static or whether they change over time. In addition,
researchers have also disagreed on whether culture and context have an influence on
language learning beliefs. Several studies in this area will be summarised in the next
section.
2.4.2. Culture, Context and Language Learning Beliefs
Since the first implementation of the 34-item BALLI in 1987, it has been applied to many
different contexts by researchers around the world. The findings of these BALLI studies
have prompted debate on another aspect of language learning beliefs: Do culture and
context influence beliefs? More than a decade after the BALLI was introduced, Horwitz
(1999) reviewed seven BALLI studies involving different groups of learners to identify
patterns of similarities and differences across cultures and groups. She found certain
differences from one group to another, for example, the American foreign language learners
had different beliefs about the difficulty of language learning when compared to the Asian
and Turkish ESL learners (Horwitz, 1999). In addition, the ESL learners were more likely to
view learning vocabulary as being crucial to good language learning than the American
groups. Despite these and other differences, Horwitz concluded that there was still not
enough evidence to suggest that language learning beliefs are culturally influenced. In
addition, there was quite a lot of variation within groups, leading Horwitz to propose that
contextual differences, such as learning situation, may have a greater influence on learner
beliefs.
24
Siebert (2003) conducted a BALLI study on a group of mixed nationality students learning
English for Academic Purposes in the United States. Although her results showed many
similarities to other BALLI studies, Siebert noted that Middle Eastern students tended to
underestimate the time it takes to learn a language (Siebert, 2003). This was noted by Bernat
(2006), who compared the beliefs of EAP learners in Australia to those of EAP learners in
America as studied by Siebert. Despite noting that her study included more Asian students,
Bernat (2006) concluded that learner beliefs were not context-specific as the beliefs of both
groups of learners were similar in all categories. In cautiously rejecting the influence of
context, or any single factor, on learner beliefs, Bernat suggests that it is the “individual's
complex metacognitive structure, as affected by a number of social, cultural, contextual,
cognitive, affective and personal factors, that is responsible for shaping the nature and
strength of these beliefs" (Bernat, 2006: 222). This view is more compatible with the socio-
cultural or contextual perspective, used by researchers such as Barcelos (2000), Rantala
(2002) and Alanen (2003), which will be discussed later in this chapter.
To summarize, the last few sections have described various ways of conceptualizing beliefs
about language learning, by describing how different perspectives differ in the way they
define beliefs, different views on the stability of beliefs, and perspectives on the influence of
culture and context on beliefs about language learning.
2.5. Approaches to Measuring Beliefs about Language Learning
A researcher’s approach to measuring beliefs is shaped by his or her definition of beliefs. In
general, there are three methods that have been used in the identification and classification
of learners’ beliefs about language learning: the normative approach, the metacognitive
approach and the contextual approach (Ellis, 2008; Barcelos, 2000). In this section, these
three approaches will be discussed along with an additional approach referred to by Ellis
(2008) as ‘the metaphorical approach’. The discussion on approaches to studying language
25
learning beliefs will begin with one of the most commonly used approaches, which is the
normative approach.
2.5.1. Normative Approach
The normative approach views beliefs primarily as determinants of future actions and tends
to describe language learning beliefs as ‘misconceptions’, ‘preconceived notions’, and even
‘myths’ (Horwitz, 1989), where the fallibility of learners’ ideas is often highlighted. In
addition, this approach tends to disregard the evolutionary nature of beliefs, by measuring
them as stable entities on a Likert-type scale of responses. Most studies using the normative
approach have measured language learning beliefs quantitatively by using the BALLI,
adaptations of the BALLI and other closed-choice questionnaires. Furthermore, the
normative approach reports findings in the form of patterns of similarities and differences
across groups using statistical description. Horwitz (1999) has stated that the focus of her
studies has been to find commonality across groups. Although this approach has been
criticised for reducing what is essentially a rich and “messy” construct (Beuhl, 2008;
Pajares, 1992) to numerical form and limiting responses to a set of statements, the
normative approach is still widely used as it offers the opportunity to study large quantities
of data and facilitates the identification of patterns of beliefs within student groups. In
addition, it allows statistical correlation to identify links between beliefs and other factors
such as proficiency, gender and nationality. In the present study, the normative approach has
been used as the basis for identifying the beliefs of a learner group that has not been studied
much. To provide more context-specific data and to address the weaknesses of the
normative approach of measuring beliefs about language learning, the BALLI questionnaire
has been supplemented with qualitative research methods. As the BALLI provides the
theoretical framework for this study, BALLI and BALLI-inspired studies will be discussed
in more detail in later sections of this chapter. The following section, however, continues
26
our discussion on the main approaches to studying beliefs with a discussion of the
metacognitive approach.
2.5.2. Metacognitive Approach
The metacognitive approach views beliefs in generally the same way as in the normative
approach. Wenden, who pioneered the metacognitive approach at around the same time as
Horwitz’s formulation of the BALLI, based much of her conception of beliefs on theories of
knowledge about learning proposed by cognitive psychologist, Flavell (Wenden, 1999). As
in the normative approach, learners’ knowledge about language learning is viewed as an
indicator of success and autonomy (Barcelos, 2000). Wenden (1998) also refers to
Vygotskian socio-cultural theory, which highlights the social setting. This comprises
socially-acquired assumptions of roles, means and goals, as being the main contributors to
the development of higher-order mental functions. However, Wenden points out that the
socio-cultural perspective often overlooks the role of these assumptions in shaping the
setting, while highlighting the influence of the ‘social setting’ in shaping the assumptions.
Studies of learner beliefs from the metacognitive perspective usually employ open-ended
interviews as a means of data collection (Ellis, 2008). However, Rantala (2002) used a
questionnaire comprising statements representing the two of the three components of
metacognitive knowledge as defined by Wenden and Flavell: strategic knowledge, person
knowledge and task knowledge. In her study, person knowledge and task knowledge were
broken down further into components such as universal attributes of learners; family factors;
personality and motivation, and purpose of learning English; nature of learning English;
learning in different settings and learning in classroom settings (Rantala, 2002). The
advantage of the metacognitive approach to measuring language learning beliefs is that the
semi-structured interviews and self-report data collection techniques often used in this
approach allow learners’ beliefs to be stated in their own words. In addition, they are not
restricted to expressing opinions on beliefs selected by a researcher, as in the Likert-type
27
questionnaires used in the BALLI. However, this approach has been criticised for using
learner statements as the only source of data, thereby isolating learner beliefs from their
context and treating them as abstract mental states (Barcelos, 2000). Critics of both the
normative and metacognitive approach have advocated measuring learner beliefs using the
contextual approach which will be discussed in the next section.
2.5.3. Contextual Approach
The contextual approach, or the socio-cultural approach (Bernat, 2008), advocates a holistic
approach to measuring learner beliefs, by viewing them as “embedded in students’
contexts” (Barcelos, 2000:60), instead of as metacognitive states that can be measured by
questionnaires and presented as quantitative data. Beliefs are viewed as ‘socially-
constructed representation systems’ and therefore cannot be studied in isolation from
context. This approach usually utilises qualitative research methods, which most often
comprise multiple data collection methods including diaries, observation, journals and
ethnography. The purpose of combining different methods, allows researchers to examine
learner beliefs in their context. The contextual approach provides rich data, going beyond
the measurement of beliefs to examining the experiences that lead to conception of beliefs.
Studies using this approach are usually conducted on a small-scale because the focus is
more on a deep understanding of several learners’ beliefs and their underlying factors, rather
than measuring the beliefs of large groups of learners. In addition to the three approaches
already discussed, there have been a number of studies which use metaphor to get an
understanding of learners’ conceptions of matters related to language learning. This
approach will be discussed in the next section.
2.5.4. Metaphorical Approach
According to Ellis (2008), a fourth approach to measuring learner beliefs involves using
metaphors to draw out learner beliefs about language learning. This approaches views
28
beliefs as being covert and best studied indirectly (Ellis, 2008). Ellis (2008) describes
metaphors as the windows through which learner beliefs can be viewed. Studies using this
approach generally apply qualitative research methods in metaphor analysis to examine
language learning beliefs, for example, studies by Ellis (2002), Nikitina & Furuoka (2008)
and Farrell (2006). The metaphorical approach most often utilises questionnaires and
journals to collect data, from which metaphors are identified during analysis. Metaphors are
then grouped under main themes. Nikitina and Furuoka (2008), for example, gave a list of
incomplete sentences (e.g. A language teacher is like....) to 23 learners of Russian at a
Malaysian university to identify learner perceptions of language teachers. The 27 metaphors
that resulted, which included items such as ‘vitamins’, ‘discovery channel’ and ‘big lorry’,
were then grouped according to four emergent aspects: social order, cultural transmission,
learner-centred growth and social reformer. Ellis (2008) reports on his 2002 metaphor study
in which six adult learners of German kept language learning diaries. These diaries were
later analysed for metaphorical language to examine learner perceptions of the language
learning process (Ellis, 2008). The most common metaphors found in the data were of
‘Learning as a Journey’ and ‘Learning as a Puzzle’. Metaphors are also used in the
contextual approach to measuring language learning beliefs. The metaphorical approach is
less commonly used when studying language learning beliefs; however, its use is becoming
more common.
This section has discussed the four main approaches to studying language learning beliefs,
which are the normative approach, the metacognitive approach, the contextual approach and
the metacognitive approach. SLA researchers who look at the language learning process
from a constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives have criticised the cognitive approach
for what they consider a simplistic view of and approach to studying beliefs. Barcelos
(2000), who advocates a socio-constructivist approach, states that the metacognitive, or
mainstream, approach isolates learner beliefs from the environment and experiences which
29
played a role in their formation (Barcelos, 2000). Dufva (2003, as cited in Gabillon, 2005)
also rejects the cognitive approach stating that too much emphasis is given to individual
mental states without any consideration for the influence of external contextual factors on
the formation of these mental states, or beliefs. The socio-cultural context referred to here
not only includes classroom interaction among learners and teachers, but also encompasses
the socio-cultural forces at play in terms of the language being learned and its speakers, as
well as all the experiences that have shaped the learner prior to beginning the learning
process.
While many researchers have opted to investigate learner beliefs exclusively from one side
of the cognitive-sociocultural divide, other researchers are now advocating a more inclusive
perspective using both normative or metacognitive approach and the socio-cultural
approach. This is done through mixed methods research, for example, by combining a
questionnaire with interviews or observation and allows group patterns in learner beliefs to
be identified while facilitating the examination of learner beliefs on an individual level.
Bernat & Gvozdenko (2005) trace the development of various perspectives on studying
learner beliefs and parallels these perspectives to the major approaches in SLA research;
cognitive, socio-cultural and ecological approaches. While acknowledging the major
contribution that the psycho-cognitive perspective has made in initiating a systematic
method of studying beliefs, Bernat & Gvozdenko propose a more holistic approach towards
studying language learning beliefs and other aspects of SLA in general (Bernat &
Gvozdenko, 2005). Similarly, Gabillon (2005) asserts that no single approach is sufficient to
account for the complexity of learner beliefs.
2.5.5. Conceptual Framework
In SLA research, beliefs and perceptions fall within a broad category usually referred to as
‘individual learner differences’. As stated earlier in this dissertation, individual learner
30
differences include biological factors such as age and gender, cognitive factors such as
beliefs and aptitude, and affective factors such as anxiety, perceptions and attitudinal
factors. Many researchers have attempted to categorise the individual learner differences,
for example, Altman (1980, as cited in Ellis, 2008b), Skehan (1989) and Larsen, Freeman
and Long (1991). According to Ellis (2008b), although the researchers examining individual
learner differences agree on the importance of these factors in second language learning,
they often differ in their classification of these differences, as well as the terms used to
define different constructs. Ellis (2008b) further contends that in comparing the
categorization of individual learner differences as proposed by Altman (1980, as cited in
Ellis, 2008b), Skehan (1989) and Larsen, Freeman and Long (1991), “...the constructs...are
often vague and overlap in indeterminate ways,” (Ellis, 2008b: 171). In order to solve this
problem, Ellis (2008b) put forward a ‘Framework for Investigating Individual Learner
Differences’, which is depicted in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Ellis (2008b)’s Framework for Investigating Individual Learner
Differences.
Ellis’s framework creates a model for the assertions of researchers who have been
investigating various individual learner differences. For example, Elaine Horwitz, who was
among the pioneers of language learning beliefs research, states that language learning
beliefs have an effect on language learning outcome (Horwitz, 1987). In Ellis’s (2008b)
(1) Individual Learner Differences -beliefs about language learning -affective states -general factors
(2) Learner Strategies
(3) Language Learning Outcomes -on proficiency -on rate of learning -on rate of acquisition
Learning Processes and Mechanisms
31
model, there are three main components which interact with each other in second language
learning: individual learner differences, learning strategies and learning outcomes. The
relationship among the three components occurs within the context of ‘learning processes
and mechanisms’ (Ellis, 2008b). Ellis further states that individual learner differences,
learning strategies and learning outcome are interrelated in many different ways. For
example, while language learning beliefs can affect learning outcomes through the learner’s
choice of strategy, learning outcomes could also cause learners to change their strategies
and beliefs, or have an impact on their affective states.
In the context of this study, it is Ellis’s categorization of individual learner differences that
is deemed to be relevant. In his model, Ellis divides individual learner differences into three
types: beliefs about language learning, affective states and general factors. The first type of
individual learner difference in Ellis’s model (Ellis, 2008b) is beliefs about language
learning, which have been studied by Horwitz (1987, 1988, 1999) in the BALLI and
Wenden (1988, 1989). The next type of individual learner difference is affective states,
which covers a broad range of emotive and psychological aspects including learner anxiety,
confidence and perceptions of progress. Finally, the third type of individual learner beliefs
is what Ellis described as general factors, which is also very broad-ranging and includes
age, gender, personality, learning style and foreign language aptitude. According to Ellis,
the first two categories of individual learner differences: beliefs about language learning and
affective states are affected by experience, while general factors differ depending on the
specific variable. For example, age is a stable factor but learning styles could be modified
either by the learners themselves or their environments. Ellis further states that in addition
to the interrelation between learner strategies, individual learner differences and learning
outcome, the three categories of individual learner differences are also interrelated (Ellis,
2008b). He puts forward the example of how personality factors might affect a learner’s
language learning beliefs and affective response to their learning context. According to Ellis
32
(2008b) while language learning beliefs tend to be stable, affective states can vary from one
day to another, or even from one moment to another in response to aspects of their learning
context, for example, the activities conducted in class.
In discussing individual learner differences, Ellis contends that it is these factors that
provide insight into why language learners achieve variable success, both in terms of speed
of learning as well as the level of proficiency they are able to achieve. He states that “A full
account of how learners differ with regard to how, how much, and how fast they learn a L2
will need to take account of both social and psychological factors, and how these
interact”(Ellis, 2008b:169).
In this study, Ellis’s (2008b) framework provides a foundation for the exploration of two
individual learner differences of international students in Malaysia, namely their language
learning beliefs and perceptions of their learning experience. Although Ellis (2008b)
discusses affective states as being responses to specific classroom factors, he also highlights
the relationship between learning context and affective states. Therefore, it can be
concluded that in the case of the international students involved in this study, their
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia, both inside and outside the classroom, are
linked to their affective states. These perceptions, along with participants’ language learning
beliefs, are likely to play a role in their learning strategies and learning outcomes. In
addition, there is a need to investigate the possibility of a relationship between these two
variables in order to better understand how they are linked to the participants’ success or
failure in learning English.
This section has discussed Ellis’s (2008b) framework for investigating individual learner
differences in order to provide the basis for investigating the beliefs about language learning
and perceptions of the international students learning English in Malaysia. As demonstrated
by Ellis (2008b), the individual differences of learners are interrelated with their success or
33
failure and these individual differences include language learning beliefs as well as learner
perceptions. In the following sections, relevant studies that have been conducted on the two
variables, learner beliefs and learner perceptions, will be discussed. To begin with, the
following section will focus on the BALLI instrument, which was based on the normative
approach as discussed in section 2.5.1. The BALLI is of particular significance to this study
as it was used to collect data on participants’ beliefs about language learning.
2.6. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)
One of the most extensively used instruments for measuring the language learning beliefs of
learners, is the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), a questionnaire
developed by Elaine K. Horwitz in the 1980s to measure the language learning beliefs of
language teachers in the United States. The “Teacher BALLI” initially comprised 27
statements on various aspects of the language learning process, and was later developed into
two other versions the Foreign Language BALLI and the ESL BALLI. The version most
often used is the ESL BALLI (Horwitz, 1987) which lists 34 statements on five different
themes identified by Horwitz, as a result of brainstorming sessions with teachers, and later
with language students. The themes in the BALLI questionnaire are: Foreign Language
Aptitude, Difficulty of Language Learning, the Nature of Language Learning, Language
Learning Strategies and Learning and Communication (Horwitz, 1987). Applying this
instrument to different groups of language learners at the University of Texas, Horwitz
identified learner beliefs and found commonality across learner groups (Horwitz, 1987).
Although Kuntz (1996) points out that the BALLI originated from teachers’ opinions of
what language learners believed, and, therefore is not entirely appropriate for measuring the
language learning beliefs held by learners, Horwitz (1987) states that the later versions of
the BALLI were tested in focus groups which included both foreign language and ESL
learners from a variety of countries. Since the BALLI offered researchers the opportunity to
34
measure the language learning beliefs of large groups of learners, it has been used on a
variety of learner groups throughout the world over the last two decades. Some of these
studies will be reviewed in the next section.
2.6.1. BALLI Studies
Since Horwitz’s early BALLI studies, the BALLI has been used by many researchers to
investigate the language learning beliefs of different learner groups, with varied target
languages and learning contexts. These include foreign language learners in the United
States (Horwitz, 1988), EAP learners in the U.S. (Siebert, 2003) and Australia (Bernat,
2006), and EFL learners in Turkey (Altan, 2006), Korea (Park, 1995; Hong, 2006) and
Finland (Rantala, 2002). Due to the extensive use of the BALLI, it would be time-
consuming and unnecessary to list all the studies that have used this questionnaire to
measure learner beliefs. Therefore, only those studies conducted on learners of English or
considered relevant to the context of this study will be focused on. These studies will be
outlined in the following sub-sections in two categories: BALLI studies of ESL and EAP
learners in Other Countries and BALLI studies in Malaysia (ESL and Foreign Language).
For the purpose of this study, no distinction will be made between ESL and EFL, and the
term ESL will be used to refer to the learning of English regardless of the context.
2.6.2. BALLI Studies of English Learners in Other Countries
There have been several BALLI studies in countries such as the United States, Australia,
Korea and Turkey. First, BALLI studies in the United States and Australia, both countries in
which English is a native language, will be discussed. This will be followed by a review of
several BALLI studies in Korea and Turkey. Siebert (2003) conducted a study on the
language learning beliefs of EAP learners North American universities and colleges. The
purpose of Siebert’s study was to identify commonly held beliefs as well as variations
among the group, in addition to establishing whether variables such as gender and
35
nationality had an influence on the beliefs (Siebert, 2003). Findings showed that gender had
a significant effect on beliefs as there were marked differences in the language learning
beliefs held by male students when compared to those held by female students. For instance,
male students were more confident of their language learning abilities and more optimistic
about their potential success in the course they were taking (Siebert, 2003). There were also
some common beliefs held by students of the same culture or nationality, which differed
from those of other nationality groups, for example, the higher confidence levels of the
Middle Eastern students in Siebert’s study (Siebert, 2003). Bernat (2006) conducted a
BALLI study of international students learning EAP in Australia, and compared her results
to those of Siebert (2003) in order to identify whether learning context had any influence on
language learning beliefs. Overall, Bernat’s (2006) findings corresponded with those of
Siebert (2003), which led her to conclude that there is not enough evidence to conclude that
learner beliefs are context-specific. However, this view is contradicted by the findings of
other researchers, for example, Tanaka & Ellis (2003), who studied the shift in beliefs of
Japanese learners of English using a questionnaire they had developed specifically for the
Japanese context.
In addition to BALLI studies in English-speaking countries, researchers have used the
BALLI to measure the language learning beliefs of English learners in countries including
Turkey (Altan 2006; Oz 2007), Lebanon (Diab, 2006) and Korea (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995;
Hong, 2006). In these studies, learning English is conducted more as learning a foreign
language since it is not widely spoken outside the classroom. In Turkey, Oz (2007)
administered an adaptation of the BALLI to 407 learners of English in Turkish secondary
schools. In general, findings showed that Turkish learners held some beliefs in common
with the learners studied in other contexts. However, there were also some differences. In
addition, Oz found intra-group differences based on certain variables such as grade at
school, city of residence and gender. Diab (2006) studied the beliefs of university students
36
learning English and French in Lebanon, using their BALLI responses to see whether there
was any difference in their beliefs according to target language. In her study, Diab found
that socio-cultural and political factors related to each of the languages being learned
influenced the students’ beliefs about learning that language. For example, English was
viewed as an easy language while French was seen as a difficult one, perhaps due to the
history of the country as a former part of the French Mandate. Diab’s findings provide
proof that beliefs about language learning are not uniform across all contexts; thus, socio-
cultural, political and individual factors cannot be completely overlooked when studying
language learning beliefs.
Several BALLI studies conducted in Korea by Park (1995), Truitt (1995) and Hong (2006)
are of particular relevance to this study since they also involve factor analysis of the BALLI.
Truitt (1995) used the BALLI to measure the language learning beliefs of 204 Korean
university students who were learning English. When compared to previous studies of
foreign language learners, ESL learners in the U.S. and EFL learners in Taiwan, there were
a number of differences in the learners’ beliefs. Participants’ beliefs were also found to be
linked to other factors such as academic experience and major. Because of this, Truitt
(1995) concluded cultural background and experience could potentially cause variations in
learner beliefs. Another BALLI study in Korea was conducted by Park (1995), who studied
the relationship between language learning beliefs and strategy use of 322 university
students learning English in two Korean universities. Park used the BALLI to measure
learner beliefs, and the Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990 as
cited in Park, 1995) to measure learners’ strategy use. The results of both questionnaires
were analysed using descriptive statistics as well as factor analysis, to describe the learner
beliefs and strategy choice. Finally, the factors resulting from each questionnaire were
correlated using Pearson r correlation, to see whether there were any significant
relationships between the different factors for the beliefs and strategies. Park found that
37
learner beliefs and strategies were generally related, and these finding were echoed by Hong
(2006). Hong (2006) also studied the learner beliefs and strategies of Korean EFL students,
but looked at two different groups of English language learners, comprising 428
monolinguals and 420 bilinguals. Using the same methods as Park (1995), for the first part
of her study, Hong (2006) went a step further by comparing the data for both groups using
Multiple Analysis of Variance and found that the bilingual Korean learners appeared to be
more adept language learners since they reported a higher rate of strategy use (Hong, 2006).
Park’s (1995) and Hong’s (2006) studies are not only relevant to the present study in terms
of the methodology used, but also since they reinforce the influence of beliefs on strategy
choice. In addition, Hong’s (2006) findings that bilingual Korean learners tend to use more
language learning strategies may have implications on this study since many of the
participants are monolingual Arabic speakers. Overall, the BALLI studies in different
learning contexts also reinforce the assertions of several researchers that factors such as
nationality, socio-cultural factors and previous languages learned influence learner beliefs
and as a result, can affect language learning. In addition to the BALLI studies in Turkey,
Lebanon and Korea which were described in this section, there have also been several
BALLI studies in Malaysia. These are presented in the following section.
2.6.3. BALLI Studies in Malaysia
In Malaysia, Nikitina and Furuoka (2006, 2006a, 2007) have conducted BALLI studies with
Malaysian university students learning Russian as a foreign language. While they had many
findings in common with other BALLI studies, Nikitina and Furuoka also found that there
were some contextual constraints (Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006) which indicated that perhaps
socio-cultural factors may influence language learning beliefs. For example, beliefs about
foreign language aptitude were less salient in Malaysian subjects, than among the American
learners in Horwitz’s study (Horwitz, 1987). The researchers suggest that the multilingual
nature of Malaysian society could have resulted in the differing beliefs, as many of the
38
Malaysian students were bilingual, or at least know bilingual or multilingual individuals.
Another local study that utilised the BALLI was conducted by Mary, Chong, Hanisah and
Tan (2006), who examined the beliefs of pre-service teachers of English at the Institut
Perguruan Bahasa Asing (Institute of Foreign Language Teaching), Malaysia. The findings
of this study in relation to beliefs about foreign language aptitude strengthen the findings of
Nikitina & Furuoka (2006) that Malaysian students do not have strong beliefs in foreign
language aptitude, which may be related to the multilingual society in this country. The
students in Mary, et al.’s (2006) study had strong beliefs in the other BALLI themes, and
the female students tended to see learning English as easier than did the male students.
However, while there have been several BALLI studies in Malaysia, no BALLI studies of
international students learning English were found in the literature search. As depicted in
the review of BALLI studies in Malaysia, the BALLI has been applied in several contexts,
including that of foreign language learners of Russian and pre-service English teachers. The
versatility of this instrument has also made it possible for researchers to include other
factors in their studies of language learning beliefs. A number of these studies will be
reviewed in the next section.
2.6.4. BALLI studies with Other Factors
In addition to using the BALLI to identify learners’ beliefs about language learning,
researchers have studied other variables alongside measuring language learning beliefs,
often with the purpose of identifying possible links between these variables. Among the
variables that have been studied are gender (Bernat & Lloyd, 2007), learning stage (Tanaka
& Ellis, 2003) and strategy use (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995; Yang, 1999; Hong, 2006; Shen,
2006; Mokhtari, 2007). Many researchers have also modified the BALLI or used it with
other instruments to gain more insight into learner beliefs and any other variables being
studied. Truitt (1995), for example, added open-ended questions to the BALLI in her study.
Hong (2006) and Park (1995) used the BALLI along with Oxford’s Strategy Inventory of
39
Language Learning (SILL) to investigate the relationship between the beliefs and learning
strategies of ESL learners in Korea. Shen (2006) conducted a similar study on school
children in remote areas of China. Her findings also showed that there was a moderate
relationship between learner beliefs, as measured by the BALLI and learner strategies, as
measured by the SILL (Shen, 2006). In addition, Shen (2006) also found that gender and
time spent learning English had some influence on the participants’ language learning
beliefs. All the studies summarised in this section found some relationship between learner
beliefs and learner strategies. In addition, other variables such as gender have also been
found to influence learner beliefs about language learning. The BALLI studies cited in this
section, and the ones before it, have contributed some important knowledge in the area of
learner beliefs about language learning. However, over the years, certain weaknesses of this
instrument have been highlighted by several researchers. The following section will
described the criticisms that have been made of the BALLI.
2.6.5. Weaknesses & Criticisms of the BALLI
The BALLI has been credited with providing researchers with a useful tool to
systematically investigate learners’ beliefs, in addition to bringing attention to what was
then an often overlooked phenomenon. However, some issues have been raised about its
development and other potential weaknesses in the instrument. For example, Kuntz (1996)
pointed out that the initial version of BALLI was generated from brainstorming sessions
with language teachers not learners, and, therefore, the statements on the BALLI comprise
language teachers’ perceptions of what learner beliefs are. However, Horwitz (1988) states
that “The BALLI was developed in several stages from free-recall protocols of foreign
language and ESL teachers of different cultural backgrounds, students (both foreign
language and ESL) focus groups, and additional beliefs supplied by teacher educators from
a variety of culture groups” (Horwitz, 1988:284). The second criticism that has been
brought up by a number of researchers (Kuntz, 1996; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006) was that
40
Horwitz’s five themes were not statistically generated from learner responses. Furthermore,
Kuntz (1996) points out that the labelling of the BALLI themes was not explained. In
response to these criticisms, researchers such as Yang (1999) and Nikitina & Furuoka
(2006) have conducted factor analysis of BALLI results to determine the statistical structure
of the BALLI. Other researchers such as Truitt (1995), Yang (1999) and Hong (2006) have
conducted a factor analysis on the BALLI and found different results and themes than those
proposed by Horwitz. Factor analysis of Truitt’s (1995) adapted BALLI study on ESL
learners in Korea also resulted in certain statements loading under different themes than
they did in Horwitz’s study. These differing results could be indications that culture and
ethnicity influence the shaping of beliefs. In addition, they suggest the structure and sets of
beliefs may differ from one sample to another (Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006, 2007). In
Nikitina and Furuoka’s BALLI study of the beliefs of Malaysian students learning Russian
at university, four factors were extracted: motivation; aptitude; strategy and ease of learning,
which correspond with four of the five BALLI themes. Only one of Horwitz’s themes,
‘nature of language learning’, did not form a separate factor in Nikitina and Furuoka’s
study, which led them to conclude that the BALLI could be considered suitable for
conducting research on language learning beliefs in different cultural contexts (Nikitina &
Furuoka, 2007).
The previous sections have looked at past research on the language learning beliefs of
learners as well as examined various relevant theoretical issues in the investigation of this
construct. The remainder of this chapter will focus on available literature on the second
variable in this study, learner perceptions.
2.7. Learner Perceptions and Language Learning
Perceptions and beliefs are both essentially representations in an individual’s mind about an
abstract or physical thing. As has been stated in Chapter One of this study, the term beliefs
is used to refer to the assumptions made about language learning in general, while
41
perceptions is used to refer to how the participants view various aspects of their learning
experience as international students learning English in Malaysia. In this study, the aspects
of the learning context being investigated are those that are relevant to this particular group
of participants, namely their perceptions of Malaysia as an English language learning
destination, their out-of class experience, their perceptions of English in Malaysian
universities as well as of learning and teaching in a local English language course. To find
studies on learner perceptions that have involved the same factors would be very unlikely,
considering the relatively unique context of these participants. However, although the
studies reviewed in the following section examine learner perceptions on different aspects
of their learning situation, all their findings indicate that learner perceptions provide useful
information about a learner group, which can be used to inform educational and
administrative practices, and that these perceptions also play an important role in learners’
ultimate success in language learning.
2.7.1. Perception Studies involving International Students in a Host Country
The learning context and learning environment have been suggested as factors in the
formation of language learning beliefs. Horwitz (1999:575) stated that learner beliefs could
be influenced by “...contextual differences in the language learning situation as well as
specific classroom practices”. A number of studies have investigated the beliefs of
international students learning English in a new country; however, there are few studies
which have examined the perceptions held by this group about their learning environment
both inside and outside the classroom. One such study was conducted by Christison and
Krahnke (1986), who measured the perceptions held by non-native learners of English at US
universities in terms of their language learning experience and use of English in academic
settings. Through open-ended interviews on aspects such as their language learning course
as well as the effects of out-of-class experience on language learning, Christison and
Krahnke (1986) found that the learners were generally satisfied with their intensive English
42
course; however, they emphasised the need for more skills practice. An interesting
observation was that students tended to rate their teachers based on personality attributes
rather than technical ones (Christison & Krahnke, 1986). The study also found that 68% of
the participants spoke at least an hour of English outside the class every day and 12% did
not speak English out of class.
2.7.2. Perception Studies in ESL and FL Classrooms
Many of the studies found in the literature search focused on learners’ perceptions of
aspects directly related to their learning and teaching experience such as classroom activities
and teacher’s experience. According to Tse (2000), learners’ perceptions may include a
broad range of factors related to their language learning experience. She explains how
learners’ perceptions of the foreign language classroom can fit into Gardner’s socio-
educational model of second language acquisition as a non-linguistic outcome and also as
individual learners’ indicators of motivation and anxiety. Tse’s study of learner
autobiographies found that learners desired more oral communication in their courses and
tended to give low estimations of their language proficiency (Tse, 2000). Barkhuizen (1998)
conducted a study with the aim of learning how South African schoolchildren viewed the
different activities they participated in as part of their ESL lessons. Both Barkhuizen and the
teachers at the school where the study was conducted were surprised by some of the results,
for example, that the students rated mechanical aspects of language study such as spelling
very highly in terms of enjoyment, learning English and usefulness after school
(Barkhuizen, 1998). He also found that students were not so keen on communicative
activities such as class discussions and debates and preferred more traditional classroom
activities. Despite the different learning contexts in Tse’s and Barkhuizen’s studies, it is
relevant to the present study to note that finding out about learner perceptions can often
provide the instructors with information that may help increase learners’ satisfaction and
motivation.
43
2.7.3. Perception Studies on Learning Environment in Higher Education
Other studies outside the area of language learning and teaching have also examined
learners’ perceptions of their learning environment. For example, perception studies in the
area of higher education such as those by Lizzio, Wilson & Simmons (2002) and Wierstra
(1999) also focused on learner perceptions of their academic environment. In their study
which links learner perceptions to academic outcomes, Lizzio et al. (2002) review Biggs’s 3
P model which describes the learning process as being made of up 3 interacting
components: the learning environment and student characteristics (presage), students’
approach to learning (process) and learning outcomes (product). According to this model,
learner perceptions are part of the ‘presage’ factors, which can affect both the ‘process’ and
the ‘product’ aspects of the learning process (Lizzio et al., 2002). This view is similar to
how belief theory views the influence of beliefs about language learning on the language
learning process. The result of the study involving 624 university students of various
subjects found a strong relationship between learners’ perceptions of various aspects of their
learning experience, such as academic workload, appropriateness of assessment and quality
of teaching, and their approach to learning. In addition, it was found that how learners
perceived their learning environment was a stronger predictor of academic success when
compared to prior academic achievement (Lizzio et al., 2002). Based on the strong
relationship found between learners’ perceptions and academic outcome, it can be
concluded that learners’ perceptions are a significant part of their learning experience and
may even determine their ultimate success. Other researchers have looked at how
international students perceive the learning environment within their academic institutions.
For example, Robertson, Line, Jones & Thomas (2000) studied the perceptions held by 408
undergraduates from various countries who were enrolled in academic programmes in an
Australian university. Three main categories were identified as part of the participants’
learning environment: activities inside the university, activities outside the university and
44
language-related issues. Robertson et al. (2000) found that international students had
feelings of isolation and perceived many instances which they interpreted as racist or non-
inclusive, both outside the university and in the classroom. In addition, language related
issues were as significant as academic ones, with many of the participants citing the need
for additional support given to international students. A study by Wang, Singh, Bird and
Ives (2008) involving Taiwanese nursing students in Australia also found the need for
further support to help international students navigate the academic, cultural and language-
related problems that they face. Overall, these studies in higher education have found that
perceptions held by university students and international university students about their
learning environment play an important role in their overall learning experience and their
academic achievement. For international students in particular, issues that appear to be
outside the realm of academia also factor into their overall learning experience. As this
study focuses on international students learning English in Malaysia, studies on this
particular group are particularly significant. Several studies on international students in
Malaysia will be covered in the next section.
2.8. Studies on International Students in Malaysia
While international students learning English in Malaysia are a relatively new learner group,
several studies have been conducted on various aspects of their language learning. Hamzah,
Moloudi, and Abdullah (2009) conducted a study on international postgraduate students in
University Putra Malaysia to identify their perceptions of the English language course they
were required to take. The study conducted by Hamzah et al. (2009) differed from the
present study since the researchers focussed only on learner perceptions about issues related
to their language course, including teachers, materials and course content. Overall, most of
the students had less than positive views about their language teachers and one student was
quoted as saying that Malaysia was not an English speaking country (Hamzah et al., 2009).
Another study on international students conducted by Ali (2007) also found similar views
45
among international students at another Malaysian university. This study looked at the
speaking and learning motivations of international students enrolled in an intensive English
programme in UNITEN, Selangor. However, the students in the study by Ali (2007) had
overall positive perceptions of their language course, despite implying that their opportunity
to practice speaking English outside the university was limited. Kaur (1999) reports on the
problems of assessing the English proficiency of international postgraduate students at
University Sains Malaysia (USM). According to Kaur (1999), at the time of the study, the
English proficiency of international students applying for admission into the postgraduate
programmes at USM was evaluated on an individual basis by the Dean of the Institute of
Postgraduate Studies. Following this assessment, some students would be required to sit for
an English placement test to determine whether they would have to enrol in a remedial
English course. Kaur (1999) spoke to around 50 students who had taken the placement test
and discovered that although most students were satisfied with the speaking and listening
sections of the test, most were dissatisfied with the reading and writing sections. Most of
their concerns were to do with the reading selections featured on the test, saying that the
subject matter of the selections were biased towards some areas of study. Kaur (1999)
concludes that assessing the English language proficiency of the international postgraduate
students must be based on a comprehensive needs analysis to determine the type of
communicative tasks that the students will need to carry out. She also suggests that, in
assessing the English of international students, the construct of proficiency should be
defined by taking into consideration the perspectives of all the stakeholders involved, for
example, supervisors, lecturers, test developers and the students themselves. While Kaur’s
study was conducted more than a decade ago, it underlines the need for valid and reliable
English placement tests in order to accurately assess the proficiency of international
students before they enter university and in order to deal with any limitations in students’
English proficiency levels by providing English language courses.
46
Another study on international postgraduate students at USM was conducted by Pandian
(2008). However, the study conducted by Pandian (2008) focussed on the social
relationships of these students, rather than directly on their language skills. Pandian (2008)
examined the social ties between international and local students and documented the
perceptions held by 200 international postgraduate students from Middle Eastern countries
about matters related to their interpersonal relationships with Malaysians. Using a
questionnaire, Pandian sought to discover the extent to which multicultural relationships
were fostered between the international students and the local students and whether the
international students involved had positive or negative perceptions about the way they were
treated by the Malaysian students at that university. Around 77% of the participants did not
report having any problems in socialising with local students from other programmes
(Pandian, 2008). In addition, more than half the participants disagreed that they faced
discrimination from the local students and the local community. Nevertheless, some
participants did relate incidents in which they had encountered prejudicial treatment from
locals and several students perceived that local students were reluctant to include
international students in their discussions inside and outside the classroom (Pandian, 2008).
Furthermore, it was found that international students with higher levels of English
proficiency tended faced fewer difficulties in interacting with the local students. While the
international postgraduate students in Pandian’s (2008) study had generally positive views
on their experience of multicultural interaction, they indicated that they would welcome
more opportunities to interact and build relationships with local students. Kaur and Sidhu
(2009) conducted a study on postgraduate students at USM and UiTM, another public
university, this time focusing on both local and international students and their perceptions
of their learning experience. While the scope of this study was different to that of the
present study, Kaur and Sidhu (2009) found that English proficiency was a significant issue
in the learning experience of international postgraduate students, although language-related
47
difficulties were also faced by some of the local participants of the study. The international
students in Kaur and Sidhu’s study reported that language problems inhibited their
participation in class and communication with their classmates (Kaur & Sidhu, 2009).
The existing literature on international students in Malaysia has examined several aspects of
their learning context, including their perceptions of their language course (Hamzah, 2009),
matters in the ESL classroom (Ali, 2007), the assessment of their English proficiency (Kaur,
1999) and their perceptions of multicultural interaction (Pandian, 2008) and learning
experience (Kaur & Sidhu, 2009). One common thread that runs through all these studies is
the undeniable significance of English proficiency in these students’ academic and social
experience as international students in Malaysia. For international students in Malaysia, and
other Outer Circle countries, having a local variety of English in their environment also
poses its own challenges. In the following section, research on English learners in Outer
Circle countries will be reviewed.
2.9. Studies on English Language Learning in Outer Circle Countries
In Chapter One of this study, Kachru’s (1985) model of the Concentric Circles of English
has already been discussed. In this model, English speakers are divided into Inner Circle
countries (or native English speaking countries such as the U.K. and the U.S.), Outer Circle
(former British colonies such as Malaysia and Singapore) as well as Expanding Circle
countries (the rest of the world) (Kachru, 1985). Since the international student group in
Malaysia tends to come from Expanding Circle countries, there now exists a situation where
learners from Expanding Circle countries with a high regard for the Inner Circle variety of
English are learning the language in a country which has its own indigenized variety of
English. Coetzee-Van Rooy (2008), who conducted a study on Korean learners of English
in South Africa, states that more Expanding Circle learners are turning to Outer Circle
countries as a destination for learning English, which brings the need for more research into
the special circumstances that arise from this situation. For example, in Coetzee-Van Rooy’s
48
study, one participant pointed out that variations in the local variety of English made the
situation less than favourable. However, for other participants, South Africa provided a
good alternative to the United Kingdom and America for learners to acquire the English
language (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2008).
Closer to the Malaysian context, Young (2003) conducted a study involving international
students from China studying English in Singapore, which sought to identify changes in
their views towards Singapore English. These participants initially viewed Singapore
English as a non-standard variety of English, and unfavourable when compared to American
or British English. Yet, they eventually grew more accepting of the local variety of English
towards the later stages of their stay in the country (Young, 2003). Another study in
Singapore was conducted by Sng, Pathak and Serwe (2009). This study described the
English learning process of international students from Indonesia, China and Cambodia.
The first year Engineering students in this study were clearly aware that the English used by
local Singaporeans was different from the English they were taught in their language course.
Further, they had to traverse the differences between standard Singapore English, the ‘low’
variety called ‘Singlish’, and communication which included code-switching (Sng et al.,
2009). As in the study by Young (2003), several students did not have a high regard for
Singapore English, with one student mentioning that the international students did not like
the Singapore English accent. Since the context of the present study presents a similar
challenge to the participants in the form of Malaysian English, the findings of these studies
indicate that the local variety of English is a significant factor in the language learning
experience of international students who learn English in an Outer Circle country. The
summary of research conducted on English language learners in Outer Circle countries
presented in this section has concluded the review of literature that is relevant to the context
of the study. The next section will present a conclusion to the second chapter of this study.
49
2.10. Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the theoretical framework guiding this study as well as looked at
relevant literature on language learning beliefs and learner perceptions. Horwitz’s work with
the BALLI questionnaire in the eighties and nineties, along with that of other researchers
studying learner beliefs from different perspectives (Wenden, 1986; Benson & Lor, 1999),
spurred research into learner beliefs in various contexts. Although the BALLI is still being
used by researchers around the world (Diab, 2006; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006, 2007; Bernat,
2006; Bernat & Lloyd, 2007), research into learner beliefs is increasingly moving towards a
contextual approach as advocated by researchers such as Kalaja (2003) and Barcelos (2000).
In the present study, the contextual factors of the participants as learners of English in
Malaysia were not overlooked. While the present study aimed to identify learners’
perceptions of both the academic and situational aspects of their experience of learning
English in Malaysia, it was difficult to find existing literature on perception studies in a
similar context. Thus, the studies reported in this chapter were selected as they shared
certain traits with the context of the present research. Classroom aspects such as teaching
and learning undoubtedly have a strong effect on the learning experience. However, the
findings of studies on international students described in this chapter indicate that, in the
case of international students, how learners perceive the conditions outside the classroom
could possibly affect their overall perception of their language learning experience, as found
in various studies on international students in Malaysia, other Outer Circle countries and
traditional destinations for international students such as Australia and the United States.
While language learning is situated in the class-room, the classroom itself is also situated
within a larger context of the host-country, Malaysia. In addition, the participants’ learning
experience is also contextualised within their purpose of learning English in order to join
local academic programmes. Therefore, learner perceptions of both the micro (class-room)
and macro (country) aspects of their learning experience were examined in order to get a
50
broader perspective of how participants viewed their language learning experience in
Malaysia as well as to explore the various factors that could be of significance in forming
their beliefs about and perceptions of language learning in Malaysia. The next chapter will
present the research methodology used in this study.
51
Chapter 3-Research and Methodology
3.1. Introduction
This chapter describes the research design, instruments and process of data collection used
in this study. To begin with, various methods used in research on language learning beliefs
are reviewed. Next, the methods selected for this study are outlined along with the rationale
for their selection. This is followed by a description of the setting, participants, instruments,
interview and pilot studies related to the present study. A detailed explanation of the data
collection procedures used in this study is also presented at the end of this chapter with a
brief discussion of the study’s ethical considerations.
As stated in the first chapter of this dissertation, this study aims to explore and identify
international students’ language learning beliefs and the perceptions they have with regard
to their experience of learning English in Malaysia. This study focused on the following
research questions: What are the language learning beliefs of international students
learning English at a local college in Kuala Lumpur?, What are their perceptions of
learning English in Malaysia?, Is there a statistically significant relationship between their
language learning beliefs and their perceptions about learning English in Malaysia?, and
What are the other factors that influence the learners’ perceptions of learning English in
Malaysia?
To begin the discussion of the research methods used in this study, a summary of
commonly used methods used in research on learner beliefs and perceptions in second
language acquisition will be presented in the next section.
3.2. Research Methods used in SLA Research on Beliefs and Perceptions
To address the focus of this study, as described in the previous section, a review of previous
studies on learners’ beliefs and perceptions was conducted. In terms of research on
learners’ beliefs, methods used to collect data are generally dictated by how beliefs are
viewed by researchers. As discussed in Chapter Two, when beliefs are viewed as stable
52
mental constructs, as they are in the normative approach (Ellis 2008), they are generally
studied through quantitative approaches, mainly closed-choice questionnaires of which the
BALLI is one of the most widely used. On the other hand, when the researcher is working
from the contextual or socio-cultural approach, more weight is given to the context in which
the beliefs are formed; thus, qualitative methods, such as classroom observations, interviews
and journal studies are preferred. Similarly, a variety of methods have been used to
measure learners’ perceptions about various aspects of their learning environment. When
the focus of a study is on collecting data from a large sample, then researchers have
preferred to use questionnaires such as the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Nikitina &
Furuoka, 2006, 2007 and Bernat, 2006) and other questionnaires such as those developed by
Sakui and Gaies (1999), Tanaka and Ellis (2003) Piquemal and Renaud (2006) and Mori
(1999). However, when the research aims to collect multiple layers of data from a relatively
small group of learners, more varied methods are chosen, including metaphor analysis
(Guerrero & Villamil, 2002; Farrell, 2006; Ellis, 2002; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2008),
interviews (Christison & Krahnke, 1986; Alanen, 2003; Barkhuizen, 1998; Barcelos, 2000),
observation (Barcelos, 2000, Barkhuizen, 1998) and journals (Tse, 2000). Although a
variety of methods have been used to collect data on learner perceptions and beliefs,
questionnaires and interviews are the most commonly used and will be discussed in greater
detail in the following section.
3.2.1. Questionnaires
Many studies on learner beliefs and perceptions, particularly large-scale studies, have used
questionnaires. According to Creswell (2008), a questionnaire is a form which is completed
by participants involved in a study, after which the form is returned to the researcher. In
Chapter Two, the BALLI questionnaire, its development by Horwitz and subsequent use by
other researchers have been discussed. In this section, other available questionnaires to
measure learner beliefs and perceptions will be summarised briefly.
53
Sakui and Gaies (1999) developed their own 45-statement questionnaire from the analysis
of existing beliefs questionnaires and the addition of statements that would improve the
context-specificity of their questionnaire to be used on Japanese learners of English. Their
questionnaire also went through a panel of English teachers at various levels of the Japanese
education system. Their study is of particular relevance as one of its objectives was to test
the consistency of responses to belief questionnaires in order to determine whether
questionnaires were a reliable method of collecting data on learners’ beliefs (Sakui & Gaies,
1999). The researchers found that although participants’ responses may vary with the
repeated administration of a questionnaire, these differences were usually related to an
actual change in their beliefs or to their learning context. Another closed-choice
questionnaire was the 27-item Learner Belief Questionnaire developed by Tanaka and Ellis
(2003) to measure the change in beliefs about language learning held by Japanese learners
of English before, and after, participating in a study abroad programme. This questionnaire
was developed by examining and analysing other available instruments and selecting the
relevant items. To examine the beliefs and attitudes of 1,305 French university students
learning English and other languages, Piquemal and Renaud (2006) developed a
questionnaire comprising 69 closed-choice items and 6 open-ended items. These items were
compiled from existing questionnaires such as BALLI and SILL as well as from individual
interviews and focus group discussions. On other hand, Rantala (2002) modified Victori &
Lockhart’s (1995) Assumptions about Language Learning instrument, which was based on
Flavell’s conception of metacognitive knowledge, to study the language learning beliefs of
148 learners of English in Finland.
Questionnaires have also been used widely in studies on learner perceptions of learning
activities and classroom environment such as the ENLEAS Q, which was used along with
other methods by Barkhuizen (1998) in his study of the perceptions held by South African
high school learners of English with regard to language teaching and learning activities. O’
54
Fathaigh (1997) used the seven-dimension ACES questionnaire in his study of adult Irish
learners’ perceptions of their learning environment. In addition, studies on learners’
perceptions of situational aspects of their learning environment have employed
questionnaires such as the Inventory of Perceived Study Environment, used by Wierstra et
al. (1998) to gather data on 851 European students’ perceptions of their learning experiences
in study abroad programmes. Similarly, Lizzio et al. (2002) administered the Course
Experience Questionnaire to 5,000 university students in Canada to study the relationship
between academic success and learners’ perceptions of their learning environment.
The variety of instruments available to measure learners’ beliefs and perceptions, whether
about language learning or about various aspects of their learning experience, indicate that
the survey method of data collection is widely-used and much relied upon by researchers
working in this area. Questionnaires offer researchers the opportunity to efficiently collect
large quantities of data on the variables being studied. In addition, opting for a questionnaire
that has already been used to measure a particular construct helps researchers bypass the
time-consuming process of developing a valid and reliable instrument. Furthermore, closed-
choice questionnaires are an efficient way of collecting quantitative data that can then be
analysed statistically to look for patterns and relationships among variables.
However, some researchers have pointed out the limitations of questionnaires in studying
learners’ beliefs and perceptions. Firstly, a closed-choice questionnaire limits the responses
learners can give and only measures their responses towards those items that have been
listed on the instrument (Barcelos, 2000; Benson & Lor, 1999). Moreover, learners may
have different beliefs and perceptions for different situations (Benson & Lor, 1999), but
questionnaires force a learner to choose one response for all situations. More significantly,
Barcelos (2000) argues that questionnaires take beliefs out of context, which may lead to
misinterpretation, and therefore, are not an ideal method of studying learners’ beliefs.
Because of the limitations of questionnaires, some researchers have opted for other methods
55
of data collection, while others have used multiple methods in addition to using
questionnaires. Another common method of data collection in the study of learners’ beliefs
and perceptions is interviews, which will be discussed in the next section.
3.2.2. Interviews
Many studies have used interviews to explore learners’ beliefs and perceptions. While some
researchers have relied completely on interviews, many have used interviews alongside
questionnaires, observations and other methods of data collection. Using semi-structured
interviews to study learners’ beliefs about language learning has generally been associated
with the metacognitive approach. In her study of the language learning beliefs and strategies
of 25 adult ESL learners in a U.S. university, Wenden (1986) provided them with a list of
topics to think about before the interview. When the findings of this study were compared
with the items on the BALLI questionnaire, Wenden (1986) found that there were some
items that were not included in the BALLI while other items were different to those on the
BALLI. This led Wenden to conclude that providing participants with a limited list of items
may lead to the missing out of certain beliefs that may be important to learners, but that
have been overlooked by researchers (Wenden, 1986).
Sakui and Gaies (1999) found that interviews were a useful way of triangulating and
explaining questionnaire data. Their study involved administering the same questionnaire
twice to assess the consistency and reliability of questionnaires in measuring learner beliefs.
In their interview sessions, they found that some inconsistencies in learner responses were
actually due to beliefs changing since the first stage of data collection. In other cases,
different responses to the same item could have been because the learner was thinking about
a different situation at each time. Interviews can overcome the inability of closed-choice
questionnaires to represent the reasons behind learners’ beliefs and perceptions as well as to
record the factors that contribute towards a learner’s selection of a particular response.
56
This section has outlined the various data collection methods used in research on learners’
beliefs about language learning and learners’ perceptions of their learning environment.
While many methods were mentioned, this section primarily discussed the two most
common methods used by previous researchers: questionnaires and interviews. In the
following section, the research design of the present study will be outlined.
3.2.3. BALLI Studies Featuring a Second Variable
As mentioned in the previous chapter, several studies have used the BALLI to study the
relationship between beliefs and another variables such as gender (Bernat & Lloyd, 2007),
stage of learning (Tanaka & Ellis, 2003) and personality (Bernat, Carter & Hall, 2009).
There have also been several BALLI studies which aimed to identify the relationship
between learner beliefs and their learning strategy choice (Hong, 2006; Truitt, 1995; and
Park, 1995), using the BALLI and a second questionnaire SILL, or Strategies Inventory of
Language Learning (Oxford, 1990 as cited in Park, 1995). According to Horwitz, “The
BALLI was not designed to elicit a single, delineated construct in the way measures of
anxiety or motivation are. Thus it is not possible to compute a correlation of the BALLI as a
whole with other measures such as strategy use or learning style” (Horwitz, 2007:6).
Horwitz goes on to describe the procedures used by Hong (2006), Truitt (1995) and Park
(1995) to identify the relationship between beliefs and other variables. In all the studies
mentioned, the results of both the BALLI and SILL were analysed using factor analysis,
which reduces the individual items within each questionnaire to groups of beliefs or
strategies. The resulting factors were then named according to the researchers' interpretation
of the items within each factor. For example, Hong named the first BALLI factor in her
study ‘Motivation for and Nature of Learning English’ because the items that loaded under
the first factor contained items related to participants’ motivation as well as items related to
participants’ beliefs about the nature of learning English. After the factors for both
questionnaires were identified, the relationship between beliefs and strategies was
57
determined using Pearson r correlation analysis between the BALLI and SILL factors
(Hong, 2006).
3.3. Overview of Research Design Used in Present Study
This section will present an overview of the research design of the present study, as
summarised in Figure 3.1. on the next page. As can be seen in the figure, data collection
was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved the administering of the BALLI and
the PELLEM questionnaires to all participants. In addition, a section on personal
information was added to the first questionnaire in order to collect demographic data as well
as information about how long participants had been learning English and the length of their
stay in Malaysia thus far.
This study utilized mixed methods of data collection, by combining the quantitative data
collection methods through the use of Likert-type questionnaires and qualitative data
collection through the use of semi-structured interviews. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007)
state that synthesising or merging both qualitative and quantitative data enables a more
integrated understanding of a particular phenomenon or research problem, compared to
using a single approach. Therefore, it was felt that using both quantitative and qualitative
research methods would give the researcher a better understanding of the beliefs and
perceptions of this group of international students learning English in Malaysia.
As depicted in Figure 3.1., the first stage of the study applied the quantitative approach to
data collection. At this stage, the BALLI questionnaire was used to measure participants’
beliefs about language learning in general, while the PELLEM questionnaire was used to
measure their perceptions about context-specific aspects of their experience of learning
English in Malaysia. Both questionnaires provided quantitative data about the participants’
beliefs and perceptions. According to Creswell (2008) quantitative research involves
narrowing down the questions being asked in order to obtain measures or scores on a scale..
58
Figure 3.1. Research Design Flowchart
Analysis of Results
Findings
A N D A A L T Y A S I S
Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Data (BALLI questionnaire) with SPSS -Descriptive Statistics - Factor Analysis of BALLI & PELLEM data Qualitative Analysis of Interview Responses -transcription, categorisation and tracking of emergent themes
D A T A
C O L L E C T I O N
S P T I U L D O I T E S
Interview Semi-structured interview to explore further language learning beliefs & learner perceptions of learning English in Malaysia Participants selected from different proficiency levels and varying lengths of stay in Malaysia quantitative data about participants’ language learning beliefs and perceptions
Questionnaire (II)-PELLEM Questionnaire on (learner) Perceptions of their English Language Learning Experience in Malaysia 30 items with a Likert-type scale response bilingual (Arabic/English) completed in class, collected by researcher quantitative data on learner
perceptions about English language learning in Malaysia
Review and Make Changes to
Instrument/Procedures
Questionnaire (I)-BALLI Questionnaire on learner beliefs-BALLI 34 items with a Likert-type scale response bilingual (Arabic/English) completed in class, collected by researcher quantitative data on learner beliefs about language learning demographic data & data on participants’ language learning background
Administration of Pilot Study I
& II
Preparation of Interview
Questions
& Translation of Questionnaire
Sampling of Participants
59
Both questionnaires used in this study provided participants with answer choices on Likert-
type scales to collect data which could be analyses quantitatively
In order to overcome the limitations of quantitative data collection methods, a second,
qualitative, data collection stage was included in the research design. As mentioned earlier,
mixed methods research is believed to provide a deeper understanding of the variables being
studied and it also serves to triangulate data (Bryman, 2008). Therefore, a second stage of
data collection, featuring semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to examine
the factors that influenced these beliefs and perceptions. Semi-structured interviews were
selected as the most suitable instrument for this stage of the study because working with a
list of questions provided standardization from one interview to another (Bryman, 2008).
However, participants would also have a certain amount of latitude in which to respond
(Bryman, 2008). In addition, the researcher would also be able to ask further questions
depending on the issues that arose in each interview.
The following sections of this chapter will present details about the participants, the
language course they were enrolled in at the time of the study, the questionnaires and
interviews. In addition, the rationale behind the selection of each of the three data collection
methods will be discussed in sections 3.5.1., 3.6.1. and 3.7.1.
3.4. Participants
The study involved 102 participants, all of whom were international students enrolled in an
intensive English programme at a local college in Kuala Lumpur. Other than two
participants, who were learning English for personal reasons, all the participants were in
Malaysia to pursue academic programmes in various fields at local educational institutions,
with levels of intended study ranging from Diploma to PhD programmes. In this aspect,
there were slightly more participants headed for post-graduate study than those headed for
undergraduate study. Out of the 100 participants headed for university, 41 were planning to
60
enrol in Master’s degree programmes, 13 were headed for PhD programmes and 46 were
preparing for Bachelor’s degree programmes. Participants were also at different levels of
language learning and were enrolled at various proficiency levels from Beginner to
Academic Skills for IELTS. The distribution of participants according to level was as
follows: Beginner-17, Elementary-15, Pre-intermediate-36, Intermediate-27 and Academic
Skills for IELTS-7. The participants ranged in age from 15 to 42, with the majority (n=67)
falling within the ages of 20-29. There were 13 participants were in their mid-to-late teens,
19 were in their thirties and 4 were over 40 years old. The majority (n=74, 72.5%) of these
participants were male.
Participants were of various nationalities, with Libyan students making up the largest group
(n=45, 44.1%), followed by Somali students (n=30, 29.4%). Other nationalities represented
were Sudanese (n=13), Iraqi (n=3) and Uzbek (n=2). There was one participant from each of
the following countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Algeria, Morocco, Guinnea Bissou, Iran,
Indonesia, Spain and Yemen. The majority of participants (n=65, 63.7%) spoke Arabic as a
first language. Another common first language was Somali (n=27, 26.5%). Around one-
third (n=38, 37%) spoke only one language (other than English); however, a few spoke two
languages. Some participants had already learned another foreign language due to
immigration to another country or studying a foreign language in their own country. For
example, three participants spoke Russian and another three spoke Italian.
Participants were also asked about the length of time they had spent learning English,
including their English language learning experience prior to enrolling in the present course.
This ranged from 3 months to about 15 years with the majority (n=72) having spent less
than 5 years learning English. This includes time spent learning English in Primary and
Secondary school, which according to the interview participants, was taught as one of many
subjects in school using their first language. At the time of the study, participants were
61
enrolled in various levels of the language course, from Beginner to Academic Skills for
IELTS (Upper-Intermediate) level.
3.4.1. Selection of Participants
In the preliminary stages of this study, it was decided that the sample would include all the
international students who were enrolled in the English language programme. The total
population varied from month to month since this course was a short term programme, but
since the total student number was less than 200, it was decided that the entire student
population would be included in the study. During the time data was collected (September
to October 2009), the total number of students was 137. Questionnaires were administered
to all students enrolled in the English language programme who were attending class during
the days that the questionnaires were administered and who also agreed to voluntarily
participate in the study. The final total of this convenience sample was 111. Bryman (2008)
defines convenience samples as those that are available or accessible to the researcher.
While using a convenience sample, reduces the ability to generalize findings to the greater
population, convenience samples are valuable as a source of information to answer research
questions and hypotheses (Creswell, 2008). In addition, the total of 111 amounted to 80% of
total enrolment. According to Creswell (2008), survey response rates of 50% or higher are
considered acceptable; therefore the involvement of 80% of the student body in this study
leads to the conclusion that the sample could be sufficient in order to draw conclusions
about the beliefs and perceptions of this group of learners.
After the questionnaires were administered, participant demographics, as reported in the
Personal Information section added to the BALLI questionnaire, were analysed and only
those students who had been in Malaysia for more than 2 months were selected. This
criterion had been predetermined in order to ensure that participants’ perceptions of learning
English in Malaysia had been formed over a reasonable length of time and also so that any
initial adjustment issues would not cloud participants’ overall perceptions of their learning
62
context. Nine participants were excluded from the final sample as they had been in the
country for less than 2 months, leaving a total of 102 participants as the sample in the
present study. Participants had been in Malaysia for varying durations, ranging from 2
months to 28 months. Participants were distributed widely over this range as follows: 2-6
months (51 participants) 7- 12 months (42 participants) and 13-28 months (9 participants).
In the following section, the language programme in which the participants were enrolled is
described briefly in order to provide a complete picture of the setting and context in which
this research was conducted.
3.4.2. The English Language Programme at a Malaysian College
Chapter One of this dissertation included an overview of English language learning and use
in Malaysia as well as a brief explanation of the learner group being studied: international
students learning English in Malaysia. The learning experience of this group of learners is
contextualised not only in the host country, Malaysia, at the macro level, but also within the
language learning classroom, at the micro level. Because of this, it is necessary to outline
the specifics of the language course they were enrolled in as classroom learning experience
is related to how the participants view both the language learning process and how they
perceive their language learning experience in Malaysia.
Participants were enrolled in an intensive English programme designed to improve learners’
general English proficiency, in the early stages, with the long-term goal of equipping them
with the necessary skills to cope in English medium academic programmes. Upon
enrolment, learners undergo a written and oral placement test after which they are placed in
the most suitable of 6 levels, ranging from Absolute Beginner to Academic Skills for
IELTS/Upper Intermediate. The Common European Framework/ IELTS band
approximations to these levels range from Pre A1/Band 1 at Absolute Beginner to C1-
C2/Band 5-6 at Upper Intermediate. All levels run for 9 weeks excluding the Absolute
Beginner level which lasts 5 weeks. Learners attend class for 20 hours a week, which is
63
made up of 15 hours of integrated skills and grammar lessons and 5 hours of reading and
writing lessons. In class, learners participate in a variety of activities using the New Cutting
Edge series of course books as their principal text. Teaching and learning activities aim to
increase opportunities for interaction in the classroom, for example, through pair-work and
group activities; however, grammar is also taught. Learners also have access to a Computer
Aided Language Learning (CALL) lab for self-study. In the CALL lab, learners can choose
either to use Longman Interactive software, which features four levels of language learning
activities in all four skill components, or to access the internet for reading and listening
practice with authentic materials. For the duration of a level, learners are taught by two
teachers, one of whom teaches the class for 15 hours a week using the New Cutting Edge
book while the other teaches reading and writing skills twice a week. The teaching faculty at
the college is made up of both native-speakers from the United Kingdom, the U.S. and
Australia as well as local English teachers and one teacher each from India, Pakistan and
Iran. The teaching schedules are planned in such a way to enable students to experience
both native and non-native language teachers. Learners are assessed at the end of each level
with a final exam for each of the following components: Grammar, Listening, Speaking,
Reading, and Writing. An average of 70% is required to progress to the next level. In
addition to providing language instruction to students, the college also plays the role of
preparing learners for further study by educating them on the social expectations that they
will face as students in local universities.
The previous sections have provided a description of the participants as well as their
learning context. Next, the methods of data collection used in this study will be presented in
detail, beginning with the instruments used and followed by the interview stage. As
mentioned in earlier sections of this chapter, two questionnaires were used in this study: the
BALLI (Horwitz, 1987) and the PELLEM, which was developed for this study to measure
64
learners’ perceptions of their language learning experience in Malaysia. The discussion of
the instruments will begin in the next section, with a discussion of the BALLI.
3.5. BALLI
In this study, the 34-item version of Horwitz’s BALLI (Horwitz, 1987) was administered to
participants. The BALLI has already been discussed at length in Chapter Two, so this
chapter will present the rationale for using the BALLI to measure participants’ language
learning beliefs and the modifications made to this instrument.
3.5.1. Rationale for Using the BALLI
Limitations of the BALLI, namely its lack of statistically generated themes, have already
been described in Chapter Two, in section 2.6.9. However, there are many strengths to the
BALLI, which have led researchers to find it a useful tool for measuring learners’ beliefs in
different contexts. As stated by Creswell (2008) using a suitable existing instrument is far
less complicated compared to developing an instrument. For this study, the BALLI was
deemed to be suitable because of two main reasons. Firstly, using an existing questionnaire
was preferable to the development of a new one for practical reasons and because an
existing questionnaire, like the BALLI, would already have been tested in other contexts,
thereby increasing its reliability. Secondly, the BALLI was selected over other existing
instruments as many of the other instruments developed by researchers such as Sakui &
Gaies (1999), Tanaka & Ellis (2003) and Kuntz (1996b) were designed by analysing various
instruments and adding or removing items either based on the researchers’ understanding of
the research context or based on interviews and focus groups. Thus, these other
questionnaires were developed for use in specific contexts such as that of Japanese learners
of English (Sakui & Gaies, 1999), Japanese participants in English study abroad
programmes (Tanaka & Ellis, 2003) and learners of less commonly taught languages in the
United States (Kuntz, 1996a).
65
The BALLI, on the other hand, has been used in a variety of contexts, to measure the
language learning beliefs of both learners and teachers in foreign language, ESL and EFL
contexts. In addition, the BALLI has been successfully used to study the language learning
beliefs of learners of English in the United States (Horwitz, 1987; Siebert, 2003), Australia
(Bernat, 2004; 2006; Bernat & Lloyd, 2007), Lebanon (Diab, 2006), Turkey (Oz, 2007) and
Korea (Hong, 2006; Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995), among other countries. The fact that the
BALLI was designed to find commonality across different groups of language learners, as
opposed to context-specific idiosyncratic beliefs, made it a suitable instrument for
preliminary investigations into the beliefs of a group of learners which has not been studied
much, such as in the present study.
3.5.2. Amendments made to the BALLI
In terms of content, minimal changes were made to the original version of the 34-item
BALLI as used by Horwitz (1987). Only one change of wording was made, to statement
number 32. This statement originally read ‘I would like to have American friends’ and was
initially changed to ‘I would like to have Malaysian friends’. After the first pilot study, this
statement was changed again to ‘I would like to have English-speaking friends’. The change
in wording was made to keep with Horwitz’s (1987) purpose of including this item as a
measure of a learner’s integrative motivation. Through the interviews conducted during the
first pilot study, it was discovered that the participants did not necessarily view Malaysians
as being speakers of English. Because of this, the phrase ‘Malaysian friends’ was replaced
with ‘English-speaking friends’. In addition, the change of wording maintained the separate
focus of the two questionnaires, according to the research design. In other words, the
BALLI was included with the intention of measuring the participants’ beliefs about learners
about language learning in general, while the PELLEM was included to measure
participants’ context-specific perceptions about learning English in Malaysia. The final
version of the BALLI questionnaire used in this study is presented in Appendix A.
66
As the BALLI only measures learners’ beliefs about the language learning process in
general, another questionnaire was needed to examine the learners’ views about context-
specific variables related to their present experience of learning English in Malaysia. This
questionnaire will be discussed in the next section.
3.6. PELLEM
While an using an existing questionnaire is a more straightforward option than developing
an instrument to be used in a study (Creswell, 2008), the lack of a suitable instrument for
measuring the perceptions of international students learning English meant that one would
have to be developed. The Perceptions of English Language Learning Experience in
Malaysia (PELLEM) questionnaire was developed by the researcher for this study with the
purpose of collecting learners’ views on their English language learning experience in
Malaysia. As the influx of international students into Malaysia is a relatively new
phenomenon, more data is needed about how the local education industry is perceived by
this new group of learners. One area of particular importance is the teaching of English to
international students in preparation for entrance into academic programmes at local
institutes of higher learning. As a language teacher and administrator at the English
department of a local college which provides intensive English courses for international
students, the researcher is familiar with the views of international students, both positive
and negative, about different aspects of learning English in Malaysia. Among the many
comments made by these students include that they have trouble finding the opportunity to
practice English outside class and that they feel their present language proficiency is good
enough to succeed in a local academic programme, even though they may only have
minimal levels of English proficiency. To study the language learning beliefs of participants
within the context of their experience of being international students learning English in
Malaysia, a second questionnaire was required.
67
3.6.1. Rationale for Using the PELLEM
It was hoped that the PELLEM would be a starting point in the collection of scientific data
on the perceptions held by international students with regard to learning English in
Malaysia. In addition, the PELLEM was created as a complement to the BALLI in terms of
providing a contextual background to the language learning beliefs held by the participants.
As current research in learner beliefs is moving towards a more holistic, contextual
approach, the combination of these two questionnaires and the interviews used in the second
stage of data collection were expected to provide multiple layers of data to answer the
research questions of this study.
3.6.2. Development of the PELLEM
The PELLEM was developed from a list of themes identified by the researcher based on
discussions with students and amended after two pilot studies were conducted to verify the
reliability and validity of the instrument. Initially, the PELLEM covered four themes: 1)
General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia, 2) Out-of-Class Experience 3) English in
Malaysian Academic Programmes and 4) Learning English as an International Student and
included 17 statements. After the results of the first pilot study, which is described at the
end of this section, the final version of the PELLEM was prepared. The PELLEM was
finalised with four themes, which included a combination of two of the earlier themes and
an additional theme. These are: 1) General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia, 2)
Out-of-Class Experience 3) Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities and 4)
Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute. The final theme was added because
participants’ perceptions of the language course they were enrolled in were expected to
influence how they perceive their learning experience in Malaysia. The final version of the
PELLEM comprised 30 statements to which learners were required to record responses on a
5 point Likert-type scale (1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree). The themes, sub-
themes and corresponding statements are detailed in Table 3.1. below.
68
Table 3.1. The PELLEM Questionnaire
Theme 1-General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia Total-9
Subtheme a-general Total-5
I would recommend learning English in Malaysia to my family and friends. Item 1
My English has improved since I came to Malaysia. Item 2
Malaysia is a good place to learn English. Item 9
The English language instructors in Malaysia are qualified and experienced. Item 8
My lack of proficiency in English causes me many problems in Malaysia. Item 12
Subtheme b-compared to home country Total-2
Learning English in Malaysia is better than learning English in my own country. Item 4
People who want to come to Malaysia to study should learn English in their own
countries first.
Item 11
Subtheme c-compared to other countries Total 2
I would be happier if I could learn English in another country (not Malaysia). Item 10
You can only learn English well in a country where it is a native language (e.g. the
U.S., the U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand & Ireland).
Item 7
Theme 2- Out-of-Class Experience Total-6
Subtheme a-interaction/practice opportunities Total-2
I have lots of opportunities to practice speaking English in Malaysia. Item 3
The only time I speak English now is when I am in class. Item 14
Subtheme b-perceived value of practising with locals Total-2
Speaking English to Malaysians does not help me improve my English. Item 13
I face problems understanding English when talking to Malaysians. Item 6
Subtheme c-value of English proficiency in facilitating life in Malaysia Total 2
I find it hard to use English when I go shopping or when dealing with daily events(
for example paying bills, at the doctor’s).
Item 15
Living in Malaysia is easier if your English is good. Item 18
Theme 3- Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities Total-8
Subtheme a-perceived necessity to master English to succeed in local university Total-5
I don’t need to be very good in English to do well in a Malaysian university. Item 5
If I can communicate well in English, my results at a Malaysian university will be
good.
Item 16
I am worried about facing language problems when I start university. Item 20
Students who are going to do courses need to be better in English than those who
are going to do research studies.
Item 21
Subtheme b-perceived value of language for social/practical reasons in local
university
Total-3
If I can communicate well in English, I will make more friends at a Malaysian
university.
Item 17
All the information international students need at Malaysian universities is
available in English.
Item 22
I don’t expect to have any problems interacting with my lecturers or supervisor. Item 23
69
Table 3.1. continued
Theme 4- Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute Total-7
Subtheme a-effectiveness of language course Total-2
The language course I am taking has helped improve my English language skills. Item 24
The skills I am learning in this English course will help me when I start at a local
university.
Item 25
Subtheme b-materials & course book Total-1
The course book and materials we use in the English language class are useful and
interesting.
Item 26
Subtheme c-classroom activities Total-2
The activities we use in the English language class give me the chance to practice
my language skills.
Item 27
I learn something new in my English class every day. Item 28
Subtheme d-teaching Total-2
The teachers in my class can show me how to improve my language skills. Item 29
The way English is taught in my language course is easy to understand. Item 30
For the actual version of the PELLEM used in the study, please refer to Appendix B. In the
following section, the pilot studies and resulting changes to the PELLEM and data
collection procedures are summarised.
3.6.3. Pilot Studies
Creswell (2008) states that pilot studies help researchers test whether the questions on a
interview or questionnaire can be comprehended and completed by the intended
participants. In order to test the PELLEM as well as the administrative procedures of both
the questionnaires and the interviews, two pilot studies were conducted. The first pilot study
(I) was conducted in April, 2009, while the second pilot study (II) was conducted in June
2009. The participants of the first pilot study were not included in the main study. However,
the participants in the second pilot study were included in the final data since the PELLEM
questionnaire administered was the final version, and no further changes were made to it.
For both pilot studies, participants were selected using convenience sampling, by requesting
permission from the college administration. In addition, the questionnaires were
administered only in classes whose teachers agreed to participate. For example, some
classes were approaching their mid-terms and their teachers declined participation.
According to Creswell, (2008), convenience sampling involves the selection of participants
70
who are available and willing to participate in a study. Although a convenience sample
cannot be said to be representative of the population, Creswell (2008) states that a
convenience sample can provide useful information for answering questions and
hypotheses. In the case of the pilot studies conducted in this research, the purpose was to
perform statistical testing on the PELLEM questionnaire as well as test administrative
procedures and the accuracy of the translation of both the PELLEM and the BALLI and the
convenience sample fulfilled these objectives.
Pilot Study I
The main objectives of Pilot Study I were: a) to test the PELLEM questionnaire in terms of
item reliability and language and b) to test the tentative list of questions for the semi-
structured interview. The first pilot study involved 36 participants from the Pre-
intermediate, Intermediate and Academic Skills for IELTS levels. There were 22 male and
16 female participants, with the youngest aged 17 and the oldest aged 42. Questionnaires
were administered in three different classes by the researcher, either at the beginning or at
the end of the class. Completed questionnaires were collected and three participants were
selected for the interview stage about one week later.
Results of Pilot Study I
The original version of the PELLEM, which was used in the first pilot study along with the
BALLI, had 17 items under four themes: General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia,
Out-of-Class Experience, English in Malaysian Academic Programmes and Learning
English as a Foreign Student. An item-reliability test was conducted to ascertain whether
the construct of each theme was statistically sound. Several changes were made to the
PELLEM. These changes generally involved the rewording of several items which seemed
to have been misinterpreted by participants of the pilot study and the addition of several
71
items to the theme on English use in Malaysian universities. The details of these changes are
presented in the following section.
Changes to Items based on Item Reliability
Statistical analysis of the results of Pilot Study I was performed, including inter-item
correlations as well as computation of the Cronbach’s Alpha for each theme. Table 3.2
summarises the changes made.
Table 3.2. Changes Made to the PELLEM based on the Item-Reliability Test
Findings Changes Made
Weak correlation of Item 7-There
aren’t enough good English teachers
in Malaysia with other items in
Theme 1.
Wording of this item was changed from negative to positive
to avoid misinterpretation by participants: The English
teachers in Malaysia are qualified & experienced.
Weak correlation of Item 6-I can’t
understand the English that is spoken
by Malaysians with other items in
Theme 2.
This item was reworded as a positively oriented item: I face
problems understanding English when talking to
Malaysians.
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Theme 3
was 0.320, which was considered
very low
It was found that Theme 3 comprised only 3 items related
to different aspects of English use in Malaysian Academic
programmes. Five new statements were added to this
theme.
The Cronbach’s Alpha for Theme 4
was 0.240, which was considered
very low.
Theme 4 comprised only two items related to Learning
English as a Foreign Student: item 11-People should learn
English in their own country before going abroad to study
and item 12- I face many problems as a foreign student in
Malaysia and this affects how I perform in my language
course. It was decided that this theme overlapped with the
first theme-General opinion of learning English in
Malaysia. Item 11 was retained and placed under Theme 1,
with some changes to the wording while Item 12 was
deleted.
Addition of New Theme & Items
A new theme, Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute, was added to the final
version of the PELLEM. This was done as it became clear from the interviews conducted in
Pilot Study I that participants’ opinions about language learning in Malaysia could not be
studied in isolation from how they viewed aspects of their current language course. A new
item was also added to Theme 2: item 18- Living in Malaysia is easier if your English is
good.
72
Changes to Data Collection Procedure
Many of the statements which had proved problematic in the item-reliability test were those
which were negatively worded. It had been observed that participants were rushing through
the questionnaire, particularly when it was administered at the end of a class. It was
suggested that participants be allowed to take their questionnaires home during the second
pilot study.
Pilot Study II
A second pilot study was conducted involving 32 students who were enrolled in the English
programme at the college. All except for three participants in Pilot Study II were enrolled in
the Pre-intermediate, Intermediate and Academic Skills for IELTS levels. The remaining
three comprised two Beginners and one Elementary level student. There were 23 male and 9
female participants, with the youngest aged 15 and the oldest aged 42.The main objectives
of Pilot Study II were a) to test the item reliability of the amendments to the PELLEM as
well as b) to refine the questionnaire administration procedure in order to ensure that the
maximum number of completed questionnaires would be collected. Thus, the participants in
the second pilot study were allowed to take their forms home to be completed at their
leisure. The change of procedure had been made in an attempt to remove the time pressure
on students, as it was found in the first pilot study that some participants had rushed through
the questionnaire. However, in the second pilot study, a new problem arose in that many
questionnaires were not returned. As a result, the initial data collection method of
administering questionnaires in class was deemed the more effective method and used in the
actual data collection of the study.
73
Table 3.3. Results of Inter-Item Reliability of Pilot Study II
Theme Cronbach’s
Alpha
Theme 1:General Opinion of Learning English in
Malaysia (9 items)
.761
Theme 2:Out of Class Experience (6 items) .672
Theme 3: Perceptions of English in Malaysian
Universities (8 items)
.552
Theme 4: Learning English in a Malaysian
Educational Institute(7 items)
.875
In terms of item reliability tests performed on the results of Pilot Study II, it was found that
there was sufficient reliability among items in each theme of the revised PELLEM. The
Cronbach’s Alpha for each of the PELLEM themes are listed in Table 3.3 below. Although
the value for Theme 3 appears a little low, upon further analysis of the items within this
theme, it was decided that this was due to the nature of the theme. According to Landau &
Everitt (2004) the acceptable Alpha level is 0.60 or above, while other statisticians advocate
a Cronbach’s Alpha level of 0.80 to be considered statistically significant (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994 as cited in Bailey, 2005). However, like the BALLI, the themes of the
PELLEM include items which cover a broad range of issues; thus, a lower Alpha level is
not unexpected.
3.7. Translation of the BALLI and PELLEM Questionnaires
One of the challenges in collecting data from English language learners is the possibility
that participants miscomprehend the questions or statements used in questionnaires. As the
participants were at different levels of English language proficiency ranging from Beginner
to Upper Intermediate levels, it was decided that a bilingual questionnaire would increase
participants’ comprehension of the items, thereby increasing the reliability of the data being
collected. Because more than 60% of the students in the college spoke Arabic as a first
language, it was decided that the questionnaires used in this study would be bilingual, in
Arabic and English.
74
The BALLI and PELLEM were initially translated into Arabic by a native speaker of
Arabic, who is also an English language instructor. This individual was selected to do the
translation because of his high proficiency in both languages as well as his experience in
translating for an international news agency. After the questionnaires had been translated
into Arabic, back-translation was conducted. A second Arabic speaker was given only the
Arabic version of the questionnaires and asked to state in English what he understood from
each statement. The researcher then checked that this corresponded with the original
statement in English. In addition, a few typing errors were found during the process of the
pilot studies and were amended. The previous sections have presented information about the
two questionnaires used in the first stage of data collection. In the following section, the
interview stage of data collection will be discussed.
3.8. Interview
Upon completion of the questionnaires, the results were analysed in order to select
participants for the interview stage. Sixteen participants were chosen to represent various
levels of English proficiency, age, gender and education level.
3.8.1. Rationale for Using Interviews
As stated earlier in this chapter, using qualitative research methods in addition to
quantitative methods is believed to enhance the understanding a researcher can gain on a
particular phenomenon or research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The purpose
of the interview stage was to gain further insight into the beliefs about language learning
and perceptions held by the participants in terms of their learning experience. In addition,
interview data enabled the triangulation of data collected from the questionnaire stage while
at the same time addressing some of the limitations of questionnaires used in the first stage
of data collection. Although the BALLI and PELLEM questionnaires were considered the
most appropriate instruments to measure the two variables being studied, there remained the
75
problem of the limitations in the use of closed-choice questionnaires, as discussed earlier in
this chapter. A semi-structured interview enabled further investigation of participants’
beliefs and perceptions and allowed participants to express responses beyond agreement or
disagreement. According to Bryman (2008), semi-structured interviews help to encourage
standardization in the kinds of questions that are asked as well as in the way answers are
recorded by the researchers. This helps minimize the possibility of errors on the part of the
researcher. However, in using open-ended questions and by allowing the interview to
progress naturally according to the topics that might be brought up, interviewees also have a
certain amount of freedom in their responses (Bryman, 2008). Creswell (2008) also states
that open-ended questions allow participants to relay their opinions or talk about their
experiences without any limitations imposed by the researcher’s views or the findings of
past studies, as might occur in the use of questionnaires.
In the interviews conducted for this study, participants were asked about the factors that had
led them to respond in a particular way to certain items of interest on the questionnaires. In
addition, the reasons behind what seemed to be contradictory or unexpected responses were
examined in the interview sessions. Participants were also given the opportunity to talk
about other beliefs or perceptions they may have had that were not on either of the
questionnaires. Thus, the interview stage was an essential part of the study as it provided
additional, qualitative data in the participants’ own words, which allowed much deeper
examination of their beliefs and perceptions.
3.8.2. Selection of Interview Participants
After the questionnaire data had been collected and tabulated, 16 participants were selected
to participate in a semi-structured interview. Initially, participants were selected using
maximum-variation sampling in order to have as diverse a group as possible in terms of
proficiency levels, gender, nationality and education. Interview participants were first
selected to represent the different levels of proficiency: Beginner, Elementary, Pre-
76
intermediate, Intermediate and Academic Skills for IELTS/Upper Intermediate. Proficiency
level was deemed a significant factor as those students with limited English skills were
bound to have a very different experience of learning English compared with those who
were more proficient. In addition, those at the higher levels were closer to achieving the
language requirement for university admission than the others, which would likely affect
their emotions and attitudes. Another difference related to proficiency levels was that the
ability to interact with English speakers outside class would probably be greater for
participants at the higher levels, which would lead to varying experiences outside the
classroom.
As has been described in section 3.6.2. of this chapter, the intensive English course at the
college where the participants were studying was divided into classes according to the
following levels: Beginner, Elementary, Pre-intermediate, Intermediate and Academic Skills
for IELTS/Upper Intermediate. Initially, four participants were targeted for each proficiency
level. However, in the end, this was only feasible for the Beginner and Pre-intermediate
levels. One interview with an Elementary level participant had to be excluded due to a
corrupt sound file, while for the Intermediate and Academic Skills for IELTS levels, only
two and three participants, respectively, were available and willing to be interviewed. This
was because many of the participants at the higher levels had already left the college for
university by the time the interview stage commenced. Within each level, an effort was
made to represent the three major nationalities present in the sample: Libyan, Somali and
Sudanese as well as the other less-represented nationalities. In addition, interview
participants were also chosen to represent the different levels of intended academic study.
The purpose of setting these parameters was to ensure that different student groups were
represented in order to gain insight into the perceptions held by different types of
international students in Malaysia. Of all the students invited, 16 students agreed to
participate in the interviews. Their demographics are listed in Table 3.4 below.
77
Table 3.4. Demographics of Interview Participants
NO GENDER Age NAT LEVEL AT
QUESTIONNAIRE STAGE
HIGHEST
EDUCATION
01 Male 25 Libyan Beginner Bachelor Degree
02 Male 23 Sudanese Beginner Bachelor Degree
03 Male 21 Somali Beginner Bachelor Degree
04 Male 23 Iraqi Beginner Bachelor Degree
05 Male 33 Libyan Elementary Bachelor Degree
06 Male 26 Sudanese Elementary High School
07 Male 17 Sudanese Elementary High School
08 Female 25 Kyrgyz Pre-intermediate Bachelor Degree
09 Male 22 Somali Pre-intermediate High School
10 Male 23 Somali Pre-intermediate High School
11 Female 27 Moroccan Pre-intermediate High School
12 Female 27 Libyan Intermediate Bachelor Degree
13 Male 21 Somali Intermediate High School
14 Male 20 Somali Academic Skills for IELTS High School
15 Male 27 Somali Academic Skills for IELTS Bachelor Degree
16 Male 27 Sudanese Academic Skills for IELTS Higher Diploma
Overall, the demographics of the interview participants were representative of the sample.
In addition, all the main nationality groups were represented: Libyan, Somali and Sudanese,
although in the overall sample, the largest nationality group was Libyan. Participants were
also chosen from the less common nationalities, with one participant each from Iraq,
Kyrgyzstan, and Morocco. The percentage of female participants was 19%, whilst in the
sample it was somewhat higher, at 28%. Of the interview participants, 14 were still enrolled
in the English programme, while two (Participants 12 and 16) had already started academic
programmes at Malaysian universities. Participant 12 had already been accepted to
university, where she planned to do a Master’s degree in Mathematics. However, at the time
of the interview, she was enrolled in the university’s English programme for students who
had received conditional acceptance without the IELTS band required for direct entry into
academic programmes. Participant 16 had just started a degree programme at a local
university and had been able to enter the academic programme directly based on his results
78
on the university English placement test. Participants 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15 had also been
accepted into various university programmes but were still enrolled in the college’s
language course while waiting for the programmes to start. Upon registration, these students
would be expected to produce an IELTS test result of the band required by the university
(ranging from 4.5 to 6.5) or would have to take an English placement test. Based on the
results of the test, these students would either begin their academic programmes, like
participant 16, or be required to complete their respective universities’ English course which
could last from three months to a year. Because the tertiary education system in Malaysia
does not have a centralized application system for international students, unlike the
Universities and Colleges Admissions Services (UCAS) used in the U.K. system, each
Malaysian university or college applies its own methods for processing and evaluating
applications from international students. While university websites usually list an IELTS or
TOEFL requirement, most universities also practise conditional acceptance and administer
their own English placement tests to assess new students’ language skills. Based on the
researcher’s experience, many students feel intimidated by the IELTS test and prefer to
attempt the university’s own placement test, which is perceived as being easier.
3.8.3. Interview Questions
With the aim of guiding the semi-structured interview process, a list of questions was
prepared according to the five BALLI and four PELLEM themes. Many of the prepared
questions asked for reasons behind responses to questionnaire items, for example, “What
makes you believe that some people have a special ability to learn languages?” and “In the
questionnaire you stated that you would/would not recommend learning English in Malaysia
to your family & friends. Why/not?” Others presented questionnaire items in different ways
in order to verify earlier responses, for example “One of your friends is planning on coming
to Malaysia to learn English, what would you tell him or her?” or, "If you had started this
course ten years ago, do you think it would be easier?”. However, not all questions were
79
asked to every participant and the topics covered in the interviews were administered to
progress naturally based on the participants’ responses to earlier questions. The complete
list of prepared interview questions is available in Appendix C at the end of this dissertation.
3.9. Data Collection Procedures
The two stages of the data collection for the present study were conducted over a six week
period from September to October 2009. In the following sections, the administrative
procedures for the questionnaire and interview stages will be discussed.
3.9.1. Questionnaire Administration
The questionnaires were administered in the last half hour of class in all the twelve classes
running at the college at the time of the study over the course of three weeks. The researcher
and class teacher were present in the room while the questionnaires were being filled.
Before administering the questionnaire, the researcher explained the nature and purpose of
the study while going through the consent form with the participants. Students who declined
to participate were then allowed to leave. As the participants completed the questionnaires,
the researcher was at hand to answer any questions and to make sure that questionnaires
returned were as completely-filled as possible. In the case of students who had been in
Malaysia for fewer than two months, their completed forms were collected, but not included
in the data analysis or findings. During the pilot studies, it was found that participants often
rushed through the questionnaires, particularly if they were administered at the end of the
day. Therefore, for the main data collection stage, questionnaires were administered at the
beginning of class. The administrative procedures of the interview stage are discussed in the
next section.
3.9.2. Interview Administration
After the results had been tabulated, 16 individuals were selected to be part of the interview
stage. This group comprised individuals who represented different types of students in terms
80
of level of English but was also restricted by availability as some participants had left the
college to enter academic programmes in Malaysia. Most of the one-to-one interviews were
conducted in the college by the researcher, and two interviews were conducted over the
telephone. All the interviews were recorded as digital audio files using an MP3 recorder.
They lasted between seven and twenty-five minutes. Interviews were recorded and later
transcribed into text documents. After each interview was transcribed, participants were
given a copy of the transcript along with a compact disc containing the recording.
Participants were then asked to verify the content of the transcript, after which the transcript
was analysed as described in section 3.10.2.
3.10. Summary of Data Analysis
Since the research design for this study used a mixed-method approach, two types of data
were collected. The first stage of data collection utilised the BALLI and PELLEM
questionnaires, which produced quantitative data in the form of participants’ responses on a
Likert-type scale. The second stage of data collection was the interview stage. During this
stage, qualitative data was collected in the form of participants’ responses to the questions
asked by the researcher during the semi-structured interviews. The data analysis of the
quantitative data and the qualitative data is summarized in the following sections.
3.10.1. Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software
version 17.0. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means and standard deviations
were computed for participants’ responses to the items on the BALLI and PELLEM, to
answer Research Question One, on the participants’ language learning beliefs and Research
Question Two, on participants’ perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. Next, factor
analysis was performed on the data, using principle component analysis. An initial solution
was determined for both the BALLI and PELLEM factors. Using the scree plot test, the
81
number of factors was then determined and the factor analysis was performed once again for
a final factor solution. As both questionnaires are built up of themes which cannot be
summed up into a total composite score, the factor scores for the factors identified by the
factor analysis of the BALLI and the PELLEM were used as a basis for the Pearson r
correlation coefficient tests to determine whether there was a relationship between the
participants’ language learning beliefs and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia
(Research Question Three).
3.10.2. Qualitative Data Analysis
The analysis of interview data was conducted according to the steps of qualitative data
analysis outlined by Creswell (2008). According to these steps, data collection is followed
by the transcription of data, after which the data is coded by the researcher (Creswell, 2008).
After the participants had attested to the accuracy of the interview transcripts, the researcher
read through all the interviews several times to get an idea of the possible themes within the
interview data. Following this, each transcript was coded individually and these codes were
then placed under four main themes: 1) Perceptions of Malaysia as an English Language
Learning Destination; 2) Communication and Interaction Outside Class; 3) Perceptions of
English in Malaysian Universities; and 4) Language Learning. The results of the
interview stage are presented in detail in Chapter Five, in order to answer Research
Question Four.
3.11. Ethical Considerations
The main ethical consideration involved in the study was the confidentiality of participant
data. Prior to participation in the study, participants were given a consent form which
explained the details of the study in both English and Arabic. A copy of the consent form is
in Appendix D of this dissertation. After signing the form to indicate voluntary
participation, participants then filled in both the questionnaires. Participants’ names were
82
only known to the researcher, who assigned a number to each participant in the discussing
of the results. As the researcher was holding an administrative position in the department,
participants were repeatedly assured that their honest responses to both the questionnaires
and interviews would have no implications on their performance on the language course or
any other aspects of their stay as students at the college.
3.12. Conclusion
This chapter has presented the research methodology used in this study along with other
information relevant to selection of the methods used. Beginning with a short summary of
the various methods used in previous research on language learning beliefs and learner
perceptions, the chapter then included a summary of the research design used in the present
study. This was followed by detailed descriptions of the participants, their learning context,
and data collection methods used in this study, with particular attention given to the
development of the PELLEM questionnaire over the course of two pilot studies. The
research design and data collection procedures used in this study were also discussed.
Finally, this chapter includes a section on the ethical considerations related to the study. The
next two chapters will present the results of both the questionnaires and the interview
sessions as well as the analysis of these results.
83
Chapter 4-Quantitative Results and Discussion
4.1. Introduction
In the previous chapter, the research design used in this study was described in detail. This
included both the quantitative data collection involving the two questionnaires: BALLI and
PELLEM, and the qualitative data collection which entailed a semi-structured interview.
For the results section of this dissertation, the quantitative and qualitative results will be
presented separately, in Chapter Four and Chapter Five, respectively. This chapter presents
the results of the BALLI and PELLEM questionnaires in order to answer the first three
research questions.
The first section of this chapter will present the descriptive statistics and factor analysis
results of the BALLI questionnaire, thereby answering the first research question: What are
the language learning beliefs of international students learning English at a local college in
Kuala Lumpur? The next section will address the second research question: What are their
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia?, with the descriptive statistics and factor
analysis results of the participants’ responses to the PELLEM questionnaire. The final
section will show the results of the Pearson r Correlation analysis of the factor scores from
the BALLI and PELLEM factor analysis in order to answer the third research question: Is
there a statistically significant relationship between their language learning beliefs and
their perceptions about learning English in Malaysia?
4.2. Results of BALLI questionnaire
As mentioned in the previous section, the discussion of the results of this study will begin
with the descriptive BALLI results, since this study uses the instrument by Horwitz (1987)
as a framework. The literature review in Chapter Two of this study has already established
the significance of language learning beliefs in terms of their relationship to various aspects
of language learning such as learners’ choice of learning strategies and course satisfaction
84
(Horwitz, 1987; Ellis, 2008). Thus, the investigation into the learning beliefs and
perceptions of international students learning English in Malaysia began by measuring the
beliefs held by participants about language learning in general, using Horwitz’s 34-item
BALLI (1987). The results of the BALLI questionnaire are presented in this section
according to the five themes as identified by Horwitz: 1) Foreign language aptitude; 2)
Difficulty of Language Learning; 3) Nature of Language Learning; 4) Learning &
Communication Strategies and 5) Motivation and Expectations. The frequencies and
percentages of participants’ responses to items on the BALLI are presented in Tables 4.1-
4.5 with responses presented as follows: 1-Strongly Agree (SA); 2-Agree (A); 3-Neither
Agree or Disagree (N); 4-Disagree (D); and 5-Strongly Disagree. Only two items, 4 and 15
in theme two, offer different response choices. Item 4 requires participants to estimate the
difficulty of English and offers them choices ranging from a-a very difficult language to e-a
very easy language. Item 15, on the other hand, measures participants’ estimation of the
time it would take someone to learn a language well, if he or she spent an hour a day
learning it. Possible responses for item 15 range from a-less than a year to d-5 to 10 years
and e-You can’t learn a language in one hour per day. The detailed results of participants’
responses to items in the five BALLI themes are presented in Tables 4.1-4.5 over the next
five sections. The number of participants who selected a particular response is noted,
followed by the percentage of participant responses in brackets. To facilitate discussion,
percentages have been rounded up; and thus may not add up to 100%. The mean and
standard deviation of each item are also reported. The results for each theme of the BALLI
are presented according to their order identified by Horwitz, beginning with Theme 1,
Foreign Language Aptitude, in the next section.
4.2.1. Foreign Language Aptitude
The descriptive results of participants’ responses to the BALLI items will begin with the
first theme, Foreign Language Aptitude, which relates to participants’ beliefs about foreign
85
language aptitude and inherent individual characteristics that facilitate successful language
learning, such as age and gender. In addition, two items, 11 and 30, aim to measure whether
respondents ascribe to the notion of different types of intelligence. For example, item 11
states that people who are good at mathematics are not good at learning foreign languages,
requiring participants to decide whether being good at mathematics means that one is not
good at learning languages, or whether both abilities are related to overall intelligence.
Table 4.1 shows participants’ responses to BALLI items within this theme and the mean and
standard deviation for each item.
Table 4.1. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on Foreign Language
Aptitude 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
1. It is easier for children than
adults to learn a foreign language.
74(73%) 20(20%) 5(5%) 2(2%) 1(1%) 1.39 0.760
2. Some people have a special
ability for learning foreign
languages.
37(36%) 49(48%) 11(11%) 2(2%) 3(4%) 1.87 0.897
6. People from my country are
good at learning foreign languages.
12(12%) 44(43%) 32(31%) 12(13%) 2(2%) 2.49 0.919
10. It is easier for someone who
already speaks a foreign language
to learn another one.
20(20%) 43(42%) 29(28%) 8(9%) 2(2%) 2.31 0.941
11. People who are good at
mathematics or science are not
good at learning foreign languages.
3(3%) 9(9%) 24(24%) 35(34%) 31(30%) 3.80 1.063
16. I have a special ability for
learning foreign languages.
7(7%) 30(29%) 44(43%) 18(18%) 3(3%) 2.80 0.912
19. Women are better than men at
learning languages.
8(8%) 14(14%) 46(45%) 18(18%) 16(16%) 3.20 1.108
30. People who speak more than
one language are very intelligent.
24(24%) 32(31%) 28(28%) 15(15%) 3(3%) 2.42 1.094
33. Everyone can learn to speak a
foreign language
30(29%) 42(41%) 19(19%) 9(9%) 2(2%) 2.13 1.002
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
A majority of the participants believed that children were superior language learners, with
93% (n=94) strongly agreeing or agreeing with the item. In addition, the belief that foreign
language aptitude exists appeared to be common, as 84% (n=86) responded positively to
this item. However, a much smaller percentage of participants (36%, n=37) felt that they
had this special ability and 43% responded neutrally to item 16-I have a special ability for
learning foreign languages. Thus, even though most participants believed that some people
have a natural talent for learning languages, most of them did not consider themselves as
having this talent.
86
These findings closely resemble those of other BALLI studies in similar contexts. For
example, a study of international EAP learners in Australia (Bernat, 2006) found that
despite 92% of participants agreeing that some people have a special ability to learn foreign
languages, less than a third (22%) agreed that they had this ability (item 16), with most
responding neutrally. A similar pattern was also found by Siebert (2003), who administered
the BALLI to a mixed group of foreign EAP learners studying English, as well as by Park
(1995), who used the BALLI to measure the beliefs of English learners in Korea. However,
in Truitt’s (1995) study of Korean EFL learners, a rather large percentage (55%) disagreed
that they had a special language learning ability. In addition, both the Korean EFL groups
(Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995) found lower rates of belief in the foreign language aptitude, with
only a slight majority (50-60%) endorsing this belief, compared to more than 70% in both
the EAP studies and the present study.
While the participants in the present study seemed to believe that age was a factor in
language learning, most tended not to believe the same about gender. The most common
response to item 19-Women are better than men at learning languages was neutral (43%,
n=44), and a slightly lower number (34%, n=34) disagreed. Only around 23% agreed with
the statement. This pattern could be related to the gender of the majority of the participants,
of whom 73% were male. Earlier, Bernat (2006) had suggested that respondents believed
their gender was superior in language learning; her sample had a female majority and were
more likely to accept item 19 (42% agreement) than Siebert’s group, which had a male
majority (28% agreement). The present findings seem to support Bernat’s suggestion as the
agreement to item 19 of 23% was roughly equivalent to the percentage of female
representation in the sample. Like Siebert’s (2003), Park’s (1995) and Truitt’s (1995)
groups, participants in the present study were mostly male and they generally rejected the
statement on female superiority in language learning. In addition, most of the participants in
this study came from male-dominated cultures. For example, the female participants from
87
Libya were not allowed to travel alone to Malaysia and had to be accompanied by a male
relative. Also, the Somali male students in the college often told the researcher that they
faced difficulties in performing household chores in Malaysia, because these chores had
always been performed by either their mothers or sisters. For these participants, the idea that
women might be superior in language learning, something they connected with academic
ability or intelligence, was something that they clearly rejected. In fact, during the pilot
study, a number of participants had expressed dissatisfaction about this item to the
researcher, asking her why such an item had been included in the questionnaire.
In terms of the items about different types of intelligence, participants’ responses appeared
to reject the idea that there are different kinds of intelligence. Most (64%) disagreed that
people who are good at mathematics and science were not good at learning languages.
Before Gardner introduced his theory of multiple intelligences, psychologists tended to view
intelligence as comprising two forms, linguistic and logical mathematical (Brown, 2000). It
is still a commonly held belief, particularly in Western cultures that people who are
naturally good at mathematics tend not to be so good at languages and vice-versa. In
addition, it is often said that girls tend to do better at language related subjects, while boys
tend to perform better in mathematics and science, a notion that was rejected by the
participants as can be seen by their responses to item 19 as described earlier in this section.
Perhaps the notion of separate intelligences is one that is uncommon in the participants’
cultures. In fact, 55% (n=56) of participants considered people who speak many languages
as being intelligent, which could indicate that participants view the ability to succeed in
language learning as being a sign of intelligence. Many of the participants were from
countries where one language is dominant such as Libya, Iraq and Sudan; thus, they may
not have been regularly exposed to multilingual people. In addition, as 37% of participants
were monolingual, speaking multiple languages may be connected to having international
88
exposure through overseas education or travel. Thus, participants may associate being
multilingual with being educated or intelligent.
Another significant finding was that the participants in the present study were far more
enthusiastic about the language learning abilities of their countrymen when compared to
past studies, with more than half responding positively to item 6. However, the most
common response to this item in Bernat’s (2006) and Siebert’s (2003) studies was neutral
and in Truitt’s (1995) study, 47% of participants disagreed with this item.
Overall, the items in the first theme of the BALLI measured participants’ views about
inherent traits which might make a person a more successful language learner. The next
section, however, asks participants to assess aspects related to the difficulty of language
learning.
4.2.2. Difficulty of Language Learning
The second BALLI theme aims to measure learner beliefs about the difficulty of language
learning, in general, and the specific difficulty of learning English. In addition, participants
are asked to estimate how long it takes to learn a language and to compare the difficulty of
various language skills.
The majority of participants (80%, n=82) agreed or strongly agreed that language learning
varied in difficulty according to the target language and considered English a language of
medium difficulty (56%, n=57). Most participants (54%, n=55) felt it would take between
one and two years to speak English well if they spent an hour a day learning it. In terms of
the comparative difficulty of language skills, participants had mixed views. Roughly one
third of participants responded positively, neutrally and negatively to item 25-It is easier to
speak than to understand a foreign language, which positioned a productive skill as being
easier than a receptive one. However, slightly more participants disagreed with the item,
with 39% choosing response 4 or 5, while 32% chose the neutral response and 30% agreed.
89
Participants’ views were more cohesive when asked to compare reading and writing to
speaking and understanding, whereby 46% disagreed with item 34 that positioned reading
and writing as being easier than conversational skills. A significant proportion of around
30% also responded neutrally to this item, indicating perhaps that contextual details may be
a factor in participants’ assessment of the relative difficulty of the communicative skills.
Table 4.2 shows the frequency of participant responses, means and standard deviations for
BALLI items in this theme.
Table 4.2. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on The Difficulty of
Language Learning
1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
3. Some languages are easier to
learn than others.
36(35%) 46(45%) 13(13%) 7(7%) 0(0%) 1.91 0.869
4. English 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(1%) 23(23%) 57(56%) 18(18%) 3(3%) 2.99 0.752
15. If someone spent 1 hour a day
learning a language, how long
would it take them to speak the
language very well*: 1=less than a
year; 2= 1-2 years; 3= 3-5 years;
4=5-10 years; 5= you can’t learn a
language in 1 hour per day
14(14%) 55(54%) 20(20%) 5(5%) 8(8%) 2.39 1.043
25. It is easier to speak than to
understand a foreign language
7(7%) 23(23%) 33(32%) 25(25%) 14(14%) 3.16 1.132
34. It is easier to read and write
English than to speak and
understand it.
7(7%) 18(18%) 31(30%) 32(31%) 14(14%) 2.73 1.121
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
Participant responses to several items were similar to those found in previous studies in
EAP (Siebert, 2003; Bernat, 2006) and EFL contexts (Truitt, 1995; Park, 1995).
Participants in all these studies also believed that languages varied in difficulty and rejected
the idea that speaking is easier than comprehending. However, there was some variation in
how different learners viewed the difficulty level of English. In this aspect, the present
findings more closely resemble the EAP groups studied by Bernat (2006) and Siebert
(2003), who also mostly rated English as a language of medium difficulty. The Korean ESL
participants, in Truitt’s (1995) and Park’s (1995) studies, however, tended to perceive
English as being more difficult. One exception was the Lebanese learners in a BALLI study
conducted by Diab (2006), of whom 66% considered English an easy or very easy language.
90
A similar trend is also seen in the present group, which had a much larger percentage of
23% selecting either of these responses than in the EAP (Bernat, 2006; Siebert, 2003) and
Korean EFL studies (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995), in which 14% or fewer considered English
as being easy or very easy.
In addition to rating English as being less difficult when compared to previous EFL studies
(Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995), the participants in the current study significantly underestimated
the time it would take to learn a language well, when compared to the studies carried out by
Bernat (2006) and Siebert (2003) on mixed-nationality groups learning academic English. In
Siebert’s study, more than 40% of participants thought it would take between 4-10 years to
learn a learn a language well if someone spent an hour a day learning it, while in Bernat’s
(2006) study, responses were distributed along all the possible responses, with around 20%
selecting each response option. In contrast, close to 70% of participants in this study
selected responses of 2 years or less. The most common time estimation selected by the
Korean EFL students in Truitt’s (1995) study was 3-5 years, which was not as conservative
as the EAP studies (Bernat 2006; Siebert, 2003), but still more conservative than the present
findings.
In her study of mixed-nationality international students, Siebert found that the Middle
Eastern students tended to underestimate the time it takes to learn a language (Siebert,
2003). The present findings corroborate her assumptions because, although the majority of
the participants were from North African nations, they shared a language, religion and
certain cultural aspects with Middle Eastern students. However, this suggestion does not
explain why other EFL groups such as the Taiwanese students in Yang’s study (Yang,
1999) also responded similarly by underestimating the length of time necessary to learn
English. This may indicate other factors, such as learning context or teaching and learning
activities, or more specific factors including personality and past experience, play a role in
learners’ estimations of language learning difficulty. In addition, financial and time
91
constraints may lead learners to underestimate the amount of time needed to learn a
language well. For example, the participants who were government sponsored students from
Libya, were given eight months in which to improve their English prior to enrolling in
academic courses regardless of their language proficiency upon beginning the programme.
Underestimating the time needed to become proficient in English can cause the learner to
minimize the challenges posed by their particular time and financial constraints. This could
work in a positive way by keeping them motivated, but it could also affect them negatively
by giving them unrealistic expectations which may lead to disappointment. Overall,
participants’ beliefs about the difficulty of learning English depict the learners in the present
study as highly confident and optimistic, especially when compared to previous studies.
This optimism was also echoed in participants’ responses to the semi-structured interview,
which will be presented in the following chapter. Whether these characteristics are due to
socio-cultural factors or due to the learning context is unclear; however, these key findings
have certain implications which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Six.
While this section has presented the descriptive results of the participants’ responses to
BALLI items on the difficulty of language learning, the next section presents the results of
the third BALLI theme, which comprises items related to the nature of language learning.
4.2.3. The Nature of Language Learning
The fourth BALLI theme refers to various issues related to learning English, including
whether knowledge of English-speaking cultures and being in an English-speaking country
are necessary to learn the language. Other items concern the perceived importance of
vocabulary, grammar and translation in language learning. Table 4.3 presents participants’
responses to items on the nature of language learning along with the mean and standard
deviation for each item.
92
Overall, the participants tended to agree on some of the items concerning the nature of
language learning. An overwhelming majority (92%, n=93) agreed that the ideal context for
learning English is in an English-speaking country and 75% (n=76) felt that learning a
foreign language was different from learning other subjects. In addition, 61% of participants
agreed or strongly agreed that knowledge of English-speaking cultures was a necessity in
learning English while 26% responded neutrally to this item.
Table 4.3. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on The Nature of
Language Learning 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
8. It is necessary to know about
English speaking cultures to
speak English.
17(17%) 45(44%) 26(26%) 11(11%) 3(3%) 2.39 0.987
12. It is best to learn English in an
English speaking country.
76(75%) 17(17%) 4(4%) 3(3%) 2(2%) 1.41 0.860
17. The most important part of
learning a foreign language is
learning new words.
34(33%) 47(46%) 10(10%) 10(10%) 1(1%) 1.99 0.961
23. The most important part of
learning a foreign language is
learning grammar.
35(34%) 32(31%) 21(21%) 11(11%) 3(3%) 2.17 1.107
27. Learning a foreign language is
different than learning other
academic subjects.
20(20%) 56(55%) 20(20%) 6(6%) 0(0%) 2.12 0.787
28. The most important part of
learning English is learning how
to translate from my own
language.
18(18%) 37(37%) 18(18%) 21(21%) 8(8%) 2.65 1.216
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
The Korean EFL students in Park (1995) and Truitt (1995) also agreed that it is best to learn
English in an English-speaking country, with similar response rates of over 90% agreement.
Interestingly, the Australian EAP students (Bernat, 2006) showed a slightly lower rate of
agreement (83%-89%) and a slightly higher rate of disagreement with item 12. Perhaps,
because the Korean groups and the present group had not experienced learning English in an
English-speaking country, they tended to idealize it more. In contrast, the participants in the
present study also considered cultural knowledge less important than both the EAP learners
in English-speaking countries (Siebert, 2003; Bernat, 2006) and EFL learners in Korea
(Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995). This could be due to their learning context, in which they are
learning English to enroll in a Malaysian university; thus, knowledge of English-speaking
cultures would not provide much of an advantage. Although the learners surveyed by Park
93
(1995) and Truitt (1995) were also not learning English in an English-speaking country,
unlike those in the studies by Bernat (2006) and Siebert (2003), perhaps they had some long
term goals of travelling to native English-speaking countries or of using English with native
speakers.
Other items in the third BALLI theme were related to participants’ beliefs about the
importance of various language components in the language learning process. Participants’
responses to items 17, 23 and 28 showed that they considered vocabulary, grammar and
translation as important parts of language learning. Many participants rated vocabulary as
being the most important part of language learning (79%), when compared to those who
responded similarly about grammar (65%); and only around half (55%) felt translation was
the most important part of language learning. These findings indicate that the learners could
have misconceptions about effective ways to learn a language, preferring to focus on
memorizing vocabulary lists and grammar rules instead of spending their time on real
communicative practice. Moreover, very low percentages of participants rejected these
statements, particularly those about the importance of vocabulary and grammar learning,
with 11% and 14%, respectively, disagreeing with items 17 and 23. A little under one-third
(29%) disagreed that translation was the most important part of language learning, which is
a little more encouraging when compared to their views on grammar and vocabulary. Yet, it
is clear that these participants have a view of language learning that may not be conducive
to success in their efforts to learn English.
Overall, the beliefs of the English language learners in Malaysia were far more inconsistent
with current teaching practices when compared to previous studies, particularly those in the
EAP context (Bernat, 2006; Siebert, 2003). For example, although previous research also
found a high regard for the role of vocabulary when compared to grammar and translation,
the participants in this study were far more likely to consider these three items as being very
important. In addition, 79% of the participants in the present study considered vocabulary
94
learning very important, compared to around 50% in the studies by Bernat (2006) and
Siebert (2003). The study done by Park (1995) in an EFL context had roughly the same
results (61%), while Truitt’s (1995) findings were around 42%. Further, only 30% or fewer
of the participants in the studies conducted by Bernat (2006), Siebert (2003), Park (1995)
and Truitt (1995) agreed that grammar was important while the present study found a far
higher agreement rate of 65%. In addition, slightly more than half the present sample
considered translation important, while only the Korean EFL learners studied by Park
(1995) and Truitt (1995) responded similarly, although with a lower rate of 38%. In
contrast, more than half of the participants in the studies by Bernat (2006) and Siebert
(2006) did not view translation as being important to language learning. Based on the
findings in this theme, it can be concluded that the participants in the present study have
certain beliefs that could be detrimental to language learning. It is interesting to note that the
participants who participated in the interviews contradicted these findings since many of
them expressed a definite preference for communicative activities instead of vocabulary or
grammar learning, as will be described in Chapter Five dissertation. However, this could be
due to the small sample of interview participants, which accounted for 16% of the overall
participants.
The results discussed in this section have described the participants’ beliefs about the nature
of language learning. In the following section, participants beliefs’ related to the strategies
for language learning and communication will be discussed.
4.2.4. Learning and Communication Strategies
The previous three sections presented participants’ beliefs about certain aspects of language
and language learning. In other words, the previous three sections have attempted to
describe learners’ beliefs about the way things ‘are’, in terms of language learning. Items in
the fourth BALLI theme, however, represent participants’ conceptions on what they ‘do’ as
95
language learners, or, at least, what they believe they should do. Although what a learner
believes may not always translate into his or her actions, the items in this part of the BALLI
can provide a glimpse of how learners approach language learning. For example, item 13 is
about practicing English in social situations and items 18 and 26 concern repetition and
practice with audio cassettes. Other items in this theme measure participants’ views about
accuracy, making mistakes and guessing. Participants’ responses as well as the mean and
standard deviation for each item are shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on Learning and
Communication Strategies 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
7. It is important to speak
English with an excellent
pronunciation.
69(68%) 29(28%) 1(1%) 2(2%) 1(1%) 1.40 0.707
9. You shouldn’t say
anything in English until you
can say it correctly.
12(12%) 15(15%) 16(16%) 34(33%) 25(25%) 3.44 1.324
13. I enjoy practising English
with the people I meet.
45(44%) 43(42%) 9(9%) 5(5%) 0(0%) 1.75 0.817
14. It is okay to guess if you
don’t know a word in English.
32(31%) 44(43%) 16(16%) 5(5%) 5(5%) 2.09 1.055
18. It is important to repeat
and practise a lot.
78(77%) 22(22%) 0(0%) 1(1%) 1(1%) 1.28 0.619
21. I feel shy speaking
English with other people
2(2%) 17(17%) 18(18%) 32(31%) 33(32%) 3.74 1.133
22. If beginning students are
allowed to make mistakes in
English, it will be difficult for
them to speak correctly later..
20 (20%) 20(20%) 17(17%) 31(30%) 14(14%) 2.99 1.361
26. It is important to practise
with cassettes.
32(31%) 50(49%) 16(16%) 2(2%) 2(2%) 1.94 0.854
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
The results in this theme show some contradictory beliefs among the participants. For
example, most participants are highly confident, particularly when it comes to verbal
communication; 63% disagreed that they felt shy when speaking English and 86% said they
enjoyed speaking English with other people. Another positive finding is that participants
have consistent beliefs with at least one aspect of ESL methodology, with a majority (74%,
n=76) agreeing that guessing is an acceptable strategy of dealing with unknown words. In
addition, most (58%) participants also rejected item 9-You shouldn’t say anything in English
until you can say it correctly and item 22 (44%) about the need to correct beginners’ errors
to avoid fossilization. However, the participants who disagreed with these items were not an
96
overwhelming majority, which indicates that many participants may be anxious about
making mistakes. This can also be seen in the way participants value accuracy in
pronunciation; 96% percent agreed that excellent pronunciation was important. This anxiety
about mistakes could hinder learners’ attempts at communication for fear of making
pronunciation errors.
The present findings differed quite significantly from the EAP studies conducted by Siebert
(2003) and Bernat (2006) while having more similarities with past BALLI studies involving
EFL learners. For example, studies of EFL learners in Korea, Taiwan, and Cyprus (Park,
1995; Yang, 1999; Kunt, 1998) found a similar overwhelming concern for correct
pronunciation. However, in Bernat’s and Siebert’s studies, only 69% and 77%, respectively,
expressed a high regard for excellent pronunciation. One explanation could be that learners
of English in English-speaking countries may have encountered a larger variety of native
accents than those in EFL contexts, and may therefore be more accepting of accent and
pronunciation variations. Based on their responses to item 13 and 21, participants in the
present study were similar to those in the studies by Bernat (2006) and Siebert (2003) in
terms of confidence. Moreover, they were also slightly more confident about speaking
English than the EFL learners in Korea (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995). Around 20% of the
participants in the present study felt shy when speaking English compared to around 40% of
the Korean EFL learners (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995).
This section, has discussed the participants’ responses to the BALLI items in the fourth
theme on language and communication strategies. Thus far, the BALLI responses presented
in the four previous sections reflected participants’ views on various aspects directly related
to the language learning process. However, the fifth and final BALLI theme attempts to
identify the motivations behind participants’ decisions to learn a language as well as their
expectations of success. The results of the last BALLI theme are presented in the next
section.
97
4.2.5. Motivation and Expectations
While Horwitz’s BALLI (1987) is viewed as an instrument to measure learners’ beliefs
about language learning, only four of its five themes directly measure beliefs related to
language learning. The participants’ responses to these four themes have already been
discussed in the previous sections. The fifth BALLI theme, which will be discussed in this
section, takes into account the role of learner motivations and expectations as an influential
factor in their overall beliefs about language learning. Items in this theme cover various
types of motivation as well as participants’ own assessment of their potential success in
language learning. For example, Item 31-I want to learn to speak English very well seeks to
measure participants’ degree of motivation, while items 24, 29 and 31 measure the type of
motivation participants have to learn English. For example, item 24-I would like to learn
English so that I can get to know its speakers better and item 29-If I learn English very well,
I will have better job opportunities address integrative and instrumental motivation,
respectively, while item 5 refers to participants’ expectations of success in learning English.
Table 4.5 shows participants’ responses to the BALLI items in this theme.
Table 4.5. Frequency of Participant Responses to BALLI items on Motivation and
Expectations 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
5. I believe I will learn to speak
English very well.
50(49%) 46(45%) 4(4%) 1(1%) 1(1%) 1.60 0.707
20. People in my country feel that
it is important to speak English.
39(38%) 40(39%) 12(12%) 8(8%) 3(3%) 1.98 1.043
24. I would like to learn English
so that I can get to know its
speakers better.
30(29%) 50(49%) 16(16%) 5(5%) 1(1%) 1.99 0.862
29. If I learn English very well, I
will have better job opportunities.
53(52%) 40(39%) 5(5%) 2(2%) 2(2%) 1.62 0.831
31. I want to learn to speak
English very well.
84(82%) 15(15%) 2(2%) 0(0%) 1(1%) 1.23 0.579
32. I would like to have English-
speaking friends.
44(43%) 47(46%) 7(7%) 1(1%) 3(3%) 1.74 0.864
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
Overall, participants’ responses were generally positive. All the items had agreement rates
of 77% or more, showing that participants had positive expectations and were highly
motivated to learn English. Participants were optimistic about their ultimate success in
learning English; 94% (n=96) believed that they would learn to speak English very well,
98
and only two participants disagreed with the statement. In addition, participants were highly
motivated, with 97% agreeing that they wanted to learn to speak English very well.
In terms of types of motivation, an equally high proportion (91%, n=93) believed that
proficiency in English would lead to better job opportunities and the four participants who
disagreed were all government-sponsored Libyan students, headed for postgraduate degrees
in Malaysia. As these participants were all university lecturers in their countries, perhaps
they considered the main purpose of learning English was to complete their postgraduate
qualifications and return to their jobs.
The items concerning integrative motivation, items 24 and 32, in addition to item 20 on the
value of English, registered slightly lower rates of agreement when compared to most of the
other items in this theme, which had more than 90% agreement. About 89% of participants
stated that they would like to have English-speaking friends. Item 24, on integrative
motivation, was one of the items with the lowest percentage of agreement in this theme,
with 78% of participants agreeing that getting to know English speakers better was one of
the reasons they were learning English. A similar response was recorded in the item about
the value of English in participants’ home country. While a high rate of agreement would be
expected, considering the world-wide use of English, only 77% agreed that people in their
country valued English proficiency. However, those who disagreed with the item were from
different countries, such as Libya, Somalia and Sudan. As many participants of the same
nationality also agreed with this item, the variance could be more a matter of individual
perception than a representation of how English is viewed in these countries.
Participants in previous studies also registered a high level of motivation and expectation.
With regard to items on motivation and expectation, findings varied mainly in the degree to
which participants agreed to the items. When compared to previous studies, the present
group was far more optimistic about their language learning success. More than 90%
99
believed they would eventually learn to speak English well, compared to the results of past
studies: 88% (Bernat, 2006), 75% (Siebert, 2003), 72% (Park, 1995) and 59% (Truitt,
1995). Another interesting feature is that, in terms of items on integrative motivation, the
participants in the studies conducted by Bernat (2006) and Siebert (2003) indicated a
similarly low level of integrative motivation, although they were learning English in
English-speaking countries where friendship opportunities with native English speakers
would be more abundant.
4.2.6. Reliability of the BALLI
Although the BALLI themes were not statistically generated, and the items within one
theme may refer to a wide range of language learning aspects, a reliability test of the BALLI
results was performed to determine the overall reliability of the instrument. The individual
themes showed low reliability with Cronbach’s Alpha values ranging from 0.237 to 0.668.
As discussed in Chapter Two of this study, the low reliability of BALLI themes has been
attributed to its being designed by Horwitz (1987) without the use of statistically generated
themes (Kuntz, 1996) in addition to the broad range of topics covered by items within each
theme. However, several researchers, such as Nikitina and Furuoka (2006), have attempted
to verify the reliability of this instrument and have concluded that despite certain
weaknesses, the BALLI remains a reliable instrument for measuring learner beliefs. Overall,
a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.728 was recorded for the BALLI, which is above 0.60, the
acceptable Alpha level, according to Landau & Everitt (2004). While other statisticians
advocate an Alpha level of 0.80 to be considered statistically significant (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994 as cited in Bailey, 2005), the very nature of the BALLI suggests that a
lower Alpha would still indicate reliability because the instrument encompasses a wide
range of beliefs about language learning, even within a single theme. The Cronbach’s Alpha
for the BALLI questionnaire in this study was slightly higher than those found by other
researchers including Yang (1999), Park (1995), Truitt (1995) and Kunt (1998), who all
100
found values of between 0.60 and 0.70. One exception was the study by Hong (2006), who
administered the BALLI and SILL to two groups of Korean EFL learners and found slightly
higher Cronbach’s Alpha levels of 0.74 and 0.77 for the BALLI results of her study.
In summary, the first part of this chapter has presented the descriptive results of the BALLI
survey administered to a group of international students learning English in Malaysia. In the
next section, the results of the factor analysis performed on participants responses to the
BALLI will be discussed.
4.2.7. Factor Analysis of BALLI Results
While descriptive statistics of BALLI responses, as presented in the previous section of this
chapter, have been widely used by researchers to describe the language learning beliefs of a
group of learners, several researchers have also performed factor analysis of BALLI results.
For example, Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) performed factor analysis on the BALLI
responses of 107 Malaysian students learning Russian as a foreign language and found four
factors that roughly corresponded to four of Horwitz’s themes. As discussed in Chapter
Two, their purpose of performing this type of statistical analysis was to verify the statistical
strength of the BALLI in view of criticisms by researchers, such as Kuntz (1996), who
pointed out that the five themes of the BALLI were not generated through statistical
analysis but from focus group discussions with language teachers and learners. While
Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) conducted factor analysis of BALLI result to determine the
validity of the instrument, several other researchers, such as Hong (2006), Park (1995) and
Truitt (1995) have used factor analysis as a means of reducing the BALLI responses to
factors that could then be correlated to a second variable. These studies have already been
reviewed in Chapters Two and Three and are relevant to the present study since it also
involves the performance of factor analysis on both the BALLI and PELLEM results. In the
present study, the main purpose of performing the factor analysis on the results of both
questionnaires was to enable the correlations between the resulting factor scores to address
101
Research Question Three: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the
language learning beliefs of international students learning English in Malaysia and their
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia? However, the factor analysis results also
provide more detailed answers to Research Questions One and Two since they show the
strongest beliefs and perceptions among the participants of this study, as measured by the
BALLI and the PELLEM. In this section, the factor analysis of the BALLI results will be
presented.
Participants’ responses to the BALLI items were analyzed using principal component
analysis, to find an initial solution. This is the first step in the performance of a factor
analysis, wherein the results of the initial solution are used to determine the number of
factors upon which to perform the final factor analysis. The initial solution for the principal
component analysis of the BALLI resulted in 13 factors based on those with an Eigenvalue
of more than 1. Next, a scree plot test was applied to reduce the factors further, resulting in
a final factor extraction of three factors which accounted for 31% of the total variance. A
varimax rotation test allowed for easier interpretation of the factors. Table 4.6 presents the
final factor loading of the BALLI items. The detailed results of the principle components
analysis and factor analysis of the BALLI results, including the initial factor statistics and
the scree plot are available in Appendices E and F of this dissertation.
Items with factor loadings below ±0.4 in the BALLI were eliminated from the factor
analysis because items with loadings of under 0.40 are not considered to be significant.
There were ten such items as listed below:
1. Item 14-It is okay to guess if you don’t know a word in English. (0.380);
2. Item 2-Some people have a special ability for learning foreign languages. (0.354);
3. Item 8-It is necessary to know about English speaking cultures to speak English.
(0.323);
4. Item 21-I feel shy speaking English with other people. (-0.347);
102
5. Item 15-If someone spent an hour a day learning English, how long would it take
them to speak the language very well. (0.230);
6. Item 11- People who are good at mathematics and science are not good at learning
foreign languages. (0.270);
7. Item 19-Women are better than men at learning foreign languages. (0.268);
8. Item 27-Learning a foreign language is different than learning other academic
subjects. (-0.267);
9. Item 25- It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language. (0.206);
10. Item 34-It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand it. (-
0.79);
There was also one item which loaded above 0.40 on more than one factor. Item 30-People
who speak more than one language are very intelligent loaded above 0.40 on Factor One
and Factor Two. Although this item was included in the list of items for Factor One, the
nature of the item was not taken into consideration when naming this factor. Nikitina and
Furuoka (2006) also found a number of items which had high loadings on more than one
variable in their factor analysis study on the language learning beliefs of Malaysian students
learning Russian as a foreign language. These findings indicate complex structures and as a
result affect the interpretation of the factor results (Coakes, 2005 as cited in Nikitina &
Furuoka, 2006). Thus, item 30 was removed from the analysis to prevent problems in
analysing and naming the factors.
Table 4.6 presents the final rotated structure of the BALLI items. As can be seen, three
factors were identified for the BALLI. The first factor, Motivational and Affective Aspects
of Learning English, included thirteen items with loadings of above 0.40, while the second
factor, Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English, comprised six items
which loaded at 0.40 or higher. The third and final factor included five items related to
Formal Learning Beliefs. Each of the three BALLI factors will be described in detail in the
103
following sections, with Tables 4.7 to 4.9 presenting the items which loaded at 0.4 or more
for each of the three factors. Each section includes the name of each factor, the content of
the items in the factor and their loadings, as well as a discussion of each factor with
reference to previous findings.
Table 4.6. Rotated Factor Structure of the BALLI Variables
Rotated Component Matrixa
BALLI
ITEM
Component
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
31
797
-.112
-.128
7 .681 .239 .129
29 .678 .144 .068
12 .578 -.060 .059
18 .573 .042 -.190
33 .515 .173 .007
26 .468 -.063 -.308
1 .464 -.102 .003
32 .461 .208 -.094
24 .454 .287 .198
30* .441 .438 .244
13 .419 .257 .038
20 .415 -.035 .121
14 .380 .220 -.213
2 .354 .217 -.227
8 .323 .168 .162 16 -.040 .818 .165
3 .155 .571 -.225
5 .312 .548 -.092
6 -.219 .522 -.039 10 .151 .515 -.198
4 -.159 -.479 -.008 21 .013 -.347 -.028
15 .075 .230 .221
23 .269 .116 .725
17 .328 -.135 .585
22 -.048 .000 .585
9 .105 .352 .559
28 .129 -.070 .551
11 .028 .021 .270
19 -.156 .029 .268
27 .096 .071 -.267
25 -.138 -.014 .206
34 -.019 -.038 .157
Note: Extraction method: Principle Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax Rotation
Item 30-loaded above 0.40 on Factors 1 and 2
The following items were not included in the analysis and discussion because their factor loadings
were less than ±0.40: 14, 2, 8, 16, 21, 15, 11, 19, 27, 25 & 34.
Factor One-
Motivation and
Affective Factors of
Learning English
Factor Two-
Confidence and
Assessment of
Difficulty of
Learning English
Factor Three-
Formal Learning
Beliefs
104
BALLI Factor One-Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English
The first factor contains items related to two major aspects: motivational and affective
aspects and beliefs about spoken communication. Firstly, six items were related to affective
aspects of learning English, for example motivation, optimism and positive feelings. Most
of these items were related to motivation; for
example item 31-I want to learn to speak English very well had the highest loading of
0.797. Other items related to motivation were: item 29, which referred to the job-related
benefits of English proficiency; item 32, about participants’ desire to have English-speaking
friends and item 20, about the value of English proficiency in participants’ countries. Item
33-Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language, can also be considered as representing
an affective construct as it indicates participants have an optimistic outlook towards their
potential success in language learning. Finally, item 13 refers to participants’ enjoyment of
speaking English.
The second aspect represented in Factor One-Motivational and Affective Aspects of
Learning English is beliefs about spoken communication. Items such as item 7, on the need
for excellent pronunciation; item 18, on the need for repetition, and item 26, which refers to
using audio cassettes for speaking practice, are all related to participants’ views on the
development of speaking skills. Items in these areas also appear to be related to the notion
of a ‘standard English’ pronunciation and accent. The second highest factor loading was for
item 7-It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation and the fourth
highest loading was for item 12-It is better to learn English in an English-speaking
environment. When combined with the other items in this factor which are related to
integrative motivation (32, 24), these items can be interpreted as a representation of
participants’ beliefs about the need for regular spoken communication in order to develop
their language skills. The high loading of these items under one factor may also be related to
participants’ desire for exposure to standard British or American English and their desire to
105
have the opportunity to interact with proficient English speakers. On one hand, when
compared to participants’ countries, Malaysia offers more of these opportunities. However,
when compared to countries such as the U.K. and the U.S., participants may find Malaysia
lacking in this aspect. Table 4.7 lists the items which had factor loadings of above 0.40 in
Factor One of the BALLI results.
Table 4.7. BALLI Factor One: Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English Item Description Loading M S.D.
31. I want to learn to speak English very well. .797 1.23 0.579
7. It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation. .681 1.40 0.707
29. If I learn English very well, I will have better job opportunities. .678 1.62 0.831
12. It is best to learn English in an English speaking country. .578 1.41 0.860
18. It is important to repeat and practise a lot. .573 1.28 0.619
33. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language .515 2.13 1.002
26. It is important to practise with cassettes .468 1.94 0.854
1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language. .464 1.39 0.760
32. I would like to have English-speaking friends. .461 1.74 0.864
24. I would like to learn English so that I can get to know its speakers better. .454 1.99 0.862
30. People who speak more than one language are very intelligent.* .441 2.42 1.094
13. I enjoy practising English with the people I meet. .419 1.75 0.817
20. People in my country feel that it is important to speak English. .415 1.98 1.043
* Item 30-Loaded highly on more than one factor
These findings closely resemble those found in other studies, despite the factors being given
different names by other researchers. According to Horwitz (2007), factor analysis is both a
science and an art, in that the statistical analysis performed is quantitative in nature;
however, the naming of factors is qualitative. Thus, while the items in factors found by
different researchers might be similar, the factor names given by each researcher could
differ. The first factor in the factor analysis conducted by Hong (2006) on the beliefs held
by monolingual and bilingual Korean ESL students was almost identical to the present
findings. Hong named this factor Motivation for and the Nature of Learning English. Items
18, 31, 29, 20, 7, 32, 26 and 33 were all found in the first factor for both groups in Hong’s
(2006) study as well as in the present study. However, Hong’s (2006) results also included
some items more directly related to the language learning process such as whether guessing
the meaning of unknown words was an acceptable strategy, the need to know about English-
speaking cultures, learning vocabulary and memorization. Oz (2007) also had similar
106
findings in his BALLI study of Turkish ESL learners. The first factor, called Beliefs about
Social Interaction and Learning Spoken English, contained several of the same items as in
the present study, for example, items on the motivational aspects of learning English, as
well as those items related to pronunciation and listening to audio cassettes (Oz, 20007).
One difference was that items related to integrative motivation factored much higher in the
Turkish ESL learners’ beliefs when compared to the present study (Oz, 2007). Nikitina and
Furuoka (2006), who conducted a factor analysis on the BALLI responses of Malaysian
learners of Russian as a foreign language also found that motivational items formed the first
factor of participants’ beliefs. However, they only found three items in the first BALLI
factor.
Overall, the present findings are very similar to the first BALLI factors found by Hong
(2006) and Oz (2007), who performed factor analysis on the BALLI responses of ESL
learners in Korea and Turkey, respectively. In addition, several items which were dropped
from the first factor of this study’s results due to a low factor loading or loading under more
than one factor, also loaded under factor one in the previous studies mentioned. For
example, the items on guessing (14) and knowledge of English-speaking cultures (8) found
in factor one by Hong (2006) were dropped from the factor analysis in the present study as
they had factor loadings below 0.40. Item 5-I believe that someday I will learn to speak
English very well, found in factor one by Oz (2007) also loaded under factor one in this
study, but was excluded from analysis since it also loaded under Factor Three-Formal
Learning Beliefs. Thus, it can be concluded that motivational beliefs and those related to
speaking skills are among the most significant constructs in the language learning beliefs of
ESL learners.
107
BALLI Factor Two-Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English
The second factor comprised six items which were related to participants’ confidence and
assessment of difficulty with regards to learning English. The item with the highest loading
in factor two was item 16, about participants’ belief about whether they possessed a special
ability for learning foreign languages. Although the descriptive results showed that
participants were more likely to believe that other people had this ability (item 2-84%
agreement) than believe the same thing about themselves (item 16-36% agreement),
participants in this study had a higher rate of agreement with item 16 when compared to
previous studies by Hong (2006), Park (1995) and Truitt (1995). Also, the descriptive
results showed that participants in this study appeared to be more confident and optimistic
about their language learning success when compared to those of other studies. They also
tended to underestimate the difficulty of learning English when compared to other studies,
as described earlier in this chapter. The loading of items related to confidence and
assessment as the second factor confirms the earlier descriptive findings. In addition to item
16, other items in this factor which measured participants’ confidence were item 5-I believe
I will learn to speak English very well and item 6- People from my country are good at
learning. The other items, for example item 4, are related to the difficulty of learning
English, which can also be said to be influenced by confidence. Highly confident learners
would be more likely to assess a task as being less difficult when compared to less confident
learners. Item 4 corresponded negatively to all other items in this factor, with a loading of -
0.497 because the response choices ranged from very difficult (1) to very easy (5). Thus,
those participants who tended to agree with the items on confidence (responses 1 or 2)
would be more likely to select responses on the opposite end of the scale, (4-easy or 5-very
easy) when responding to item 4. While the descriptive results show that the most common
response for item 4 was 3-neutral, the negative factor loading of this item in relation to the
other items in this scale shows that the participants’ confidence is negatively correlated with
108
how difficult they perceive English language learning to be. Table 4.8 lists the items in
factor two with the corresponding factor loadings, means and standard deviations.
Table 4.8. BALLI Factor Two: Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning
English Item Description Loading M S.D.
16. I have a special ability for learning foreign languages. .818 2.80 0.912
3. Some languages are easier to learn than others. .571 1.91 0.869
5. I believe I will learn to speak English very well. .548 1.60 0.707
6. People from my country are good at learning foreign languages. .522 2.49 0.919
10. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn
another one.
.515 2.31 0.941
4. English 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.
-.479 2.99 0.752
When compared to past research, the second factor identified in this study has certain
similarities with past research. Hong’s (2006) study, mentioned earlier, also found similar
items in the second factor of her participants’ BALLI results, but only for the monolingual
group. Hong named this factor Self-efficacy and Confidence in Learning English. However,
many of the items are similar to those in the second factor of the present study. Items 16, 4,
5 and 6 also loaded in Hong’s (2006) second factor for monolingual Korean ESL learners,
and her findings also included item 21-I feel timid(shy) speaking English with other people,
which also loaded under factor two in this study but was excluded from analysis as factor
score was below 0.40 (-0.347). Furthermore, there were items on the enjoyment of speaking
English with others and getting to know native speakers of English that fell within the
second factor of Hong’s study, which loaded on the first factor in the present study. On the
other hand, the second factor for the bilingual Korean learners in the same study included
items related to Formal Learning Beliefs (Hong, 2006). Other studies also had similar
results as the present study in terms of items related to self-efficacy, or what is referred to in
this study as confidence. For example, Truitt (1995) who conducted a factor analysis of the
BALLI responses of Korean English learners also named the second factor as Self-efficacy
and Confidence in Speaking, but only one item (16) was the same as those in this study. The
results of Park’s (1995) study also had a second factor with a similar name Self-efficacy and
109
Confidence in Learning English, although there were only two similar items in this factor
when compared to Hong (2006) and the present study. There were also several studies
which found different results. For example, Nikitina and Furuoka (2006), Campbell (1993,
as cited in Kuntz, 1996) and Mantle-Bromley (1995) all found items related to Aptitude in
the second factor of their factor analysis studies of BALLI responses of foreign language
and English learners in different contexts. The following section presents the third and final
factor of the BALLI responses of the international students learning English in Malaysia
who were part of this study.
BALLI Factor Three-Formal Learning Beliefs
The third factor included items related to the importance of grammar, learning vocabulary
and translation (items 23, 17, 22) in the language learning process. This factor was named
Formal Learning Beliefs, using the same title proposed by Hong (2006). Two items on the
importance of accuracy were also included in this factor: item 9-You shouldn’t say anything
in English until you can say it correctly and item 22-If Beginner students are allowed to
make mistakes, it will be hard to correct them later on. Table 4.9 presents the BALLI items
in Factor Three of this study and the corresponding factor loadings, means and standard
deviations for each item.
Table 4.9. BALLI Factor Three: Formal Learning Beliefs Item Description Loading M S.D.
23. The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning
grammar.
.725 2.17 1.107
17. The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning new
words.
.585 1.99 0.961
22. If beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English, it will be
difficult for them to speak correctly later on.
.585 2.17 1.107
9. You shouldn’t say anything in English until you can say it correctly. .559 3.44 1.324
28. The most important part of learning English is learning how to translate
from my own language.
.551 2.65 1.216
Of note is the item with the highest factor loading, which was item 23 about the importance
of learning grammar as part of language learning. One of the issues highlighted in the
descriptive results of the BALLI responses was that the number of participants of the
110
present study who responded in agreement to item 23 was almost double those of studies by
Bernat (2006), Siebert (2003), Park (1995) and Truitt (1995). Incidentally, the factor
loading for this item (0.725) was much higher than those of the other items in this factor,
which were between 0.551 and 0.585. In addition to the item on the importance of
grammar, there were also items on the importance of vocabulary and translation, of which
the former had the second highest loading and the latter had the lowest loading. The other
two items in this factor were related to making mistakes. Earlier in this chapter, the
descriptive results showed that participants in this study were quite concerned about making
mistakes, which could be a matter of concern if it restricts their participation in
conversation.
Once again, the present findings were almost identical to those found by Hong (2006) with
regard to the learner beliefs of the monolingual Korean learners of English in her study. All
the five items in the third factor of the present study also loaded under the third factor in
Hong’s study. There were also two other items in the third factor found by Hong (2006).
One was item 34, which was dropped from the present study’s findings due to a factor
loading of 0.157, and the other was an additional item added by Hong to the BALLI
questionnaire (Hong, 2006). In contrast, the second factor in the bilingual students surveyed
by Hong was also called Formal Learning Beliefs, yet only three items were similar to the
factor of the same name for the monolingual learner group in her study. Another BALLI
study conducted in Korea (Truitt, 1995) also found similar items in the third factor called
Correct and Formal Language Learning. Four of the five items (items 9, 17, 22, 23) found
in this study also loaded under the third factor in Truitt’s (1995) study. Tumposky (1991),
who studied the learning beliefs of EFL learners in the USSR and French and Spanish
learners in the U.S., also had three items (items 17, 23, 28) in common with this study under
the third factor called Nature of Language Learning. Despite the similarities to the studies
by Hong (2006), Truitt (1995) and Tumposky (1991), the present findings differed from the
111
third factors found by other researchers, which comprised items on different constructs such
as Foreign Language Aptitude (Yang, 1999); Nature of Language Learning (Mantle-
Bromley, 1995) and Learning Spoken English (Park, 1995).
Overall, the factor analysis of the BALLI responses of the international students learning
English in Malaysia offered some insight on the structure of the language learning beliefs
held by this learner group. The three factors showed that motivational beliefs and other
beliefs related to affective factors, such as enjoyment and confidence, play a major role in
participants’ language learning beliefs. In addition, participants have strong beliefs about
formal learning, with beliefs related to grammar, vocabulary, accuracy and translation
making up a significant part of their belief structure. When compared to past research, the
findings of this study bore a close relationship to those of one study in particular, that of
monolingual Korean ESL learners (Hong, 2006). There were also some similarities to other
BALLI studies of ESL learners in Asia (Tumposky, 1991; Truitt, 1995). However, the belief
structures of the learner groups in other previous studies were both slightly and significantly
different from the present findings. This confirms the contentions of researchers such as
Nikitina & Furuoka (2007) that despite the common findings among the many BALLI
studies in various contexts, there seem to be other factors, whether contextual, cultural or
individual, that influence the beliefs about language learning held by language learners.
This section of Chapter Four has attempted to address the first research question by
describing the language learning beliefs of the participants, who are international students
learning English in Malaysia. This was followed by the results of the factor analysis of the
BALLI responses, which shed some light on the construct of these learners’ beliefs. The
factor scores from the factor analysis were also used in the Pearson r Correlation to answer
Research Question Three about the relationship between learner beliefs about language
learning and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. The results of the Pearson r
Correlation will be presented in the last section of this chapter. In the next section, the
112
results of the PELLEM questionnaire will be discussed, with the aim of answering the
second research question of this study: What are international students’ perceptions of
learning English in Malaysia?
4.3. Results of the PELLEM Questionnaire
While the BALLI questionnaire looked at participants’ language learning beliefs, the
PELLEM measured the participants’ context-specific perceptions about various aspects of
their language learning experience in Malaysia. Items were generated according to four
themes related to the participants’ experience as language learners in Malaysia: General
Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia; Out-of-Class Experience; Use of English in
Malaysian Universities and Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute. In this
section, the frequencies and percentages of participants’ responses to items within each
theme are presented in Tables 4.10-4.13. In section 4.2, the descriptive results of the
BALLI also included comparison of the present results to those of previous BALLI studies.
On the other hand, there are few relevant studies that can be referred to for comparison to
the PELLEM findings as this questionnaire was specifically designed for use in this study.
In the following sections, the discussion of the PELLEM results for each theme is followed
by a brief comparison to past studies in two broad areas. Firstly, several relevant findings
were found in previous studies which focused on international students learning English in
Malaysia (Ali, 2007; Hamzah et al., 2009), Singapore (Young, 2003) and in English-
speaking countries such as the United States (Christison & Krahnke, 1986). Secondly, the
discussion included relevant findings of a number of studies on the learning experience of
international students in the United Kingdom (Mehdizadeh & Scott, 2005), Australia
(Sawir, 2005; Ransom et al, 2005, Robertson et al., 2000); and New Zealand (Ho, Li,
Cooper & Holmes, 2007; Wang et al., 2008).
113
4.3.1. General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia
The items in this theme measured participants’ overall perception of learning English in
Malaysia. In addition, the items also sought to measure participants’ perceptions of learning
English in Malaysia when compared to their home countries and to English-speaking
countries. The details of participants’ responses are given in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on General Opinion of
Learning English in Malaysia 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
1. I would recommend learning
English in Malaysia to my family
and friends.
10(10%) 43(42%) 29(28%) 12(12%) 8(8%) 2.66 1.067
2. My English has improved since I
came to Malaysia.
31(30%) 61(60%) 6(6%) 3(3%) 1(1%) 1.84 0.741
4. Learning English in Malaysia is
better than learning English in my
country.
36(35%) 34(33%) 17(17%) 11(11%) 4(4%) 2.15 1.138
7.You can only learn English well
in a country where it is a native
language (e.g. the U.S., the U.K.,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand &
Ireland)
35(34%) 23(23%) 17(17%) 20(20%) 7(7%) 2.42 1.323
8. The English language instructors
in Malaysia are qualified and
experienced.
21(21%) 51(50%) 24(24%) 5(5%) 1(1%) 2.16 0.841
9. Malaysia is a good place to learn
English.
7(7%) 38(37%) 41(40%) 10(10%) 5(5%) 2.68 0.922
10. I would be happier if I could
learn English in another country
(not Malaysia)
13(13%) 29(28%) 43(42%) 12(12%) 5(5%) 2.67 1.006
11. People who want to come to
Malaysia to study should learn
English in their own countries first.
25(25%) 40(39%) 23(23%) 12(12%) 2(2%) 2.27 1.026
12. My lack of proficiency in
English causes me many problems
in Malaysia.
16(16%) 35(34%) 26(25%) 19(19%) 5(5%) 2.65 1.131
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
Overall, participants’ responses were mixed in terms of whether they viewed their language
learning experience in Malaysia positively or negatively. For example, 90% (n=92) agreed
that their English had improved since arriving here; 68% (n=70) considered learning
English in Malaysia as preferable to learning English in their own countries and 71% (n=72)
felt that the English language instructors in Malaysia were qualified and experienced.
However, despite positive perceptions in these areas, only 52% (n=53) would recommend
learning English in Malaysia to their family and friends. In addition, less than half (44%,
n=45) agreed that Malaysia was a good place in which to learn English (item 9) and a
slightly lower percentage (40%) responded neutrally to this item.
114
One possible reason for these contradictory findings could be Malaysia’s status as a country
where English has a historical and official role, but is not a native language. This is
corroborated by the current findings in which 57% of participants agreed with item 3-You
can ONLY learn English in a country where it is a native language. In addition, 41% (n=42)
stated that they would be happier if they could learn English in another country, while 42%
neither agreed nor disagreed. Only 17% (n=10) disagreed with this item. Evidently, learning
English amidst speakers of what participants consider ‘non-standard’ English, is viewed as
inferior when compared to learning English in countries such as the U.K. or the U.S.A.
Despite the fact the participants were engaged in learning English within a classroom
setting, the opportunity to practice the language being learned outside the classroom is
likely to be one of the components that make up their language learning experience. In fact,
the extent to which they are able to engage in real life communication outside the classroom
is likely to influence their perceptions of Malaysia as an English language learning
destination.
Hamzah et al. (2009) also studied the perceptions held by international students of their
English language course at a Malaysian university. As their study focused mainly on matters
related to the language course, their findings will be discussed in more detail in the next few
sections. A student in Hamzah et al.’s study also referred to Malaysia as not being an
English-speaking country, and stated that although his English had improved, it did not
meet his expectations (Hamzah et al., 2009). It appears that a similar sentiment could be felt
by the participants in this study because despite the improvement in their English skills
perceived by a majority of participants, they did not appear to be enthusiastic about
Malaysia as a place to learn English. Ali (2007), who studied the speaking and learning
motivations of international students in an intensive English programme in a university in
Selangor, also found that participants held somewhat positive perceptions of learning
English in Malaysia. However, participants in her study also made comments that implied
115
they did not have many chances to practice speaking English, particularly outside the
university (Ali, 2007).
Participants’ perceptions of whether living in Malaysia offers sufficient opportunity to
practice English on a daily basis, may be an underlying factor in their seemingly
contradictory responses to items in Theme 1. Therefore, the second theme in the PELLEM
focuses on the participants’ perceptions of their experiences of using English outside the
classroom. Participants’ responses to items within this theme are presented in the following
section.
4.3.2. Out-of-Class Experience
The second theme of the PELLEM examines participants’ perceptions about issues related
to English language use outside the classroom. Being in a country where English
proficiency tends to be limited to the educated middle and upper classes, participants’
access to Malaysians who are proficient in English depends on where they live and the
kinds of Malaysians they meet. Items in this theme examine participants’ perceptions of the
English language communication they experience outside the classroom, for example,
whether they have enough opportunities for authentic interaction and whether they face
problems in interacting with locals in English. Participants’ perceptions on the local variety
of English may also affect how they view their interaction opportunities. For this reason,
items 6 and 13, which measure participants’ perceptions on Malaysian English, were
included. Table 4.11 shows their responses to items in this theme as well as the means and
standard deviations.
116
Table 4.11. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Out-of-Class Experience 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
3. I have lots of opportunities to
practice speaking English in
Malaysia.
15(15%) 31(30%) 30(29%) 21(21%) 5(5%) 2.71 1.104
6. I face problems understanding
English when talking to
Malaysians.
20(20%) 44(43%) 20(20%) 13(13%) 5(5%) 2.40 1.091
13. Speaking English to Malaysians
does not help me improve my
English.
25(24%) 32(31%) 25(25%) 17(17%) 3(3%) 2.42 1.121
14. The only time I speak English
now is when I am in class.
12(12) 28(28%) 19(19%) 22(22%) 21(21%) 3.12 1.337
15. I find it hard to use English
when I go shopping or when
dealing with daily events( for
example paying bills, at the
doctor’s)
10(10%) 13(13%) 19(19%) 43(42%) 17(17%) 3.43 1.198
18. Living in Malaysia is easier if
your English is good
24(24%) 44(43%) 21(21%) 12(12%) 1(1%) 2.24 0.977
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
In terms of opportunities to speak English, less than half (45%, n=46) agreed that they had
ample opportunity to practice English in Malaysia, as measured by their response to item 3,
and 40% (n=40) said that they only used English in the classroom (item 14). Moreover, a
higher proportion indicated that they had problems with Malaysian English, with 63%
(n=64) agreeing that they faced problems understanding the local variety of English (item
6). In addition, more than half (55%, n=55) felt that speaking English with locals did not
benefit their English proficiency (item 13) and only 19% (n=13) disagreed with the same
item. Despite results which indicated some issues in their everyday communication, only
23% of participants agreed that they had trouble using English for their daily needs.
However, this could be a result of the wording of item 15, which places the focus on the
participants’ own ability to communicate in English. On the other hand, the other items such
as item 6 and 13 focused on their perceptions of Malaysian English speakers and their
English proficiency.
Based on the participants’ responses to the items in this theme, a perceived lack of
communicative opportunities combined with a negative perception of the local variety of
English were major issues for the respondents in this study. Firstly, only a little over half of
the participants felt that learning English in Malaysia offered them the chance to practice
117
speaking English outside the class. This might be particularly true for certain types of
student groups such as the ones surveyed, many of whom were postgraduate students who
were in Malaysia with their families and, therefore, had little time to spend socializing
outside class. In addition, many of the students reported that they lived with other students
of the same nationality, which not only limited their chance of speaking English outside
class, but also isolated them from the local community. Moreover, these participants were
enrolled in a small local college, which did not offer the social activities associated with
campus life.
Secondly, participants were very conscious of the differences between standard British or
American English and the variety of English used in Malaysia, and their responses to the
related items indicate that the local variety of English was seen as inferior and flawed.
Despite their limited interaction with locals, as reported by the interview participants, many
participants felt that they could not benefit from speaking English with Malaysia or had
problems understanding them. This may prevent them from actively pursuing interaction in
English outside the class, as most would not have access to the native English-speaking
expatriate communities that they seek to practice with.
The findings in this theme can be compared with existing research in a number of aspects.
Firstly, one of the main findings in this theme concerns the opportunity to speak English
outside class, which the participants find lacking. In addition, 12% strongly agreed that the
only time they spoke English was in class. It is interesting to note that Christison & Krahnke
(1986) who surveyed the perceptions of foreign ESL learners at a U.S. university also found
12% of participants stating that they never spoke English outside class. Another 20% said
that they spoke less than an hour of English a day. However, the present study had higher
rates of students who perceive a lack of speaking practice outside class, which is probably
due to the different status of English in Malaysia when compared to the United States, as
well as participants’ perceptions of the local variety of English. In addition to linguistic
118
factors, this lack of opportunity for English conversation may also be due to social isolation,
which has been a recurring theme in studies of international students learning experiences in
countries including Australia (Robertson et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2008).
Secondly, the perceptions held by the participants with regard to Malaysian English and the
English proficiency of Malaysians echo the results of another study in a similar context. As
mentioned in Chapter Two, Young (2003) studied how Singapore English was viewed by
students from China. The students in Young’s study were in a similar situation as those in
the present study in that they were also enrolled in an intensive English programme in
preparation for university. Young (2003) also found that students had trouble
comprehending the local variety of English and initially believed that Singaporeans should
learn American or British English. The similarity between her findings and those of the
second PELLEM theme show that perceptions of the local variety of English are significant
issues for international students learning English in countries other than those commonly
referred to as English-speaking countries. Interestingly, Young (2003) also found that
respondents’ perceptions of spoken Singapore English changed over a five-month period
and that the students from China showed an increasing acceptance of the Singaporean
variety of English. However, the shared ethnicity and the use of Mandarin by both the
students from China and many Singaporeans could be a contributing factor in the
accommodation of these Chinese students towards Singapore English. In contrast, many
international students in Malaysia are ethnically different from most Malaysians and do not
speak any common language with Malaysians other than English. Thus, their perceptions
towards Malaysian English may or may not change over the time that they spend here.
While the second PELLEM theme focused on participants’ experiences outside the
classroom, the next theme was centred on participants’ perceptions of English in Malaysian
universities.
119
4.3.3. Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities
The third theme of the PELLEM involves learners’ perceptions regarding the use of English
in Malaysian universities. As participants were learning English to prepare for enrolment in
Malaysian universities, their perceptions of matters related to academic life in Malaysia
were expected to play a role in their approach to learning English.
Among the issues looked at were the perceived importance of English proficiency for
academic success and social integration at university. Items in this theme also focused on
participants’ expectations about language use at university, including whether they
anticipated having language problems. The responses of participants, mean and standard
deviation for each item are shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Perceptions of English in
Malaysian Universities 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
5. I don’t need to be very good in
English to do well in a Malaysian
university.
7(7%) 26(26%) 24(24%) 22(22%) 23(23%) 3.27 1.260
16. If I can communicate well in
English, my results at a Malaysian
university will be good.
48(47%) 41(40%) 9(9%) 3(3%) 1(1%) 1.71 0.828
17. If I can communicate well in
English, I will make more friends
at a Malaysian university.
40(39%) 47(46%) 10(10%) 2(2%) 3(3%) 1.83 0.902
19. My language skills are already
good enough to join an academic
programme at a Malaysian
university.
11(10%) 34(33%) 29(28%) 24(24%) 4(4%) 2.76 1.055
20. I am worried about facing
language problems when I start
university.
13(13%) 31(30%) 29(28%) 18(18%) 11(11%) 2.83 1.186
21. Students who are going to do
courses need to be better in English
than those who are going to do
research.
13(13%) 27(27%) 31(30%) 25(25%) 6(6%) 2.84 1.115
22. All the information foreign
students need at Malaysian
universities is available in English.
21(21%) 45(44%) 27(27%) 6(6%) 3(3%) 2.26 0.954
23. I don’t expect to have any
problems interacting with my
lecturers or supervisor.
16(16%) 37(36%) 35(34%) 10(10%) 4(4%) 2.51 0.999
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
Participants’ responses to items in this theme appeared contradictory. Most significantly,
less than half (45%) of the participants disagreed with item 5-I don’t need to be very good in
English to do well in a Malaysian university”. Of the remainder, 33% agreed with this
statement and 24% were neutral. Thus, it could be said that many of the participants were
120
not convinced that a high level of language proficiency is necessary for academic success.
Conversely, 87% agreed that if they could communicate well in English, they would get
good results in a Malaysian university. A possible explanation for this incongruity could be
that participants made a distinction between “very good” and “well”, and felt that while
good language skills would help them academically, it was not necessary to be very good.
Participants also appeared quite confident about their present language skills as nearly half
(43%) felt that they were already proficient enough in English to enrol in academic
programmes. More participants agreed with item 19-My language skills are already good
enough to join an academic programme at a Malaysian university, when compared to those
who disagreed or were neutral (both 28%). Only 7% of participants were enrolled in the
Academic Skills for IELTS (Upper Intermediate) level, which would place them at an
estimated IELTS band of 5.5 after successful completion. Considering that 93% of the
participants had language skills below this level, the results for item 19 show that
participants either overestimated their language skills or underestimated the role that
language skills will play in their future academic success. In Malaysia, the English entry
requirement for university admission varies between band 4.5 and band 6.5, depending on
the type of course and subject area. However, the average IELTS band required by most
universities is around 5.5. As only 7% of participants had completed the Intermediate level
at the time of the survey (estimated band 4 – 5), the fact that almost half the participants felt
ready for university is a significant concern. In addition more than 50% of participants did
not anticipate having problems in communicating with their lecturers or supervisors when
they enrolled at university. These findings could be due to the high confidence of this
particular group of students as shown by the BALLI results. Another possible reason is the
participants’ underestimation of the need for English in a Malaysian university as a result of
their low regard for Malaysian English and the English proficiency of Malaysians.
Regardless of the underlying factors that have contributed to the participants’ optimism and
121
overconfidence, unrealistic expectations or overconfidence in one’s language skills can have
negative implications if the participants face academic problems once they start university.
The participants in the study by Hamzah et al. (2009) had already been accepted into
university, but were required to take the English course offered by the university as they did
not have the required IELTS result for direct admission into academic programmes. In
addition, Hamzah et al.’s (2009) study focused on respondents’ perceptions about teaching
and learning in the English course, while the present study also examined factors outside the
classroom. One interesting difference between the findings of this study and those of
Hamzah et al.’s (2009) is in participants’ self-assessment of their proficiency level and
readiness for academic study. While a little under half of the international students surveyed
in this study felt that that their language skills were already good enough for university,
close to 60% of the students in Hamzah et al.’s (2009) study were unhappy with their
English proficiency. While this difference may be due to the difference in wording of the
items being compared, it can be said that the participants in this study were more confident
about their language proficiency. This confidence could be because the participants in this
study had not been admitted into university yet and may not have a clear idea of the type of
tasks they would be required to perform. On the other hand, students in the study by
Hamzah et al. (2009) were already in a university setting and had already started their
academic courses. Therefore, they may have a better idea of the level of English expected of
them. Previous studies of international students in English-speaking countries such as
Australia (Ransom et al., 2005 ) and New Zealand (Wang et al., 2008) also showed similar
results in the perceived importance of English for academic success as those found by
Hamzah et al. (2009). For example, 99% of the 377 international students in an Australian
university felt that English language skills were very important to do well academically
(Ransom et al., 2005). The nursing students in Wang et al.’s (2007) study also felt that
language issues were a problem that affected their academic achievement.
122
The importance of English proficiency as a factor in academic success seems to be widely
accepted among groups of international students, whether in Malaysia or in English-
speaking countries. The participants in the present study also recognized that being
proficient in English can help them do well at university. However, they may have
unrealistic views on the level of English proficiency that is necessary to perform academic
tasks at university level. The qualitative results presented in Chapter Five also reflect a
similar underestimation among participants with regard to the level of English needed to do
well at university. This is a matter of concern, because students should at least have attained
the minimum level of proficiency needed to cope with academic tasks before they
commence their studies. Students who face language problems after they start academic
programmes may not receive the support they need or may fail and repeat courses several
times, which will cost them time and money.
While all the areas covered in each of the four PELLEM themes play a role in forming the
participants’ perceptions of their language learning experience, the next, and final, theme
looks directly at matters related to the participants’ language course. It is undeniable that
participants’ views of Malaysia as a place to learn English will be largely influenced by
whether they are satisfied with their language course itself. In section 4.3.4, the results of
final PELLEM theme, Perceptions of Learning English in a Malaysian Educational
Institute, are presented.
4.3.4. Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute
As participants perceptions of their language learning experience in Malaysia would
undoubtedly be influenced by their views of the language course they were enrolled in, the
fourth theme involves participants’ perceptions on various aspects of the language course.
Items 24-30 aim to gauge whether participants had positive or negative perceptions about
their course, teachers, course book and class activities and how effective they considered the
123
course in preparing them for academic programmes. Table 4.13. presents participants’
responses to the items in theme four with the means and standard deviations for the items.
Table 4.13. Frequency of Participant Responses to items on Perceptions of Learning
English in a Malaysian Educational Institute 1 2 3 4 5 M S.D.
24. The English language course I
am taking has helped improve my
English language skills.
29(29%) 62(61%) 7(7%) 3(3%) 1(1%) 1.87 0.740
25. The skills I am learning in this
English course will help me when I
start at a local university.
36(35%) 51(50%)
15(15%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
1.79 0.680
26. The course book and materials
we use in the English language
class are useful and interesting.
23(23%) 56(55%) 18(18%) 5(5%) 0(0%) 2.05 0.776
27. The activities we use in the
English language class give me the
chance to practice my language
skills.
32(31%) 52(51%) 13(13%) 5(5%) 0(0%) 1.91 0.797
28. I learn something new in my
English class every day.
41(40%) 45(44%) 13(13%) 3(3%) 0(0%) 1.78 0.779
29. The teachers in my English
class can show me how to improve
my language skills.
39(38%) 49(48%) 12(12%) 2(2%) 0(0%) 1.77 0.730
30. The way the English language
is taught on this course is easy to
understand.
24(24%) 53(52%) 22(22%) 2(2%) 1(1%) 2.05 0.788
1-Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4-Disagree; 5-Strongly Disagree; M-Mean; S.D.-Std Dev
Overall, participants’ perceptions of their language course were positive. A vast majority
strongly agreed or agreed that the course had helped them improve their language skills
(90%, n=91) and that the skills they were learning would help them in their academic
programmes at a local university (85%, n=87). In fact, none of the participants disagreed
with the latter.
In addition, all the other items related to participants’ present language course had a
response rate of 76% and above. The item with the lowest rate of agreement was item 30-
The way English is taught on this course is easy to understand, to which only 76%
responded in agreement. The highest disagreement rate, on the other hand, was for item 26-
The course book and materials we use in the English language class are useful and
interesting, and item 27-The activities we use in the English language class give me the
chance to practice my language skills, to which 5% of participants disagreed. While only a
small percentage indicated negative perceptions of items in this theme, the neutral responses
124
to six of the seven items ranged from 12% to 22%, with the highest neutral response rate
being for item 30, on teaching methodology. When combined with the negative responses,
the relatively high rate of neutral responses could point towards areas that could be
improved on the course.
The PELLEM results in this theme are significantly different from those found by Hamzah
et al. (2009) in which a larger proportion of students had negative perceptions of their
English course when compared to those with positive perceptions. Out of the 130
respondents in Hamzah et al.’s (2009) study who had taken the English course, only 19 had
positive things to say, while 51 made negative comments about their course. Among the
negative remarks included references to the teacher’s accent, teaching style, the course book
and the grouping of mixed-level students in one class (Hamzah et al., 2009). An item on the
electronic questionnaire distributed by Hamzah et al. (2009), which stated “The course
highly improved my English language skills”, was directly comparable to PELLEM item
24-The English language course I am taking has helped improve my English language
skills. While the agreement rate on the PELLEM was 90%, the most common response from
the group surveyed by Hamzah et al. (2009) was neutral (41%) followed by disagreement
(37%).
Although Hamzah et al. (2009) did not give details of the participants’ nationalities, the
group they surveyed were all postgraduate students. Comparatively, more than 50% of the
present group were also headed for postgraduate study. However, the learning context of
both groups were quite different as the participants in the present study were working on
improving their English for university admission, while those in Hamzah et al.’s (2009)
study had already been accepted. Thus, the positive responses given by the participants in
this study may also have been influenced by their overall motivation levels. On the other
hand, the participants in the study by Hamzah et al. (2009) may already have passed through
the earlier stage of taking an English course outside the university and may not have
125
expected to be required to take another English course after being accepted into university.
According to Hamzah et al. (2009), students who failed the English course twice would be
suspended from their academic programmes until they were able to pass it (Hamzah et al.,
2009). This situation could have led to frustration and low motivation which may have
caused the participants in Hamzah et al.’s (2009) study to have a higher level of
dissatisfaction about their English course.
In addition to the contextual differences, differences in teachers, teaching practices and
classroom activities could also have been the reason for the differences in the findings
between this study and that of Hamzah et al. (2009). For example, more than a third of their
participants had a low perception of the spoken English of their teachers, leading to the
assumption that many of the teachers referred to were Malaysians or non-native speakers. In
the present study, half the classes in the English programme were taught by native speakers
from the U.K., the U.S. and Australia. As seen in the results of the second PELLEM theme,
the international students in this study did not have a very positive perception of Malaysian
English, which could also be true for other international students learning English in
Malaysia. In this case, factors such as the nationality of teachers and students’ perceptions
of their teachers’ accents would certainly influence their overall satisfaction with their
language course.
4.3.5. Reliability of the PELLEM
The PELLEM questionnaire was developed through two pilot studies in which the reliability
of the four themes was tested with item reliability tests, as described in Chapter Three of
this study. After the final data was collected, a reliability test of the PELLEM was carried
out to test the overall reliability of the instrument. The reliability of individual themes was
quite varied, ranging from 0.340 to 0.844. However, the only theme which recorded a
Cronbach’s Alpha of less than 0.60 was theme 3, Perceptions of English in Malaysian
126
Universities. During the pilot study, it had already been established that this theme had a
low reliability score, which was probably due to the many different issues covered with the
theme. Nevertheless, a relatively strong Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.831 was recorded for the
overall instrument, which is well above 0.60, the acceptable Alpha level, according to
Landau & Everitt (2004). As this questionnaire was developed for use in this study, there
are no comparable statistics; however, the Cronbach’s Alpha for the PELLEM was higher
than that recorded for the BALLI (0.728). This indicates that the PELLEM is at least as
reliable as the BALLI.
4.3.6. Factor Analysis of PELLEM Results
Factor analysis of the PELLEM was conducted with the main purpose of generating factor
scores to be used in the regression analysis to address Research Question Three. As both the
BALLI and the PELLEM questionnaires could not be reduced to a single score, reducing
the dimensions was deemed as a necessary first step in order to determine whether there was
a relationship between the language learning beliefs and perception of the participants. In
addition, the results of the factor analysis of the PELLEM responses provide a glimpse of
the underlying structure of participants’ perceptions of learning English in Malaysia.
The initial solution for the principal component analysis of the PELLEM resulted in 9
factors based on those with an Eigenvalue of more than 1. These dimensions were reduced
further by applying the scree plot test, which resulted in a final extraction of three factors
which accounted for 39% of the total variance. A varimax rotation test allowed for easier
interpretation of the factors. The detailed results of the principle components analysis and
factor analysis of the PELLEM results, including the initial factor statistics and the scree
plot, are available in Appendices G and H of this dissertation.
Items with factor loadings below ±0.4 in the PELLEM were eliminated from the factor
analysis as they are considered not to have strong significance. There were six such items:
127
1. Item 24-The language course I am taking has helped me improve my language skills.
(0.360)
2. Item 22-All the information foreign students need at Malaysian universities is
available in English. (0.328);
3. Item 23-I don’t expect to have any problems interacting with my lecturers or
supervisor. (0.265);
4. Item 19-My language skills are already good enough to join an academic
programme. (0.250);
5. Item 10-I would be happier if I could learn English in another country (not
Malaysia). (0.351); and
6. Item 5-I don’t need to be very good in English to do well in a Malaysian university.
(0.316)
There was also one item which loaded above 0.40 on more than one factor. Item 9-Malaysia
is a good place to learn English loaded above 0.40 on Factors One and Two. As items with
high loadings on more than one factor complicate the analysis, this item was removed.
Table 4.14 presents the final factor loading of the PELLEM items. The first PELLEM
factor, Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia: The Classroom and Beyond,
comprised twelve items with factor loadings above 0.40. Factor Two of the PELLEM
included six items related to participants’ views on Malaysian English and two items related
to participants’ expectations about English use at university. Because of this, the second
factor was given the name Perceptions of Malaysian English & its Speakers and
Expectations about English Use at University. The third PELLEM factor, Motivation for
and Benefits of English Proficiency in Malaysia, included four items with factor loadings of
above 0.40. Each of the three PELLEM factors will be discussed individually in the
following sections. Tables 4.15 to 4.17 present the three PELLEM factors with details of the
items which loaded at 0.40 or more, their contents, factor loadings, means and standard
deviations as well as a discussion of each factor.
128
Table 4.14. Rotated Factor Structure of the PELLEM variables
Rotated Component Matrixa
PELLEM
ITEM
Component
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
29
.816
.104
-.024
27 .776 .082 .011
26 .717 .182 .187
28 .694 .013 .082
8 .638 -.029 .023
30 .588 .125 -.008
25 .583 -.053 .319
1 .574 .332 .101
3 .533 .300 .190
2 .528 .209 .346
9* .505 .495 .084
4 .403 .085 -.004
24 .360 .250 .250
22 .328 -.094 .032
23 .265 .046 -.142
19 .250 .101 -.125
13 .105 .665 .193
7 .067 .661 .087
14 .285 .633 .080
15 -.099 .566 .089 20 .063 .515 -.334
11 .291 .491 -.189 6 -.024 .483 -.070
21 .322 -.404 -.153
10 .170 .351 .025 5 .085 .316 -.122 17 .102 .093 .792
16 .160 .016 .759
18 .101 .098 .733
12 .118 .321 -.478
Note: Extraction method: Principle Component Analysis, Rotation Method: Varimax Rotation
Item 9-loaded above 0.40 on Factors 1 and 2
The following items were not included in the analysis and discussion because their factor loadings
were less than ±0.40: 24, 22, 23, 19, 10, 5.
PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia: the Classroom and
Beyond
The first PELLEM factor contained twelve items which covered two main areas: items
related to the specifics of the language course that participants were enrolled in and items
related to participants’ overall perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. Six of the items
with the highest loading were related to participants’ perceptions of the teaching and
learning activities in their local English language course. The highest loading of 0.816 was
for item 29, which concerned the teachers of the language course and their ability to help
Factor One-
Perceptions of
Learning English in
Malaysia: The
Classroom and
Beyond
Factor Two-
Perceptions of
Malaysian English &
Its Speakers and
Expectations about
English Use at
University
Factor Three-
Motivation for and
Benefits of English &
Proficiency in
Malaysia
Expectations about
English Use at
University
129
learners improve their language skills. While most of the items in Factor One were from the
fourth theme of the PELLEM, item 8-The English language instructors in Malaysia are
qualified and experienced was from Theme 1-General Opinion of Learning English in
Malaysia. Other items included those on the classroom activities, course book and teaching
method in the present language course.
While the first group of items in this factor were related to participants’ views about their
present language course, the second group comprised four items from Theme 1-General
Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia and one from Theme 2-Out of Class Experience.
The items from Theme 1 covered areas such as whether participants would recommend
Malaysia to family or friends who wanted to learn English, participants’ perceptions of
improvement in their English and whether Malaysia was a preferable place to learn English
when compared to their home countries. One item on the practice opportunities available to
English learners in Malaysia was also grouped with these items. The findings from the
factor analysis of the PELLEM confirm the descriptive results of the study in which the fifth
theme-Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute had the highest rate of
agreement because these items also had the highest loadings under the first factor of the
PELLEM. The grouping of items related to the participants’ language course with items
related to their general opinion of learning English in Malaysia also reinforces the
assumption that participants’ overall opinion of Malaysia as a language learning destination
is closely tied to their satisfaction with the English course in which they are enrolled. One
interesting finding is the loading of the item related to communication opportunities (item 3)
under Factor One. This leads to the conclusion that life outside the classroom is also a
significant part of the participants’ perceptions of their language learning experience in
Malaysia. Table 4.15. presents the items in Factor One of the PELLEM along with their
factor loadings.
130
Table 4.15. PELLEM Factor One- Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia: the
Classroom and Beyond Item Description Loading M S.D.
29.The teachers in my class can show me how to improve my language
skills.
.816 1.77 .730
27.The activities we use in the English language class give me the chance to
practice my language skills.
.776 1.91 0.797
26.The course book and materials we use in the English language class are
useful and interesting.
.717 2.05 0.776
28.I learn something new in my English class every day. .694 1.78 0.776
8.The English language instructors in Malaysia are qualified and
experienced.
.638
30.The way English is taught in my language course is easy to understand. .588 2.05 0.788
25.The skills I am learning in this English course will help me when I start at
a local university.
.583 1.79 0.680
1.I would recommend learning English in Malaysia to my family and friends .574 2.66 1.067
3.I have lots of opportunities to practice speaking English in Malaysia .533 2.71 1.104
2.My English has improved since I came to Malaysia .528 1.84 0741
9.Malaysia is a good place to learn English* .505 2.68 0.922
4.Learning English in Malaysia is better than learning English in my own
country
.403 2.15 1.138
*Item 9-Loaded highly on more than one factor
PELLEM Factor Two-Perceptions of Malaysian English & its Speakers and Expectations
about English Use at University
Factor Two of the PELLEM results contained items related to participants’ views on
Malaysian English as well as their perceptions of communicating in English with
Malaysians. Several items also reflected participants’ expectations of English use at
Malaysian universities. Earlier in this chapter, the descriptive results of the PELLEM had
shown that participants tended to be very confident, perhaps unrealistically so, of their
English language proficiency and appeared to underestimate the importance of English
proficiency in Malaysian universities. Many of these participants felt that their language
skills were already good enough for university, despite most of them not having achieved
Intermediate level English proficiency at the time of the survey. One possible explanation
given was the low estimation of Malaysian English held by international students. In the
second factor of the PELLEM, items related to participants’ perceptions of the local variety
of English and local English speakers communicative abilities and items related to
participants’ expectations about English use at university loaded on the same factor. The
item with the highest factor loading was item 13-Speaking English to Malaysians does not
131
help me improve my English. Other related items include items 14, about lack of English
speaking practice outside class, 15, about difficulties in using English for everyday
transactions and 6, about difficulties in understanding Malaysian English. Item 7, also
appears to be related to perceptions of Malaysian English as it states that English can only
be learned well in one of the countries which are normally associated with ‘Standard
English’, e.g. the U.S.A. and the U.K, in other words, not Malaysia. Two items related to
the second construct in this theme were items 20 and 21. The first item was related to
whether participants were worried about facing language problems at university and the
other item asked participants to decide whether students who are going to do course work
need to be more proficient in English than those who plan to do research. This last item was
negatively correlated to the others, with a factor loading of -.0404.
Table 4.16. PELLEM Factor Two- Perceptions of Malaysian English and its Speakers
and Expectations about English Use at Malaysian Universities Item Description Loading M S.D.
13.Speaking English to Malaysians does not help me improve my English .665 2.42 1.121
7.You can only learn English well in a country where it is a native language
(e.g. the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand & Ireland)
.661 2.42 1.323
14.The only time I speak English now is when I am in class .633 3.12 1.337
15.I find it hard to use English when I go shopping or when dealing with
daily events( for example paying bills, at the doctor’s)
.566 3.43 1.198
20.I am worried about facing language problems when I start university. .515 2.83 1.186
11.People who want to come to Malaysia to study should learn English in
their own countries first.
.491 2.27 1.026
6.I face problems understanding English when talking to Malaysians. .483 2.40 1.091
21. Students who are going to do courses need to be better in English than
those who are going to do research
-.404 2.84 1.115
PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of English Proficiency in Malaysia
The third and final factor of the PELLEM appears to contain items related to motivation for
learning English as well as the benefits of English proficiency in Malaysia. As depicted in
Table 4.17 on the next page, three of the four items in this theme present English
proficiency as a factor in social and academic success as well as a skill that facilitates life in
Malaysia. The final item refers to whether participants have faced problems in Malaysia due
132
to their weakness in English. The loading for this item was a negative loading of -0.478,
which seems unsurprising because higher levels of motivation would naturally result in
participants being less likely to perceive problems with their proficiency. When the wording
of item 12 is examined, it can be seen that the statement attributes problems in Malaysia to
the participants’ own lack of English proficiency. As has been seen in the descriptive results
and factor analysis of the BALLI and PELLEM, participants in this study were highly
confident and highly motivated. Thus, they were not likely to view their language skills as
being a problem. In addition, the descriptive results of the PELLEM showed that while
participants viewed the local English speakers as being less proficient, when it came to their
own language skills, they did not seem to perceive a problem. Table 4.17 shows the four
items that loaded under theme three with the corresponding factor loadings.
Table 4.17. PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of English Proficiency
in Malaysia
Item Description Loading M S.D.
17.If I can communicate well in English, I will make more friends at a
Malaysian university
.792 1.83 0.902
16.If I can communicate well in English, my results at a Malaysian
university will be good
.759 1.71 0.828
18.Living in Malaysia is easier if your English is good. .733 2.24 0.977
12.My lack of proficiency in English causes me many problems in Malaysia -.478 2.65 1.131
The previous sections of this chapter have addressed the first two research questions of this
study: What are the language learning beliefs of international students learning English in
Malaysia? and What are their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia? The descriptive
results of both questionnaires were presented followed by the results of the factor analysis
for each questionnaire. In addition to describing the structure of learner beliefs and
perceptions held by international students about their English language learning experience
in Malaysia, the factor scores of both questionnaires also form the basis for the statistical
analysis used to answer the third research question of this study: Is there a statistically
significant relationship between the language learning beliefs of this group of participants
133
and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia? The following section presents the
results of the Pearson r Correlation of the factor scores of the BALLI and PELLEM.
4.4. Correlation Between the BALLI and PELLEM
Several studies have aimed to explore the relationship of language learning beliefs and other
variables such as age and gender (Bernat & Lloyd, 2007) languages taught (Kuntz, 1996a,
Diab 2006) learning strategy choice (Mokhtari, 2007; Hong, 2006) and stage of language
learning (Nikitina & Furuoka, 2007; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). In recent years, research into
learner beliefs has moved beyond merely measuring and describing these beliefs as was
done in the earlier BALLI studies by Horwitz and other researchers (Bernat & Gvozdenko,
2007; Ellis, 2008). Current research into learner beliefs has adopted a deeper and more
contextual approach, viewing beliefs as more than stable constructs that can be measured by
a number on a scale (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Ellis, 2008). Recent learner beliefs
studies, whether using the BALLI, other questionnaires or more qualitative approaches,
have attempted to study beliefs in context by exploring their relationship to other facets of
individual learners such as their proficiency levels, personality types (Bernat et al., 2009)
and past experience (Barcelos, 2000). Researchers who take the contextual approach to
investigating these beliefs have also attempted to understand how these beliefs are formed.
To do this, researchers have taken approaches to examine these beliefs in action in the
classroom, by observing learners and using the think aloud approach to documenting beliefs
as they are experienced by learners. Other researchers, such as Riley (2009) have sought to
examine changes in beliefs as a result of manipulation by teachers and trainers. This change
in approach to studying learner beliefs is a reflection of current trends in SLA research,
which recognizes the learner as a complex, multifaceted being with affective and cognitive
aspects. These learner variables not only affect their learning experience, but are themselves
affected by other variables in the learning environment. Thus, the relationship between
learner variables is the focus of the third research question of this study. With this question,
134
the researcher aimed to examine the relationship between learner beliefs and learner
perceptions that are the focus of this study. More specifically, Research Question Three
aims to investigate whether there is a relationship between participants’ language learning
beliefs, as measured by the BALLI, and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia,
as measured by the PELLEM. The nature of these questionnaires was a determining factor
in the method of statistical analysis used to answer Research Question Three. As described
in Chapter Three of this study, Horwitz (2007) states that factor analysis has been used by a
number of researchers to reduce the many items of the BALLI and the SILL into a smaller
number of salient factors. Correlation analysis is then performed on the factors representing
both variables in order to determine whether there is a statistical relationship. Both
questionnaires are made up of items within themes, and neither the whole instrument, nor
individual themes can be summed up into a total composite score. Because of this, the factor
scores resulting from the factor analysis of the BALLI and the PELLEM were used as a
basis for the Pearson r correlation coefficient tests. These tests were performed using the
three belief variables and three perception variables, which are summarized in Table 4.18
below.
Table 4.18. Summary of the BALLI and PELLEM Factors Instrument Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
BALLI Motivational and
Affective Aspects of
Learning English
Confidence and Assessment of
Difficulty of Learning English
Formal Learning Beliefs
PELLEM Perceptions of Learning
English in Malaysia: the
Classroom and Beyond
Perceptions of Malaysian
English & its Speakers and
Expectations about English Use
at Malaysian Universities
Motivation for and
Benefits of English
Proficiency in Malaysia
As described in section 4.2.8 on the factor analysis results for the BALLI, there were several
similarities between the factors found in this study and those of previous studies, such as Oz
(2007), Truitt (1995) and Park (1995). More significantly, there were similarities between
all three BALLI factors found in this study and those found by Hong (2006) in her study of
Korean EFL learners’ language learning beliefs and learning strategies. Table 4.19 on the
135
next page presents the correlations of the three factors of the BALLI and three factors of the
PELLEM for the international students learning English in Malaysia. The Pearson r values
showed that there is a statistical relationship between the three categories from both
questionnaires, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.219 to 0.457. The highest
correlation coefficient was recorded between BALLI Factor Two-Confidence and
Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English and PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of
Learning English in Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond with a Pearson’s r value of
0.457. This was closely followed by BALLI Factor One-Motivational and Affective Aspects
of Learning English and PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of English
Proficiency in Malaysia, which correlated at an r value of 0.415. Both themes are related to
motivational factors, so it is not surprising that they would be strongly correlated. This is
because a participant who scored highly on the PELLEM items for motivation would also
be expected to express the same motivation level on the relevant BALLI items. Weaker
correlations were also recorded between BALLI Factor One-Motivational and Affective
Aspects of Learning English and PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in
Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond (r=0.219). Additionally, BALLI Factor Three-Formal
Learning Beliefs was negatively correlated with PELLEM Factor Two-Perceptions of
Malaysian English & its Speakers and Expectations about English Use at Malaysian
Universities (r=-0.250). Table 4.19 presents the correlation table of the BALLI and
PELLEM factor scores.
Table 4.19. Correlations of BALLI and PELLEM Factor Scores
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.0.5 level (1 tailed)
REGR factor score 1 for
BALLI
REGR factor score 2 for
BALLI
REGR factor score 3 for
BALLI
REGR factor score 1 for PELLEM
Pearson Correlation .219(*) .457(**) .101
REGR factor score 2 for PELLEM
Pearson Correlation -.140 .106 -.250(*)
REGR factor score 3 for PELLEM
Pearson Correlation .415(**) -.122 -.056
136
In sections 4.2.8. and 4.3.8 only items with factor loadings of above 0.40 were included in
the discussion of BALLI and PELLEM factors. In contrast, the correlations of factor scores
included reported in this section included all items which fell within a particular factor.
Based on the correlation values of the BALLI and PELLEM factors, further statistical
analysis was carried out to identify specific items which contributed significantly to the
correlations and to enhance interpretability of the data. In order to identify exactly which
beliefs and which perceptions had a strong relationship, item-by-item correlations were
performed. These correlations focused only on items within the BALLI and PELLEM
themes with significant Pearson r values, of above 0.40, as shown in Table 4.19. The next
section presents the results of the itemized correlations between the results of the items in
BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM Factor One (r= 0.457) and BALLI Factor One and
PELLEM Factor Three (r = 0.415).
4.4.1. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM Factor One
The itemized correlation table of the BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM Factor One is
presented in Table 4.20 on the next page. The items for each of the factors below also
include those items with factor loadings of less than 0.40 which were left out of the
discussion of the factor analysis results in sections 4.2.8. and 4.3.8. As mentioned in the
previous section, the correlation between BALLI Factor Two-Confidence and Assessment of
Difficulty of Learning English and PELLEM Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in
Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond had the highest Pearson’s r value of all the
correlations performed in this study. When analysed at the macro level, the correlation of
0.457 can be interpreted to mean that participants with higher confidence levels are more
likely to have a positive view of their language learning experience in Malaysia. An
itemized correlation of the two factors was performed to identify which items contributed
the most to the high correlation coefficient. As described in Section 4.3.8. of this chapter,
the items in PELLEM Factor One can be divided into two broad areas, namely those items
137
related to participants’ perceptions of matters related to their language course (items 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30) and items related to their language learning experience in Malaysia (items 1,
2, 3, 4, 9). Item 8 of the PELLEM-The English language instructors in Malaysia are
qualified and experienced, can be said to refer to participants’ language course as well as to
Malaysia as a language learning destination because it refers to participants’ perceptions
about English teachers in Malaysia, rather than those in the participants’ language course.
Table 4.20: Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor Two and PELLEM Factor One
Correlations
B16 B3 B5 B6 B10 B4 B21 B15 B23
P29 Pearson Correlation .334** .265** .360** .122 .014 .185 -.057 .269** .097
P27 Pearson Correlation .316** .189 .253** .276** .010 .200* -.112 .145 .118
P26 Pearson Correlation .238** .168 .289** .216* .047 .203* -.087 .135 .071
P28 Pearson Correlation .288** .279*** .380** .025 .117 .258** -.011 .184 .148
P8 Pearson Correlation .273** .141 .323** .092 -.123 .123 -.073 .223* .216*
P30 Pearson Correlation .261** .194 .231* .089 .020 .116 -.186 .217* .104
P25 Pearson Correlation .078 .153 .156 -.059 .006 .120 -.144 .129 .020
P1 Pearson Correlation .164 .159 .222* .052 -.004 .103 -.113 .086 .125
P3 Pearson Correlation .276** .169 .240* .202* .058 .075 -.119 .036 .218*
P2 Pearson Correlation .144 .163 .200* .070 .055 -.015 -.071 .012 .033
P9 Pearson Correlation .126 .150 .078 .230* .020 .162 -.161 -.009 -.045
P4 Pearson Correlation -.001 .063 .013 .044 -.079 .091 -.190 -.014 .155
P24 Pearson Correlation -.008 .059 .166 -.082 -.001 -.051 -.032 .080 -.056
P22 Pearson Correlation .060 .064 .101 -.070 .163 .259** -.030 .151 .107
P23 Pearson Correlation .162 .176 .175 .075 -.005 .112 -.155 .151 .077
P19 Pearson Correlation .456** .236* .217* .385* .172 .153 -.157 .036 -.076
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.0.5 level (1 tailed)
Overall, the PELLEM items related to participants’ present language course were more
highly correlated to the BALLI items, which were related to participants’ confidence and
assessment of difficulty of language learning. Of the nine BALLI items in Factor Two-
Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English, item 16-I have a special
ability to learn a foreign language, item 3-Some languages are easier to learn than others
and item 5-I believe I will learn to speak English very well had significant correlations with
several PELLEM items, as can be seen in Table 4.20. For example, BALLI item 16 had
correlations of between 0.261 and 0.456 with eight PELLEM items and item 3 had
correlations of between 0.20 and 0.380 with ten PELLEM items. This could be interpreted
to indicate that participants who had a positive perception of their language learning course
were more likely to be confident about language learning. Incidentally, the highest item
correlation of 0.456 was found between PELLEM item 19-My language skills are already
138
good enough to join an academic programme and BALLI item 16-I have a special ability to
learn a foreign language. PELLEM item 19 was among those items with factor loadings
below 0.40 and was not discussed under Factor One for the PELLEM (Perceptions of
Learning English in Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond) in the results of the factor
analysis in section 4.3.8. This is because items with factor loadings of below 0.40 are
considered not to be significant items in a particular factor. The high r value between
PELLEM item 19 and BALLI item 16 explains the high overall correlation between BALLI
Factor Two- Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of Learning English and PELLEM
Factor One-Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia: the Classroom and Beyond. The
highly confident nature of the participants has been a key finding that has been discussed
earlier in this chapter, in section 4.2.1. on the descriptive results of the BALLI and it will
also be discussed again in section 5.7.2. of the following chapter, in which the analysis of
the semi-structured interview data is presented.
In addition to the highest correlations between items 19 and 16, several other significant
correlations were identified. Pearson’s r values of 0.30 and above were found between
several PELLEM items concerning participants’ perceptions of their language course and
BALLI items connected to confidence and assessment of language learning difficulty. For
example, item 28-I learn something new in my English class every day on the PELLEM and
item 5-I believe I will learn to speak English very well on the BALLI correlated
significantly at 0.38. In addition, PELLEM item 29-The teachers in my class can show me
how to improve my language skills had r values of more than 0.30 with BALLI items 16
and 5. As can be seen in Table 4.20, these two BALLI items, which were connected to
participants’ confidence in language learning also had significant correlations to several
other PELLEM items, including item 27-The activities we use in the English language class
give me the chance to practice my language skills, item 26-The course book and materials
we use in the English language class are useful and interesting, item 8-The English
139
language instructors in Malaysia are qualified and experienced, item 30-The way English is
taught in my language course is easy to understand, and item 3-I have lots of opportunities
to practice speaking English in Malaysia.
These correlations indicate some link between participants’ confidence and their perceptions
of learning English in Malaysia, particularly in terms of their classroom experience.
Although the cause-effect relationship between these constructs cannot be determined from
the results of the Pearson r correlation, the results discussed in this section lead to the
conclusion that highly confident participants are more likely to have positive views about
their language learning experience in a Malaysian language course. The highest individual
correlations were recorded between BALLI items on confidence and PELLEM items related
to perceptions of teaching and learning in a Malaysian language course rather than those
related to participants’ out-of-class experience. Only one PELLEM item on factors outside
the classroom had a high correlation with the items in BALLI Factor Two. This was item 3,
on the availability of opportunities to communicate in English to learners in Malaysia. Since
this item correlated significantly with item 16 (0.276) and 5 (0.240), this could be
interpreted to mean that participants who are more confident about their language learning
abilities are more likely to perceive that they have plenty of chances to practice speaking
English in Malaysia. It would appear that confident learners are more likely to seek
interaction opportunities, which may have led them to perceive Malaysia as offering many
opportunities to communicate in English. Conversely, less confident learners may find it
hard to seek out practice opportunities.
The relationship between participants’ confidence and assessment of difficulty of language
learning and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia may also have been mitigated
by their use of language learning strategies. In previous studies by Hong (2006) and Park
(1995), the BALLI items related to self-efficacy, or referred to in this study as ‘Confidence
and assessment of difficulty of learning English’ were found to have significant correlations
140
to learner strategies as measured by the SILL. For example, Hong (2006) found a weak
correlation of 0.17 between the same BALLI items and the reported use of cognitive
strategies. She also found a moderate correlation of 0.24 between these items and reported
use of social strategies of language learning. Park (1995) also found significant correlations
between the BALLI items in the factor she named Self Efficacy and Confidence in Speaking
and the reported use of metacognitive, memory and practice strategies (Park, 1995). These
findings could provide an explanation of why participants with higher confidence levels had
more positive perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. The use of language learning
strategies such as social strategies or practice strategies may help improve their language
proficiency and create more opportunities for practice. This, in turn, would give them a
better perception of their language learning experience. However, the present study did not
set out to measure participants’ strategy use; therefore, the possible influence of learning
strategies cannot be determined within the scope of this study. This section has presented
the item-by-item correlations of the BALLI and PELLEM factors with the highest factor
correlations. In the following section, the itemized correlation of the two themes with the
second highest overall correlation will be presented.
4.4.2. Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor One and PELLEM Factor Three
The factors with the second strongest correlations following those discussed in the previous
section were BALLI Factor One-Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English
and PELLEM Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of Learning English in Malaysia.
As both factors were related to participants’ reasons for learning English, it is expected that
there should be a significant correlation between them. As can be seen in Table 4.19, a
Pearson’s r value of 0.415 was recorded between these two factors. Since this value is close
to 0.50, it is considered quite a strong correlation. As described earlier in this chapter, the
items in Factor One of the BALLI (Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English)
actually fall into two broad areas, motivational and affective aspects as well as items related
141
to speaking and pronunciation. However, since the most significant loadings were for the
items related to motivation, the factor was given a name that reflected this. On the other
hand, the items in PELLEM Factor Three focused on participants’ perceptions of what
benefits they could gain from English proficiency as students in Malaysia. For example,
item 17 stated If I can communicate well in English, I will make more friends Malaysian
university, Item 16- If I can communicate well in English, my results at a Malaysian
university will be good, was related to English proficiency and academic success, while item
18-Living in Malaysia is easier if your English is good was related to the overall benefit of
English proficiency with regards to life in Malaysia. In 4.3.8 of this chapter, the factor
analysis results for the PELLEM showed that Item 12-My lack of proficiency in English
causes me many problems in Malaysia was negatively related to the other items in PELLEM
Factor Three-Motivation for and Benefits of Learning English in Malaysia based on its
negative factor loadings. Thus, this item did not correlate significantly with any of the items
in BALLI Factor One. Overall, the three PELLEM items on the motivation for and benefits
of speaking English in Malaysia (items 16, 17, 18) correlated highly with BALLI items 31,
7, 29 and 13. These items cover both motivational factors, for example item 31-I want to
learn to speak English very well and item 29-If I learn English very well, I will have better
job opportunities, and speaking, for example item7-It is important to speak English with an
excellent pronunciation and item 13-I enjoy speaking English with the people I meet. The
correlation of PELLEM items on motivation and BALLI items on motivation and speaking
further strengthens the suggestion made in the previous section that there is a strong
relationship between participants’ motivation and their attitude towards practicing speaking
English. In the previous section, one of the minor findings was that participants who were
more confident in their ability to learn languages tended to perceive that they had plenty of
opportunities to practice speaking English in Malaysia. In this section, both BALLI items 7
and 13 had Pearson’s r values above 0.2 in their correlations with PELLEM items 16-18
142
concerning participants’ motivations for learning English as international students in
Malaysia. The significance of participant motivation has been a recurring theme in the
findings of this study, since items related to motivation loaded strongly in the factor analysis
of both the BALLI and PELLEM. Thus, it is interesting to note the relationship between the
PELLEM items on motivation and the BALLI items which focused on learner beliefs about
speaking and communication. Table 4.2.1 presents the itemized correlation values of
BALLI Factor One and PELLEM Factor Three. The itemized correlations below include all
items which loaded under each factor, including those with factor loadings below 0.40.
Because of the large number of BALLI items which fell within Factor One, the table was
divided into two parts.
Table 4.2.1: Itemized Correlation of BALLI Factor One and PELLEM Factor Three
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.0.5 level (1 tailed)
In addition to the BALLI items discussed earlier, one other BALLI item had significant
correlations with items 16-18 on the PELLEM. BALLI item 12-It is best to learn English in
an English speaking country, was highly correlated with PELLEM items 16 and 18, with
Pearson’s r values of more than 0.25, at 0.311 and 0.296, respectively. This item was also
significantly correlated to PELLEM item 17 with an r value of 0.217. In addition, item 32 of
the BALLI, which was related to participants’ desire to have English speaking friends, was
also significantly correlated to PELLEM items 17 and 18, with r values of more than 0.3.
Both BALLI item 32 and 12 could also be related to participants’ beliefs about speaking and
Correlations
B31 B7 B29 B12 B18 B33 B26 B1
P17 Pearson Correlation .338** .277
** .233
* .217
* .210
* .188 .103 .111
P16 Pearson Correlation .326** .339
** .271
** .311
** .203
* .177 .003 .217
*
P18 Pearson Correlation .413** .277
** .328
** .296
** .199
* .242
* .041 .155
P12 Pearson Correlation -.017 .007 .046 .042 .053 -.119 .165 -.117
Correlations
B32 B24 B30 B13 B20 B14 B2 B8
P17 Pearson Correlation .339** .189 .132 .224
* .133 .078 .279
** .074
P16 Pearson Correlation .171 .204* .160 .240
* .119 .030 .176 .131
P18 Pearson Correlation .306** .215
* .110 .275
** .063 .105 .091 .078
P12 Pearson Correlation .123 .044 -.033 -.030 .065 -.043 -.004 -.045
143
communication since the interview data showed that participants viewed the advantages of
learning English in an English speaking country was largely the access they would have to
native speakers for speaking practice. In general, the itemized correlation of BALLI Factor
One and PELLEM Factor Three indicate that motivational factors play a role in
participants’ approach to speaking and communication.
The strongest correlations found by Hong (2006) in her correlations between beliefs and
strategies were for BALLI items related to motivation for and beliefs about the nature of
learning English. For the monolingual students in Hong’s study, these BALLI items had a
strong correlation of 0.48 to the reported use of compensation strategies, while the bilingual
group had a strong correlation of r=0.47 between BALLI items on motivation for and the
nature of learning English and cognitive strategies. Hong’s first BALLI factor included
items related to the nature of language learning unlike the first BALLI factor in this study;
however, her first BALLI factor also included 8 of the 16 BALLI items that fell within the
first BALLI factor of this study, as has been described in section 4.2.8. of this chapter. This
means many of the items which fell under the first BALLI factor in this study, as depicted in
Table 4.21, were found by Hong (2006) to have strong correlations to reported language
learning strategy use (Hong, 2006). Park (1995) also found significant positive correlations
between items the BALLI factor comprising items on motivation and the reported use of
metacognitive strategies and communication strategies (Park, 1995). As discussed in the
previous section, this link between beliefs and strategy use could also explain the link
between the BALLI and PELLEM factors found in the Pearson r Correlations reported in
this section. As language learning beliefs are said to affect the language learning process
through the learner’s choice of strategy (Ellis, 2008), it seems plausible that learner strategy
choice could be the bridge that links participants’ beliefs about language learning and their
perceptions of learning experience in Malaysia. A participant who is using effective
language learning strategies is more likely to succeed in language learning and this
144
improvement in language proficiency not only gives learners better perceptions of their
language course, but also opens up more opportunities for social interaction and academic
success.
In conclusion, the statistical analysis performed in this section has further emphasized the
importance of motivation, confidence and other affective factors in the participants’
experience of learning English. Significant relationships were found between participants’
language learning beliefs and their perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. Previous
research by Hong (2006) and Park (1995), which found links between language learning
beliefs and strategy use, provide a possible explanation for the relationship found between
BALLI and PELLEM items through the Pearson r Correlations.
4.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, the quantitative results of the study were discussed in detail. These included
the frequency and percentage rate of responses to items on the BALLI and PELLEM
questionnaires, along with a discussion of these results and comparison to previous studies
in similar and different contexts. In addition, factor analysis was performed on these results
to identify the underlying factors of participants’ beliefs about language learning and
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. Finally, a Pearson r Correlation Analysis was
performed to identify whether there was a statistically significant relationship between the
participants’ beliefs and perceptions. The results showed that participants’ beliefs about
language learning were statistically related to their perceptions of learning English in
Malaysia. The descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and the Pearson r Correlations of the
BALLI showed that motivation, confidence and individual learner characteristics play a
more significant role in the participants’ beliefs when compared to beliefs related to the
language learning process. The PELLEM results showed that, in addition to matters related
to participants’ language course, factors outside the classroom such as opportunities for
145
interaction and perceptions of Malaysian English are important aspects of the participants’
experience as learners of English in Malaysia. Certain characteristics that defined this
particular group of learners also emerged from the BALLI and PELLEM results. More
specifically, the learners in this study were found to be highly motivated, more confident
than learners in some previous studies and likely to underestimate the task of learning
English. They were also very optimistic about their language skills and felt that they were
ready to cope with the language demands of academic programmes at Malaysian
universities. In the next chapter, the qualitative results of the semi-structured interviews will
be presented and discussed.
146
Chapter 5-Qualitative Results and Discussion
5.1. Introduction
The previous chapter, Chapter Four, presented the quantitative results of this study on
international students’ language learning beliefs and their perceptions of their experience as
English language learners in Malaysia. However, the numerical data only represents half the
story. While the data collected through the BALLI and PELLEM questionnaires provides an
overall numerical picture of the beliefs and perceptions held by this learner group, it also
leads to more questions: What factors, experiences or events led participants to circle a
particular response to the questions on the PELLEM? This chapter aims to answer these
questions, by analyzing and discussing the qualitative results of the semi-structured
interviews conducted in the second stage of data collection. More specifically, this chapter
addresses Research Question Four: What are the other factors that influence the learners’
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia?” This chapter is organized as follows 1)
Overview of the Semi-structured Interview Stage, 2) Analysis of the Interview Transcripts
3) Factors Emerging from the Interviews.
5.2. Overview of the Semi-structured Interview Stage
As described in Chapter Three of this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with 16 participants to collect qualitative data related to participants’ perceptions of
different aspects related to their experience of learning English in Malaysia.
5.3. Analysis of Interview Transcripts
After transcribing the interviews, the researcher read through all the interviews several
times to get an idea of the possible themes within the interview data. Codes were assigned
to reveal the potential themes and each transcript was coded individually, with additional
codes being created as they emerged from the interview data. Finally, a list of all the codes
and their corresponding sub-themes was compiled and this list was analysed to identify the
147
major themes found in the interview data. Finally, within each of the major themes, salient
sub-themes were identified.
5.4. Summary of Themes Emerging from the Interviews
The analysis of the interview transcripts identified four major themes that made up the
participants’ perceptions of their English language learning experience in Malaysia.
Although the semi-structured interviews were guided by the areas identified in the
PELLEM, the researcher adopted an open approach while conducting the interview,
allowing the flow of topics covered to develop naturally based on the responses provided by
the interviewees. As can be expected, participants spoke about a broad variety of areas
during the interviews because their experience as international students not only
encompassed matters related to learning and using general and Academic English, but also
included financial concerns, visa regulations, experiences with authorities and difficulties in
adjusting to the local weather, food culture and norms. However, as the focus of this
research was on their specific context of being English language learners in Malaysia, the
researcher attempted to keep the interviews focused on matters related to participants’
perceptions of learning and using English in Malaysia. This focus also guided the analysis
of the interview data, to ensure that the qualitative findings of the study would be relevant to
the objectives determined at the beginning of the study.
Upon analysis, the themes emerging from the interview data corresponded to the four
PELLEM themes, which covered most aspects of the participants’ overall experience as
international students learning English in Malaysia. The four themes emerging from the
interview data were: 1) Perceptions of Malaysia as an English Language Learning
Destination; 2) Communication and Interaction Outside Class; 3) Perceptions of English in
Malaysian Universities and 4) Language Learning. Each of these themes and their
underlying sub-themes will be discussed in detail in the following section.
148
5.5. Theme One: Perceptions of Malaysia as an English Language Learning
Destination
Overall, the participants had a positive perception of their experiences as international
students learning English in Malaysia, especially when compared to their country of origin.
This was true of participants from all the countries represented: Libya, Sudan, Somalia,
Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Morocco. However, while participants perceived Malaysia as being a
better place to learn English than their home countries, they believed that their potential for
learning English in Malaysia was limited by the country’s status as a non-native English
speaking country. Although English is more widely used in Malaysia when compared to the
native countries of participants, they felt that being in a country where it is a native
language, for example, the United Kingdom, would be far more beneficial to them as
language learners.
Participants’ perceptions within this theme are divided into two general areas, which will be
covered in the following sections. The first sub-theme under the first theme is participants’
overall positive perceptions of Malaysia as an English language learning destination due to
the related benefits offered to English language learners in Malaysia, when compared to
participants’ countries of origin. The second sub-theme is related to a negative aspect of
participants’ overall perceptions of Malaysia as a destination for learners of English, which
is mainly due to the fact that it is not seen as an English-speaking country by most
participants. In the following section, a discussion of participants’ positive perceptions of
Malaysia as a place to learn English will be discussed.
5.5.1. Malaysia offers Better Opportunities to Learn English than My Home
Country…
When asked what advice they would give to a friend from home who was considering
coming to Malaysia to learn English, all participants said that they would encourage their
friends to do so. The main reasons cited by participants were: 1) more opportunities to
149
practice speaking English, when compared to their home countries, 2) access to native-
speaker teachers and teachers of other nationalities and 3) differences in teaching practices.
In addition, as all the participants were learning English in order to pursue tertiary education
in Malaysia, the educational opportunities offer by local colleges and universities played a
big role in their overall perceptions of their learning experience in this country.
One of the main advantages of learning English in Malaysia, according to the participants,
was that they were forced to communicate in English both inside and outside the classroom.
Participant 062, F, Morocco: “Because few people (here), they talk Arabian…, but
Malaysian people, they speak English. You can learn English in Malaysia.”
Participant 051, F, Libya: “…for studying English, it’s okay. Because for studying
English, here is better than in my country. And you have to speak English with
people, but in Libya people they all speak Libyan so they can’t learn very fast.”
Several compared their English lessons here favourably to those in their countries, where it
was commonly taught as one of many school subjects and usually taught in their mother-
tongue. Participants perceived language learning as being faster and easier in Malaysia
because only English was spoken in the classroom, as teachers could not communicate in
the students’ mother tongues, unlike in their English language classes back home. Access to
native speaker teachers who worked in the college was also seen as a benefit.
Participant 035, M, Libya: “In my country, because the teacher speak like Arabic,
but in Malaysia, they teach English using English. Can you (you can) learn English
faster and can you (you can) like this language.”
Participant 071, M, Somalia: “But now…our teachers are foreign teachers. We talk
to them in English. We don’t try to speak Somali...before…we just order our teacher
to explain with us in Somali.”
Participants also perceived a great deal of improvement in their language abilities, which
contributed to their positive perceptions of their language learning experience in Malaysia.
Six participants spoke about how they had arrived in the country with little or no English
skills and had been unable to perform even basic functions in English. After being in
150
Malaysia for a period of time, however, they felt more confident in their ability to
communicate in English since their language skills had improved. Two participants
mentioned that they would be good examples to other students who were considering
learning English in Malaysia.
Participant 049, M, Sudan: “When I come to Malaysia, I can’t speak two words
together. Now I can speak good, and improve and I can enjoy and joking with my
teacher.”
In general, this improvement was attributed to the factors mentioned above: the increased
practice and the differences in teaching practice. As the latter concerns language learning, it
will be discussed later in this chapter. One significant point was that several participants
mentioned that their view of learning English had changed since coming to Malaysia.
Participants who had initially felt an aversion to the English language, when learning in
their countries, now felt positively about the language. In general, these were the
participants who had started out in Malaysia as very low level language learners. As their
ability to communicate in English increased, their negative views towards the language
were replaced by positive ones.
Participant 013, M, Sudan: “In Sudan, when I find, this book is English, I will run
away. Because I didn’t like any English language when I live in Sudan. At that time,
I hate English language…..and now, became I love English language and every
time, I would like to speak to any people by English language.”
Ali (2007) studied international students from countries including Sudan, Somalia, Saudi
Arabia and Iran who were learning English at a Malaysian university. Although her study
aimed to investigate the students’ lack of participation in classroom speaking activities,
some of the data collected through journals and interviews corresponds with interview data
from this theme. Ali’s (2007) participants also generally felt positively about learning
English in Malaysia, particularly when compared to learning English in their countries. In
Ali’s study of ESL learners in a preparatory English programme at a local university, one
learner pointed out a view similar to that voiced by participants of the present study, saying
151
that he was forced to speak English in Malaysia, at the shops and with friends of other
nationalities (Ali, 2007). However, another participant in Ali’s study also stated that the
university environment was a better place for English language learners when compared to
outside the university (Ali, 2007). This indicates that the learner perceived that English was
less widely spoken outside the university environment.
In summary, it can be said that most interview participants in this study felt that Malaysia
was a better place to learn English than their own countries. As discussed in this section, the
factors which contributed to these positive perceptions were: having more opportunities to
speak English, being taught only in the target language and perceiving an improvement in
their English language skills. However, from the process of the interviews, it also transpired
that although participants found Malaysia preferable to their countries as a place to learn
English, most felt that their language learning experience would be better in a country
where English is spoken as a native language, for example, the United Kingdom and the
United States. Findings related to this negative aspect of participants’ perceptions of their
learning experience will be discussed in the following section.
5.5.2. Learning English in Malaysia is Good, but I Would Rather Learn English in an
English Speaking Country
Although participants found Malaysia a better place to learn English when compared to
their countries, most of them felt that the aspects that made Malaysia preferable to their own
countries, particularly the opportunity to speak English, would be even better in an English
speaking country. The participants’ view of Malaysia as a country where English was more
a second or foreign language than a first language meant that they expected more
opportunities for interaction in countries with more native speakers of English. In Chapter
Four of this study, the results of the PELLEM questionnaire showed that 40% of students
agreed that the only time they spoke English was in the college. In the interviews,
participants expressed their view that lack of communication opportunities they faced in
152
Malaysia would not be a problem for English learners in the U.S. or the U.K. Other factors,
such as the opportunity to work part-time, as well as the use of Bahasa Malaysia on street
signs and notices, were also cited as factors that would make Malaysia, more conducive to
foreign learners of English.
Participant 051, F, Libya: “To be honest, ya , it’s (Malaysia) quite good, but if I
have the chance, and I could, I prefer to study in , United States.”
Participant 048, M, Libya: “Malaysia has many international students here, and a
lot of tourisms here. A change for signs on the street, use word English not...that’s
good for student when he on a road, in a street. He read some word English not
Bahasa.”
Participant 053, M, Somalia: “Of course, I would be happy, for example if I get the
university in the U.S.A or in Australia, I would be happy…Because they are the
native English countries. I need English and to speak it fluently and I need, while I
am studying to get a part-time job.”
To summarize, participants perceived that the improvement in their English since coming to
Malaysia would have reached greater levels if they had been learning English in an Inner
Circle country, such as the U.S. or the U.K. To the participants, being in those countries
would ensure that they could speak English at every opportunity and give them more access
to native speakers of English, both inside and outside class. The many languages in their
present environment, for example, Bahasa Malaysia and Tamil, also contributed to this
view, since they were exposed to many languages other than English in their daily lives.
Had they been learning English in the U.K., for example, participants felt that they would
only be exposed to English and, thus, would improve much more quickly. In addition,
Malaysia’s status as a developing nation, compared to that of developed nations such as the
U.K and the U.S. may also have contributed to the participants’ perceptions that Malaysia
was comparatively a less favourable English language learning destination when compared
to an English-speaking country.
Section 5.5 has included a discussion of participants’ overall perceptions of Malaysia as a
destination for English language learners. Generally speaking, participants were happy with
153
their language learning experience in Malaysia and found that there were many benefits to
learning English in this country when compared to their countries. However, when
compared to native English-speaking countries, participants found Malaysia lacking and
would rather be in a country where English was more widely spoken, This negative aspect is
related to the second theme identified in the interview data, Communication and Interaction
Outside Class, since the main benefit cited by participants as an advantage of learning
English in a native English-speaking country is the increased opportunity to use English
outside the classroom. Participants’ perceptions with regard to communication and
interaction outside class will be discussed in more detail in the following section.
5.6. Theme Two: Communication and Interaction Outside Class
Although the interview participants were generally positive about their learning experience
in Malaysia, they had a number of negative perceptions when it came to matters related to
communication and interaction with locals outside the college. Participants’ perceptions in
this theme were generally related to the lack of practice opportunities, which could also be
linked to their lack of access to English-speaking Malaysians and negative perceptions of
Malaysian English. The findings within this theme will be presented in the following
sections, beginning with the first sub-theme which focuses on the limited opportunities for
communication as perceived by the interview participants.
5.6.1. Limited Opportunities for Communication
One of the most notable observations in participants’ perceptions of their experience outside
the classroom was a lack of opportunity to use English in real communication outside the
class. Only three of the sixteen participants had social interaction with Malaysians. One
Iraqi and one Moroccan participant had Malaysian friends and another Somali participant
had Malaysian friends, as he had already started studying at university by the second stage
of data collection. The other participants spent most of their day in English classes attended
only by other international students, and would return to their homes which they shared with
154
other students from the same country. In fact, for many of the interview participants, a large
number of their neighbours were also from the same country. This limited their chances of
interaction in the English language as depicted in the following quote.
Participant 045, M, Sudan: “(I speak English) Just in college, for me, when I come
back to my condominium, all my condominium live Sudanese, so I can speak
Arabic.”
Since participants spent most of their time with other international students, their main
interaction with locals was in carrying out everyday transactions such as ordering food in
restaurants, going shopping and buying bus or rail tickets. According to the participants,
they only spoke minimal English on these occasions.
Participant 062, F, Morocco: “In Malaysia, the important thing is you have
catalogue. You can see everything, you can pick. I need this one, okay.”
The findings in this sub-theme showed that most of the interview participants felt that they
did not have enough opportunities to interact in English outside their language classes. This
lack of real communication is also related to the negative perceptions reported under the
first theme, discussed earlier, in which participants felt they would have a better English
language learning experience in an English-speaking country since there would be more
chance to use the English language in daily life. Because the second theme involves
participants’ perceptions of their experience outside the classroom, the limited chances to
use English outside class was a significant issue in the participants’ learning experience.
However, as can be seen from the first quote above, this was not only due to participants’
learning environment, but also due to their living arrangements. Contrary to what the
participants of this study believed, research on international students in English-speaking
countries also show that they faced the same problems. For example, as discussed in
Chapter Four, around a third of the students in Christison and Krahnke’s study of ESL
students in the U.S. spoke an hour or less of English each day (Christison & Krahnke,
1986). However, most participants in this study seemed to view the lack of practice
opportunities as a result of being in Malaysia, rather than of being international students.
155
This perceived lack of practice opportunities is also probably related to participants’
perceptions of Malaysian English, since this is the variety of English that is spoken outside
the classroom, in contrast to the Standard British or American English that is taught inside
participants’ English classes. The interview findings related to this sub-theme will be
discussed in the following section.
5.6.2. Perceptions of Malaysian English and the English proficiency of Malaysians
While some participants said that the types of interactions they had with locals only required
minimal English, other participants said that they could not speak proper English in these
situations because they would not be understood. In this aspect, most participants were
conscious that the variety of English spoken locally was different from what they were
being taught in class. The differences in the local variety of English, as viewed by
participants’ were mainly connected to accent and pronunciation, but also encompassed
grammatical and vocabulary differences. As all the students came from countries in which
English is a foreign language, they valued the standard United Kingdom or United States
variety of English and tended to view any variations from these varieties as being ‘wrong’.
Participant 035, M, Libya: “The pronunciation, the sound…no….no clear.”
Participant 074, M, Sudan: “When I want to talk with someone for them, I feel
that...like...accent not clearly. The pronunciation, I don’t understand. Sometimes
also, they use different words, some Malay mix with English, or ‘lah’. Even
grammar is wrong sometimes.”
As discussed in Chapter Two and Four, Young (2003) also found similar perceptions among
students from China studying English in Singapore. When these students had newly arrived
in Singapore, they generally felt that Singaporeans should learn American or British English
and stated that Singapore English was not a standard variety of English. However, unlike
the present participants, those in Young’s study did not necessarily consider Singaporean
English as being incorrect. One interesting aspect of Young’s study was that it investigated
the changes in the Chinese students’ perceptions towards Singapore English and found
156
students grew more accepting of the variety over time (Young, 2003). Although the Chinese
students in Singapore may be more likely to adjust to Singapore English due to the
ethnicity, culture and language they share with the majority group in Singapore, the fact that
the international students in Malaysia did not share these similarities with the local
population does not necessarily mean that the same change of attitude will not occur. The
participants in this study were in the early stages of their stay in Malaysia, like those in
Young’s (2003) study and continued exposure to Malaysian English as well as increasing
opportunities for contact and social relationships with Malaysians may result in an
increasingly positive view of Malaysian English. On the other hand, the fact that
international students from Africa and the Middle East do not have the same ethnic, cultural
and linguistic similarities with Malaysians, as the Chinese students in Young’s study had
with Singaporeans, could result in their negative perceptions of the local variety of English
remaining unchanged, even after years of study in Malaysia.
Another study in a comparable context looked at Korean learners of English in South
Africa, highlighting that learners from the Expanding Circle are increasingly looking toward
Outer Circle countries as places in which to learn English (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2008). Using
the terminology proposed by Kachru in his model of World Englishes (Kachru, 1985),
Coetzee-Van Rooy proposes that the increasingly global use of English may influence the
relative importance of Inner Circle countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom
and Australia as models of English language learning by offering other, often cheaper,
destinations for learning English in the form of Outer Circle countries such as South Africa.
The differences between the local variety of English and standard English was also an issue
for the Koreans who were learning English in South Africa as surveyed by Coetzee-Van
Rooy and one student stated the town in which the study was based was not a good place to
learn English, as the English spoken by locals was “very Afrikaans” (Coetzee-Van Rooy,
2008: 6).
157
The negative perceptions held by the participants in the present study about the local variety
of English is also related to the low estimation the participants have towards the English
proficiency of Malaysians. In other words, not only did they view Malaysian English as a
non-standard variety of English, but they also felt that most Malaysians were unable to use
English for more than very basic communicative functions.
Participant 017, M, Iraq: “But in the street or shop, no, I cannot use any sentence.
Because Chinese, or Malay or Indian cannot speak very good English. Maybe a
little, but the same with me.”
053, M, Somali: “I don’t speak much English outside class…I speak little bit easy
language, not difficult. Because if you speak the language correctly, they will not
understand.”
Participant 038, M, Somalia: “Malaysia is not an English-speaking country. Most
Malaysians cannot use English for a lot of things. I mean, they can ask for things in
shops, but I cannot speak to them about the same things I would speak to my
friends.”
Another factor that may have contributed to participants’ negative perceptions of Malaysian
English is the fact that Malaysia is a multilingual country. With three main languages
spoken, in addition to English, there is a fair bit of code-switching that occurs when
Malaysians are speaking any language, including English (Baskaran, 2002). The presence of
unfamiliar words may further add to the confusion faced by the international students,
especially those who are not proficient users of English. Also, as a majority of the
participants in this study were monolingual, code-switching may seem like inappropriate
language use to these learners and they may interpret code-switching as a language used by
low-proficiency users of English.
Despite the generally negative view on Malaysian English speakers, there were mixed
perceptions on whether practicing with locals would help participants in improving their
speaking skills. Although two participants expressed concern that they would learn the
wrong type of English or acquire incorrect pronunciation through interaction with locals, for
158
most participants, any communicative practice, whether with a Malaysian, or a ‘native
speaker’, was considered beneficial.
Participant 008, F, Kyrgyzstan: “If you speak in English you can speak, if this
person who speak with me, if he knows English language of course (whether) it’s
Malaysian, or African or any person… I must speak with them in English and my
English will improve.”
Participant 013, M, Sudan: “I think anyone from any country just speak a little
English, I will learning from him anything. Any country.”
When the comments made by participants are analysed, it appears that participants have a
poor opinion of Malaysian English and do not rate the English language skills of Malaysians
very highly. However, when asked whether they knew any Malaysians socially, participants
mostly said that other than the staff at the college, they did not know many locals. This
indicates that participants views related to locals and the English language were formed
based on their limited interaction with service industry workers. In many cases, these
workers may not even be Malaysians, but what is more significant is that service workers
tend not to be from the educated or middle-income classes of Malaysians, where high levels
of English proficiency are usually found. Thus, participants’ views of Malaysian English
and the English proficiency of Malaysians have been formed without much exposure to
Malaysians, other than service industry workers and clerical staff.
Although problems with the local variety of English appear to particularly relevant to
students who learn English in countries outside the traditional English learning destinations,
such as the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada,
referred to as the Inner Circle countries by Kachru (1985), international students in these
countries have also encountered problems understanding English spoken by the locals. East
(2001) states that international students in Australia also face problems related to the local
variety of English, echoing the findings of this study as depicted in the interview excerpts
on the previous page.
159
As the British and American variety of English are more commonly taught around the
world, international students in Australia have to adjust to variations in vocabulary, accent
and speed of talking, while trying to improve their English for university. Wang, Singh,
Bird & Ives (2008) found similar problems in their study of Taiwanese nursing students in
Australia. In another English speaking country, Mehdizadeh & Scott (2005) explored the
adjustment issues faced by international students from Iran when they attended university in
Scotland. They recommended that students undergo language training to increase their
exposure to the Scottish accent before going to Scotland (Mehdizadeh & Scott, 2005). This
indicates that the local accent posed an issue to international students studying at Scottish
universities, as they did in this study. While the Australian and Scottish accents are often
regarded as harder for learners of English to comprehend when compared to British English,
a survey study of international students in London also found problems dealing with English
accents. In a study by Lord & Dawson, (2002), the international students reported that the
broad variety of English accents they encountered made communication in English
challenging. Lee (1997) also states that international students in American universities often
have trouble comprehending their lecturers if they are not familiar with American English,
or if there is a lot of idiomatic language used in lectures.
As international students face problems adjusting to local English variety in countries where
it is a native language, the problem has also been noted by those doing research on English
learners in Outer Circle countries where English has historical significance, but where an
indigenized variety of the language is spoken widely. As mentioned previously, Young
(2003) reported that Chinese students had trouble understanding Singapore English. This
finding was echoed by the participants of a study by Sng et al. (2009) on a mixed nationality
group of international students in Singapore. Among other things, these students found the
Singapore English accent, which is comparable to the Malaysian English one, unappealing
(Sng et al., 2009). In another similar context, a study of Korean ESL learners in South
160
Africa also found issues with the local variety of English (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2008). The
wide variety of Englishes spoken in both native English speaking countries and Outer Circle
countries poses communication challenges for international students. However, since
Malaysian English does not have the same global acceptance as American or British
English, there is probably less motivation on the part of participants to understand or learn
about this local variety. In addition, their negative perceptions of Malaysian English are
probably directed towards the low colloquial variety of English, rather than towards
standard Malaysian English. These negative perceptions probably affect participants’
communication outside the classroom, further limiting their interaction opportunities. When
participants begin their academic programmes at university, there is a possibility that their
perceptions of Malaysian English could change, particularly if they build relationships with
Malaysians who are proficient in English. On the other hand, participants’ existing negative
perceptions could limit their interaction with local students since the participants’ may not
be very motivated to seek out interaction opportunities if they feel that speaking English
with Malaysians will not be beneficial in terms of improving their proficiency. A lack of
social interaction and limited access to English-speaking Malaysians, which will be
discussed in the following section, could also have contributed to participants’ perceptions
of Malaysian English.
5.6.3. Social Isolation and Limited Access to English-speaking Malaysians
Being in an English programme designed for international students, participants had limited
access to English-speakers other than their teachers and college staff. This was exacerbated
by their living arrangements, whereby almost all participants lived among people from their
home country. Thus, their exposure to Malaysians outside the classroom was limited to
workers in shops, restaurants and public transportation workers. English proficiency in
Malaysia is generally higher among the middle and upper classes and among the educated
and professional segments of society. However, like international students in other
161
countries, these participants generally had limited budgets, which did not allow them to live
in areas where the English-speaking communities live. All these factors combined to create
a situation in which the participants had little or no access to Malaysians who were
proficient in English, other than those they encountered at the college. This social isolation
not only made for a learning context in which participants had very limited interaction
opportunities outside the classroom, but may also have contributed to participants’ negative
views towards Malaysian English. Since their experience of Malaysian English speakers
was largely limited to those with low English proficiency, it is not hard to see why
participants perceived Malaysian English as an incorrect variety of English.
For example, Participant 038 said that most Malaysians were unable to communicate in
English beyond basic daily transactions, yet when asked whether he knew any Malaysians
socially, he replied in the negative. His perceptions of the English proficiency of Malaysians
were based on short interactions with service industry workers and clerical staff at the
universities to which he was applying.
In addition to their language problems with locals, some participants felt that the Malaysians
they met did not like speaking to foreigners or did not like speaking English.
Participant 072, M, Sudan: “I don’t know…most of them don’t like to speak English.
They are not social people. I think for foreigners, they don’t like to speak with the
foreigners, either.”
Participant 071, M, Somalia: “… when I want to go to the supermarket or when I
want to… I try to speak English as much as I can and I try to joking with the person.
But unfortunately, to be honest, Malay people don’t want to speak English more
than just one word.” “(It doesn’t matter)…whether Malaysian or other foreign, but the
problem is if the other people don’t want to speak English. That is the problem.
In summary, the findings related to participants’ out-of-class experience fall into two main
areas. Firstly, participants had limited opportunities for authentic language practice outside
their English class. This is largely due to their learning and socio-cultural contexts as
participants in an English course catering to international students and as international
162
students in Malaysia. Secondly, participants had a negative perception of Malaysian
English, which could be a result of their limited communication outside class as well as
their limited access to Malaysians.
Limited opportunity for communication is a common issue in many language learning
situations. This is particularly true in an English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) situation and
is seen to be less of a concern in an English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) context. Learning
English in Malaysia can be either an EFL or an ESL situation, depending on context
specifics. Based on the data collected from the interviews, participants are learning English
in an EFL context as their communication in the language is largely limited to the
classroom. Although they are forced to use English to interact with Malaysians, their actual
need to do so is limited due to contextual reasons. Once they progress to academic
programmes, this situation is likely to change as participants will be enrolled in programmes
among local students and will have more opportunity to use English, at least in carrying out
their academic tasks. However, whether their social access to English speaking Malaysians
increases depends on their ability and willingness to build relationships with their local
classmates and, of course, on whether this is reciprocated by their future classmates.
In a study of international postgraduate students at a Malaysian university, Pandian (2008)
found that they had mostly positive perceptions of their social interactions with their local
classmates and the local community. However, several participants mentioned that local
students tended to avoid communication with them and did not behave in a friendly manner
(Pandian, 2008). A few participants in Pandian’s study also perceived discrimination from
Malaysians. Overall, the participants felt that they did not have as many social interactions
with local students as they would have liked (Pandian, 2008) and many socialised mainly
among students from their own countries. As described earlier, Pandian’s (2008) findings
were echoed by several participants, who perceived that locals did not want to communicate
163
with them. For example, when asked whether he faced problems in communicating with
Malaysians, one participant responded as follows:
Participant 072, M, Sudan: “(Communication problems with)…Malaysians?, yes
definitely. Yes, the Malays(Malaysians) to me is like, I don’t know. Most of them they
don’t like to speak English. They are not social people. I think they don’t like to
speak with the foreigners either. For me I am afraid to talk to them...I was be
friendly like I used to be in my country and I was surprised. They don’t like to speak
to others, to foreigners and this kind of stuff. And particularly in this, in other
language. Not Malay language.
According to this student, the main communication problems with Malaysians were due to
two factors: the reluctance of Malaysians to be social with foreigners as well as their
avoidance of speaking in English. This particular student was talking about interacting with
locals in public place. Therefore, it could be assumed that in situations where there was a
context to communicate, for example, at university, the situation would be different.
However, Pandian’s (2008) study shows that similar problems are faced by international
students who have already started university. In addition, language difficulties were also
cited by the international students in Pandian’s (2008) study as well as in another study
conducted by Kaur & Sidhu (2009) as a factor that hindered their communication and social
relationships.
While the issues discussed in this theme appear to the students to be a result of being in
Malaysia, they are actually common in the context of international students in other
countries including those where English is a native language, for example, as found by
Christison and Krahnke (1986), mentioned earlier in this section. Having limited social
contact with locals is also a common theme in studies of other international student groups.
For example, Robertson et al. (2000) found feelings of isolation were ranked as being
among the most significant problems faced by 48 international students in an Australian
university. The participants in Christison and Krahnke’s (1986) study, discussed above, also
had problems in creating interaction opportunities with Americans. Therefore, certain
164
challenges faced by the participants of this study are common to international students in
general, for example social isolation and trouble making friends with locals. In addition,
lack of opportunity to practice speaking a target language is an issue for language learners
everywhere. However, the participants’ learning context as students in a language
programme populated entirely by international students might intensify these problems.
Once the students begin university, it is expected that there will be more opportunity to
interact with Malaysians; thus, leading to more practice opportunities and social interaction.
The findings in the second theme identified in the interview data have been discussed in this
section. In this theme, the participants’ perceptions in relation to their experience outside the
classroom as learners of English in Malaysia were discussed. Most participants had opted to
study English in Malaysia as they had expected more opportunities for practice when
compared to their own countries. While this expectation was met, participants still found
that they did not have many chances for meaningful interaction in English outside their
classroom. They also had to deal with the Malaysian variety of English, which was a
different variety than the standard British or American English that they valued. This
section has discussed participants’ perceptions related to factors outside the classroom, in
terms of real communication with Malaysians. In the following section, the findings related
to participants’ perception of English use in Malaysian universities will be discussed.
5.7. Theme Three: Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities
Since all but two of the 102 participants in this study were learning English in preparation
for academic programmes, their perceptions about the use of English in Malaysian
universities were considered an important factor in their overall perceptions of their learning
experience. However, as only two of the interview participants had started university by the
time the interviews were conducted, the participants’ perceptions of English in Malaysian
universities were largely derived from the opinions and experiences of people they knew.
All of them had friends or family studying at local universities, and their perceptions were
165
undoubtedly influenced by the stories they had heard from them. The main findings in this
area centred around participants’ tendency to underestimate the level of English proficiency
necessary to cope in a Malaysian academic programme. This corroborated the findings from
the related PELLEM items as discussed in Chapter Four. In addition, most participants were
very confident, perhaps even over confident, about the adequacy of their present language
skills in view of the language demands they would face upon enrolling at university.
Ransom, Larcombe and Baik (2005), who studied the perceptions and expectations of
international students at the University of Melbourne, found that there was a significant gap
between the students’ expectations and the support services offered to ESL learners. A
similar situation could be occurring in the Malaysian context, particularly when
international students enter universities with unrealistic conceptions of the need for
proficiency in the language that will be the medium of instruction. Their success at
university depends not only on the students’ own ability to cope with these difficulties, but
also on the measures taken by host institutions to support them.
5.7.1. Underestimation of Importance of English in an Academic Programme
Interview participants were asked to estimate the level of language proficiency necessary to
do well at university. The interview participants had varied views in this area, ranging from
completion of the Pre-intermediate course (IELTS band 3-4) up to completion of the
Academic Skills for IELTS course (IELTS band 5-6). This was generally influenced by the
level that they were enrolled in. In general, those students in the higher levels tended to
estimate a higher level of proficiency when compared to those who were in the lower levels.
Considering that the Pre-intermediate level is when students are first introduced to a four
paragraph essay in the writing component of the course, participants’ expectations that this
would be sufficient to cope in an English-medium academic programme appears to be a
great underestimation.
166
In most cases, participants’ estimations were also influenced by university entry
requirements. As many Malaysian universities accept an IELTS band of 5.5 or 6,
participants tended to cite this as the necessary level of proficiency in order to do well
academically.
Participant 053, M, Somalia: “I think the one who get 5.5 can start university, can
understand everything, can read books, can make some researches or projects,
yes...”
On the topic of university entry requirements, one participant who was headed for a
postgraduate degree said that the entry requirement for university entrance into Malaysian
universities was too high. He pointed out that the entry requirement for Malaysian
universities should be much lower than that of universities in English- speaking countries
such as Australia and the U.K. This could mean that perceptions held by these students with
regard to Malaysian English and the English proficiency of Malaysians could play a role in
the participants’ low estimation of the need for English in academic programmes.
While participants generally underestimated the need for English proficiency at university,
most were aware that international students often face language problems at university. In
fact, at least three mentioned people that they knew who had started academic programmes
with only Beginner or Elementary level English proficiency and had then faced problems.
Participant 074, M, Sudan: “Yes, yes. I know someone when I came to Malaysia.
Before study course language English, he applied already in university and accept
him. But after he started, he faced big problem. Now he dropped semester and he
study English language. I think all the problems like this”
Another participant mentioned that many international students plagiarized their university
projects because of weak language skills.
Participant 038, M, Somalia: “…they paste and copy, they copy from the Internet,
from other papers and, they just paste them to their work, but the problem is if they
write it themselves, it’s gonna be difficult. They are gonna have grammatical
mistakes.”
167
Interestingly, this participant felt that students like those he was describing were
academically ready for university, but only faced language problems. This illustrates that
many participants did not understand the close connection between language skills and
academic skills and may be ill-prepared to handle the language demands of university.
The participants’ perceptions that being prepared for university was more an academic issue
than a language related issue may have lead to their optimism and overconfidence in terms
of the adequacy of their own language skills. This significant finding is the second sub-
theme related to participants perceptions of English use at university and will be covered in
the following section.
5.7.2. Optimism and Overconfidence-Expectations about Academic Programmes
The group of participants for the interview stage of data collection was generally very
confident about their language skills and had high expectations about their potential success
in the academic programmes they planned to enrol in, which is representative of the
responses to items on the PELLEM by the larger group of participants. Only three of the 16
interview participants expressed any worries about facing language problems at university.
The others generally felt that their English language skills would enable them to cope with
the language demands of an academic programme. Generally, the higher the English
proficiency level of student, the more confident they were. However, there were also
students who had yet to complete the Pre-intermediate level course who felt ready for
university.
Participant 043, M Somalia: “No, I am not worried. Because when the university
accepted for me. Yes, UNISEL university accepted for me. I will go in May. When
they accepted for me, they make me, they test for language. If I pass for language, I
began for my faculty. For that faculty, there is a subject which is English… I am not
worried, because in my secondary, I was adapted to studying in English but I can’t
speak only...”
168
Overall, participants in this study differed significantly from those in studies of international
students in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. In Ransom et al. (2005),
70% of the 377 ESL students in the study felt that English language skills were ‘very
important’ to academic success, while 29% felt it was ‘somewhat important’ (Ransom et al.,
2005). Another study of international students in Australia by Sawir (2005) also found a
similar appreciation for the value of English proficiency for academic and social reasons.
Whether the participants’ are viewed as being optimistic or as being unrealistic, it can be
concluded from the findings that they are likely to minimize the role of English in academic
performance. This could be due to a number of factors. Firstly, the participants’ low regard
for Malaysian English and the English proficiency of Malaysians, as discussed in Theme
Two, could have led to their overestimating their language skills or minimizing the potential
challenges at university. They could be judging their future classmates’ and lecturers’
English skills based on their interactions with service workers. Also, participants may view
the variation in Malaysian English accents, when compared to British or American English,
as being a sign of low proficiency.
In studies conducted by Pandian (2008) and Kaur & Sidhu (2009) on international students
in Malaysian universities, language difficulties were reported to be a factor in the students’
social and academic lives. However, it is interesting to note that the international students in
Pandian and Kaur & Sidhu’s studies cited their own limitations in English rather than
focusing on the low proficiency of locals. The international postgraduates in Kaur &
Sidhu’s (2009) study reported being conscious of their own accents and language
proficiency when interacting with local students. Moreover, several students in Pandian’s
(2008) study stated that the local students laughed at the way they spoke. This is in contrast
to the perceptions reported by the participants in the present study, who tended to focus
more on what they perceived as deficiencies in the English spoken by Malaysians, rather
than focusing on their own weaknesses in English. This could corroborate the contention
169
made earlier in this chapter, that the international students’ overconfidence in their English
could be caused by their lack of exposure to educated Malaysians. Their generalisation of
Malaysians’ English proficiency based on limited interactions with shop assistants other
service workers may have given the participants in the present study a false sense of
security about the sufficiency of their language abilities. This could be part of the reason
why the participants in the present study tended to be highly confident and to underestimate
the level of English proficiency they will need at university, for example, as expressed by in
the excerpt below.
Participant 071, M, Somalia: “I didn’t worry about it because I am self-confident.
Because when I finished most of the course at (this college), I am very confident.”
Another possible reason for this phenomenon could be socio-cultural factors. As discussed
in Chapter Four, the results of the BALLI survey showed that these participants tended to be
more confident that those in previous BALLI studies. This confidence would influence their
expectations of success at university. In Chapter Four, socio-cultural factors were offered as
a possible reason for high confidence levels, as a previous BALLI study by Siebert (2003)
proposed that Middle Eastern students appeared to be more confident than Asian students
based on their responses to BALLI items on difficulty of language learning and time
required to study a language. This was corroborated by the BALLI and PELLEM findings
of this study, as presented in Chapters Four and Five, where the participants tended to
underestimate difficulty levels, overestimate their own abilities and have high expectations
of success. It appears that the high confidence levels of Middle Eastern students could also
be an influential factor in the interview findings in this theme.
Finally, Malaysia’s status as a developing nation and a non-native English speaking country
may also play a role in participants’ underestimation of the language demands at a local
university. It is highly probable that participants from Africa and the Middle East would be
170
more intimidated by the prospect of coping in a British university than a Malaysian
university. As seen in previous research on international students in Australia and the U.K.,
the international students were very concerned about their English skills, which is
contradictory to the present findings. Students from one developing nation moving to
another developing nation are less likely to feel intimidated by their lecturers and local
classmates when compared to students from a developing nation who study in a developed
nation, such as the U.S., the U.K. and Australia.
As proposed in Chapter Four, in explaining participants’ confidence and optimism with
regard to their beliefs about language learning, certain contextual factors could also be
contributing reasons for the participants’ views. More learner training is required, not only
to correct misconceptions about language learning and teach participants about effective
language learning strategies, but also to educate participants on the nature of language use at
universities so that they will be better prepared to face the challenges ahead. For example,
participants may not be aware of the types of tasks they will be required to complete at
university and may assume that the kinds of tasks in the ESL classroom are similar to what
they will be doing at university. If language teachers demonstrate the kinds of texts
participants will be required to read and produce, then perhaps they will have a more
realistic idea of the level of English proficiency that is required for an academic programme.
In addition, having some sort of standardized measure to assess applicants’ English
language proficiency for admission into Malaysian universities and colleges would also help
give participants a greater understanding of the necessity for language proficiency to
succeed at university. At present, universities and colleges have various ways to accept
those applicants who do not achieve the necessary IELTS band, for example, by applying
their own English placement test, and allowing international students to begin their
academic programmes while taking English proficiency courses at the same time, for
example, as described in Hamzah et al. (2009). This reinforces participants’ misconception
171
that English proficiency of a certain standard is nothing more than a requirement that has to
be fulfilled in order to be accepted into and to graduate from university, instead of a
necessity to function well in academic programmes.
In this section, the participants’ interview responses with regard to their expectations and
perceptions of English in Malaysian universities have been discussed. In general, it can be
said that this group of learners is not fully aware of the implications that English language
proficiency has on their future academic performance at university. In addition, participants
seemed to overestimate their language abilities and had few concerns about facing language
problems when they start university. The first three themes resulting from the semi-
structured interviews looked at participants’ perceptions of factors outside the classroom,
namely, General Opinion of Malaysia as an English language learning destination, Out-of-
class experience and Perceptions of English in Malaysian universities, the final theme
focuses on the language learning process itself. The results related to this theme are
discussed in the following section.
5.8. Theme Four: Language Learning
While the interviews mainly focused on participants’ opinions about issues directly related
to learning and using English in Malaysia, some questions also sought participants’ views
about matters related to language learning itself. These questions were more related to the
BALLI than the PELLEM, and sought further information about the strategies employed by
participants to improve their English and their opinions on factors that contribute to
language learning success.
5.8.1. What Makes a Good Language Learner?
Based on the data in the earlier themes, it was evident that many participants were learning
English mainly to achieve a certain score on the IELTS test or university English placement
tests, rather than to have the necessary skills to pursue academic study in the English-
172
medium. Despite varying ideas on what they considered successful language learning,
participants had clear ideas on what a learner should do to improve their English language
skills as they had spent two months or more in the intensive English programme.
Participants were well aware of individual differences in language learning, as many said
success in language learning depended on individual learners. As reported in Chapter Four,
in their responses to the BALLI items on foreign language aptitude and individual
characteristics that influence language learning, a majority of the 102 participants in this
study had endorsed the belief in foreign language aptitude and age as having a positive
effect on language learning. However, in the interviews, participants tended to value other
types of individual characteristics. Most participants cited attitudinal factors such as being
motivated, being dedicated and putting in a lot of effort as the primary factors. Although
one or two participants also acknowledged the role played by natural ability, they mentioned
it alongside attitude. Therefore, despite the belief in foreign language aptitude as found in
the BALLI survey, participants were more likely to attribute the success of language
learners to motivation and the willingness to work towards acquiring a language.
Participant 072, M, Sudan: “Everyone can learn a language, but it is the effort that
makes a difference.”
Participant 071, M, Somalia: “Some of the students, they always read and write
every time. And some of them, they don’t… they don’t like to make practice
anything, but other people, they practice all the time.”
Participant 053, M, Somalia: “It depends on how, the effort, that he paid and the
time he spends to study hard. It depends the hard-working student.”
In the interviews, when participants spoke about how students can be successful at language
learning, they often used the phrase ‘hard-working’ or contrasted it with ‘lazy’ to describe
the types of learners who succeed in learning English and those who fail. When asked to
elaborate on the types of actions carried out by a good language learner, participants spoke
mainly about communicative practice. This contrasts with the quantitative BALLI results,
as discussed earlier, which appeared to indicate that a large percentage of the 102
173
participants in this study had a high regard for vocabulary learning, grammar learning and
translation as the most important parts of language learning. As depicted in the quotation
below, while participants acknowledged the importance of learning about grammar, they
considered communicative practice the key to developing language skills.
Participant 013, M, Sudan: “The first time, you have to know any rule about
grammar and about writing about anything. And you learn more vocabulary and
anything and after that you have to do a lot of practice. Without practice, you can't
learn English language.”
In comparison, the data collected from the semi-structured interviews presents a very
different picture from the results in Chapter Four, as far as participants’ views of language
learning are concerned. The interview participants were clearly aware that practice was
necessary if they wanted to improve their English. One explanation for the contradictory
results is that the 16 interview participants had different perceptions when compared to the
whole sample of 102 participants. However, the more likely explanation for this discrepancy
is the limitations of the closed-choice questionnaire.
On the BALLI, the items related to ‘formal learning beliefs’ were worded in a way that did
not allow participants to rank different language components in relation to each other. For
example, item 17 states “The most important part of language learning is learning new
vocabulary.” It is likely that participants who strongly agreed with this item, as well as the
ones on grammar and translation, were only indicating that they found these components
important. However, this does not necessarily mean that they think grammar or learning
vocabulary is more important to language learning than communicative practice.
During the interview, many participants described successful language learners as those
who were motivated and hard-working enough to seek ways to practice the four skills of
reading, writing, listening and speaking. It is heartening to note that many interview
participants also tied language learning success closely to self-directed learning, pointing
174
out that the five hours of lessons per day would not suffice if someone wanted to learn a
language well.
Participant 052, M, Somalia: “Yea, the first advice is to be hard working, to work
hard and to learn all your studies. And some students they don't care. They just want
to study what they took from this school, only just the book, they read the book. That
is not enough.”
Participant 049, M, Sudan: “Because when you study at college that is not enough.
Because you must be improve your English at house. Because there is many things
you can’t say at college because that is social (sic) life.”
Participant 051, F, Libya: “Also some students feel that class work is enough. They
come to the class, listen to the teacher and do the activities, but outside class they
forget about English. This type will not improve fast. If you want to improve fast, you
must plan your learning. In class is for guidance only, but you must use the things
from class and the book, by speaking, reading, writing and listening. Look for
different ways to practice, correct your own mistakes. Otherwise, there is no
meaning. You will know the language only in your head, as a subject.”
Participants’ view that practice is necessary to succeed in language learning corresponds
with representations of the good language learner as described by other researchers. In their
summary of research into successful language learners, Norton & Toohey (2001) state that
previous research depicted several aspects of good language learners, including that they
were actively involved in the language learning process and that they used the target
language to communicate and interact. However, Norton & Toohey (2001) also point out
that the recent socio-cultural perspective in SLA research highlights the importance of
access to different types of communication, or ‘communities of practice’, in order for
learners to be successful (Norton & Toohey, 2001). In other words, even though a learner
has the traits that may have previously been identified as being those of a good language
learner, without the socio-cultural context in which to use a language, it will be hard for
learners to develop much fluency in their target language. The absence of such a context for
the learners in this present study has already been discussed, not only in Chapter Four, but
also in the second theme of the interview results.
175
Despite the lack of opportunity in which to use English in real-life, the participants show an
awareness of the importance of practice in order to improve their English. In addition to
clear ideas on what makes a good language learner, participants put these ideas into practice
as can be seen from the learning strategies they employed. The following section covers the
various methods participants used in their attempt to improve their language skills.
5.8.2. Language Learning Strategies
From participants’ views on the factors that contribute to successful language learning, the
interviews moved on to the participants themselves and the various strategies they used to
develop their English language skills. As described in the previous section, participants
viewed practice as being the most crucial factor in language learning success, and this was
reflected in the types of examples of things they did to improve their English. Most
interview participants stated that they tried to speak English as much as possible, both inside
and outside the college, despite the limitations described in the second theme, Out-of-Class
Experience.
Participant 062, F, Morocco: “I read, no important books, but, like reading one
paragraph about some inventor, about someone. Um question, and I answer the
question, like reading in exam.”
Participant 051, F, Libya: “… I try to focus on speaking because I have a problem of
speaking. I can’t speak very well, but grammar is okay, my listening is okay. So I do
a lot of reading and writing.”
Participant 043, M , Somalia: “I do reading at home, more writing to practice at
home. On diff topics, my daily routine, my family, my classmates., my teachers. I do
this things. I listen movies, watch movies. These things I improve my skills.”
Participant 053, M , Somalia: “I need more practice inside class and outside class.
Always I try to communicate the people, also I wrote something. At home I study
hard and I communicate with my friends and my roomie to practice the English
language.”
Overall, participants felt that language practice was a very good way to improve their
English. Based on their interview responses, they put in a lot of work outside class and also
enjoyed listening to English music and watching English movies. A study of international
ESL learners at a private college in Malaysia found similar strategy preferences among
176
learners (Othman, 2005). Most participants in Othman’s study reported speaking in English,
listening to English music and watching English movies as their preferred ways to use
English (Othman, 2005).
In the fourth theme related to language learning, the first two sub-themes were related to
participants’ perceptions about language learning, as far as their ideas about what a good
language learner should do, as well as their choice of learning strategy. The third, and final,
sub-theme looks at participants’ perceptions of the English language course they were
taking at the time of the study, as presented in the following section.
5.8.3. Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute
Data from the interview participants supported the quantitative results from the fourth
PELLEM theme on Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute. In both the
PELLEM and the interviews, participants had positive perceptions of the language course
they were enrolled in and made positive remarks about their teachers, the teaching method,
curriculum and materials. Nevertheless, they also made suggestions on certain
improvements they would like to see. Generally, most participants felt that there should be
less focus on grammar and more on reading and writing skills. Participants also felt that the
syllabus should move away from General English to encompass more aspects of Academic
English. A few students also pointed out the need for more interaction opportunities outside
the classroom.
Participant 052, M, Somalia: “…(this college) need to change the system, the
system, especially as we know a lot of students come here to study the university.
And universities academic about reading writing. In (this college) focus mainly on
grammar, when you start at beginner until intermediate, focus on grammar. So I
think it’s a good idea to focus on reading writing is better. And many students, you
are manager and you know what the students are saying. The students complain
about reading writing, no one complain about grammar, no one complain about
speaking.”
177
Participant 035, M, Libya: “Yes, some points. Mmm, you have long free time.
And…writing and reading every day more. Some teachers don’t make some
conversation in the class.”
Participant 008, F, Kyrgyzstan: “I hope to change to spend in the college more time,
than now. Because when I finish my class, I go directly to the library and I sit here.
But most students they can’t speak in English and of course I can’t get from them
some information about English. If we stayed here a long time, with teachers and
with students, maybe we can speak more easier and more faster. We need to speak
more.”
Two other studies of international students learning in Malaysia, Ali (2007) and Hamzah et
al. (2009) had contradictory results from those found in this study. Both studies differed
from the present one in terms of learning context as they involved students who had already
been accepted into university programmes but were required to complete an English course.
In contrast, the students in the present study were at an earlier stage of their learning
experience in Malaysia and were in a local college learning English while applying to
university. Ali’s (2007) study, which aimed to investigate the reasons behind the reluctance
of ESL learners to participate in speaking activities, found generally positive perceptions of
the language course, especially when compared to participants’ previous language courses.
However, since Ali’s (2007) study did not aim to identify learners’ perceptions of the
language course, perhaps any negative views that arose during data collection were not
reported. Conversely, as described in Chapter Four, those in Hamzah et al.’s (2009) study
were less positive about their language course. They were postgraduate students who had
not fulfilled the English entry requirements and were required to take and pass a language
course. Only 15 out of the 130 students surveyed by Hamzah et al. (2009) made positive
comments about their language course, while 51 had negative things to say about the
teaching methods, teachers’ speaking skills, course materials, and suitability of course and
facilities. Hamzah et al. concluded that many of these problems were because the students
were not placed in different levels according to proficiency, but grouped together, which
meant that higher level learners were not sufficiently challenged, while lower level learners
178
were not equipped to deal with the materials being covered (Hamzah et al., 2009). The large
size of classes may also have been a contributing factor. In addition, the fact that the
learners had already been accepted into university may have contributed to their negative
perceptions since they might have lost motivation. In contrast, the learners in the present
study were still working towards being accepted into university, so their motivation levels
were still high.
5.9. Conclusion
This chapter has presented the qualitative results of the interviews conducted with 16
participants. Overall, participants have positive views about Malaysia as a destination for
learners of English. However, participants also perceive Malaysia as a country where
English is a foreign language, although it is more widely spoken in this country than in their
own countries. Thus, they are not able to practice English in outside class as much as they
would like to. Furthermore, the local variety of English is viewed by these international
students as being inferior to British or American English. This can be traced to two possible
contributing factors. Firstly, participants do not have access to English-speaking
Malaysians, due to their living situations among others from their home country and the fact
that all their classmates in the English course are international students. This limits their
chances of interaction with the kinds of Malaysians who are proficient in English. In
addition, it could be that regardless of their access to Malaysians, these participants would
still consider Malaysian English as inferior because it does not sound like the Standard
English that is highly valued in their countries.
While administrators and teachers may not be able to do much about the perceptions of
Malaysia and Malaysian English, another significant finding from the interviews can be
addressed by those dealing with international students. This issue is the participants’
tendency to underestimate the importance of English proficiency in Malaysian academic
programmes. The interview results showed that participants were largely influenced by
179
university admission requirements in forming their estimations of the language proficiency
needed to succeed in an English-medium academic programme. If local universities
continue to accept students who have minimal levels of English proficiency, international
students will continue to minimize the role of language skills in academic success. While
confidence and optimism are generally positive things, unrealistic expectations will lead to
disappointment and an overall dissatisfaction with both their language learning and
academic experiences. The following chapter will present the conclusion of this study and
discuss the various implications of its findings.
180
Chapter 6-Conclusion
6.1. Introduction
This study focused on a group of 102 international students from Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
several other countries, who were enrolled in an English course at a Malaysian college to
prepare for admission into Malaysian university programmes. The aim of this study was to
explore participants’ beliefs about language learning and their perceptions of their language
learning experience in Malaysia. The BALLI questionnaire, which was designed by Horwitz
(1987) to measure beliefs about language learning, was used as the framework for
measuring language learning beliefs and this was supplemented by a specially-designed
questionnaire called the PELLEM. The purpose of the using the PELLEM in this study was
to enable the examination of participants’ beliefs about language learning within the context
of their learning experience as international students in Malaysia, since factors outside the
classroom are thought to play a role in the language learning process. To investigate
participants’ beliefs and perceptions in greater detail, semi-structured interviews with 16
participants were also held. In the following section, the key findings of the study are briefly
outlined.
6.2. Summary of Findings
The key findings of the study are presented in Figure 6.1., 6.2., 6.3 and 6.4. on the following
pages. In general, the findings of the study can be divided into two major areas: beliefs
about matters pertaining to classroom language learning (Inside the Classroom) and
perceptions about factors outside the classroom related to learning English in Malaysia
(Outside the Classroom). Individual learner characteristics, namely the motivational and
affective aspects of the learners, constitute the third major area of findings, and these factors
play an influential role in learners’ beliefs and perceptions both inside and outside the
classroom. Figure 6.1 depicts an overview of the findings of this study.
181
Figure 6.1. Summary of Key Findings
Figure 6.1 depicts the interrelation among the beliefs, perceptions and individual learner
characteristics of the international students learning English in Malaysia. The key factors in
participants’ beliefs with regard to matters related to language learning inside the classroom
can be divided into three areas: (i) beliefs about the nature of language learning; (ii) beliefs
about the difficulty of language learning; and (iii) beliefs about foreign language aptitude.
These areas correspond to three of the five BALLI themes identified by Horwitz (1987).
Participants’ perceptions about learning English in Malaysia with regard to factors outside
the classroom can also be divided into three major areas, namely: (i) perceptions of
Malaysia as an English learning destination; (ii) perceptions of communication outside the
classroom; (iii) and perceptions of English in
BELIEFS &
PERCEPTIONS
OF
INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS
LEARNING
ENGLISH IN
MALAYSIA
PERCEPTIONS OF MALAYSIA AS AN ENGLISH LEARNING DESTINATION
PERCEPTIONS OF
COMMUNICATION
OUTSIDE THE
CLASS
PERCEPTIONS
OF ENGLISH USE
IN MALAYSIAN
UNIVERSITIES
INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
BELIEFS ABOUT
NATURE OF
LANGUAGE
LEARNING
BELIEFS ABOUT
DIFFICULTY OF
LANGUAGE
LEARNING
BELIEFS ABOUT
FOREIGN
LANGUAGE
APTITUDE
OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
INDIVIDUAL LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS: AFFECTIVE & MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS
182
Malaysian universities. In addition, individual learner characteristics, comprising motivation
and affective factors, such as optimism and confidence were found to be related to both
beliefs about language learning and perceptions of their English language learning
experience in Malaysia. Because these factors were a significant part of the findings from
the BALLI, PELLEM and semi-structured interviews, they have been treated as a separate
area. When combined, the key findings from these three areas give us a clearer picture of
the salient factors in the experience of the international students learning English in
Malaysia who were involved in this study. While this section has presented a brief outline of
the key findings, the following sections will examine each area of the findings in more
detail.
6.2.1. Key Findings: Inside the Classroom
In general, the findings related to factors inside the language classroom were collected from
items on the BALLI survey as well as from the semi-structured interviews. One of the major
BALLI findings was participants’ high regard for grammar, vocabulary and translation, as
important aspects of the language learning process. These beliefs are a matter for concern,
particularly when contrasted with the communicative language teaching approach that is
considered to be the most effective in English language teaching these days. According to
Brown (2000), communicative language teaching places more importance on developing
learners’ communicative competence rather than emphasising linguistic or grammatical
competence. Under this approach, techniques used in the classroom aim to give learners the
chance to engage in functional and authentic use of language in contexts that are meaningful
to them, rather than focus on teaching grammatical structures and vocabulary as the final
goal (Brown, 2000). In addition, direct translation from the first language is not considered
an effective way to learn a foreign language. Therefore, the participants’ high regard for
grammar, vocabulary and translation could indicate that they are using ineffective methods
to learn English. Another finding was that participants had an unrealistic view of the
183
demands of language learning when compared to previous BALLI studies. This group of
English language learners had a much lower estimation of the difficulty level of English and
the time needed to learn it. In terms of beliefs about the inherent traits that affect language
learning, the participants in this study tended to agree with those of previous BALLI studies,
except in a few areas. Firstly, the male–majority sample, who came from what are
considered male-dominated cultures like Sudan and Libya, were far less likely to consider
women as being better in language learning, as discussed earlier in Chapter Four. In
addition, the participants tended to rate their countrymen’s natural language learning
abilities much more favourably than participants in other studies, for example, those by
Bernat (2006), Siebert (2003) and Truitt (1995). This could be related to another key
finding in this theme, which was that participants appeared to associate language learning
abilities with intelligence. Based on the results of the Pearson r correlations performed on
the BALLI and PELLEM factors, it was found that participants with higher motivation
levels were more likely to have strong beliefs about speaking and communication. For
example, they were more likely to believe that it was necessary to have excellent
pronunciation. Highly motivated participants were also more likely to enjoy speaking
English in social situations. Items related to motivational and affective factors were salient
aspects of participants’ beliefs since these items loaded highly on the first BALLI factor,
Motivational and Affective Aspects of Learning English. The nature of the items which
loaded under the second BALLI factor, Confidence and Assessment of Difficulty of
Learning English, also indicates that affective, or emotional aspects, also factor strongly in
participants’ language learning beliefs. Items in this factor included participants’ assessment
of whether they possessed the special ability to learn languages, participants’ expectations
of their ultimate success in learning English, and their assessment of the language learning
abilities of their countrymen, in addition to their estimates of the difficulty level of English.
On the other hand, items directly related to language learning, for example, about the
184
importance of learning grammar or the role of mistakes in language learning, loaded on the
third BALLI factor, which indicates that they are less salient beliefs than those which
loaded on the first and second BALLI factors. The factor analysis results of participants’
BALLI responses, thus, indicate that among these participants, motivation, confidence and
beliefs about spoken communication are more significant beliefs compared to beliefs about
formal language learning. Figure 6.2. summarises the key findings related to factors inside
the classroom that have been discussed in this section.
Figure 6.2. Key Findings: Factors Inside the Classroom
While formal language learning occurs inside the classroom, it is commonly accepted that
other external factors play a role in the language learning process. This is particularly
significant in the context of the present study because the learners in question are also
international students, who are learning English in a new environment. For many
international students, learning English in Malaysia is seen as preferable since there are
more English speakers in this country when compared to their home countries. However,
because learners are encouraged to practice English outside the class in order to develop
INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS
LEARNING
ENGLISH IN
MALAYSIA
INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
BELIEFS
ABOUT
NATURE OF
LANGUAGE
LEARNING
BELIEFS
ABOUT
DIFFICULTY OF
LANGUAGE
LEARNING
BELIEFS
ABOUT
FOREIGN
LANGUAGE
APTITUDE
Inconsistent with currently accepted ELT practices
Overly concerned with grammar, vocabulary learning, translation & accuracy
Underestimated the difficulty of English and the time needed to learn a language well compared to past studies
Generally similar to past studies, but…
..less likely to believe in superiority of female language learners
..much higher estimation of countrymen’s LL ability
..associate LL abilities with intelligence
INDIVIDUAL
LEARNER
CHARACTERISTICS:
AFFECTIVE &
MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS
185
their language skills, they also have to contend with the local variety of English, which is
different from that which they are taught in the classroom. Thus, in the language learning
experience of these international students, classroom factors interact with factors outside the
classroom. While this section has presented the key findings related to participants’
language learning experience inside the classroom, the following section will discuss the
factors outside the classroom that make up the key findings of this study.
6.2.2 Key Findings: Outside the Classroom
The BALLI findings discussed in the previous section provided some insight into
participants’ beliefs about the language learning process in general. The PELLEM and
interview findings, on the other hand, provided another important piece of the puzzle – the
participants’ perceptions of their experience as English language learners outside the
classroom, in the context of Malaysian society. Overall, participants were happy to be
learning English in Malaysia as the language is more widely spoken here than it is in their
countries; however, there was the perception that Malaysia was somehow inferior as an
English learning destination when compared to native English speaking countries. This was
apparent in both the PELLEM responses, described in Chapter Four as well as the interview
data, presented in Chapter Five. Participants’ views of Malaysian English were closely tied
to their perceptions of English communication outside the class. Figure 6.3 presents the
details of major findings related to participants’ perceptions of factors outside the classroom
which played a role in their learning environment.
186
Figure 6.3. Key Findings Factors: Outside the Classroom
As can be seen in Figure 6.3, negative perceptions towards Malaysian English combined
with participants’ limited interaction opportunities and their social isolation from English-
speaking Malaysians made for unfavourable perceptions of their out-of- class experience.
The third major finding in the participants’ perceptions is their underestimation of the need
for English proficiency to succeed in local universities. Most participants felt that their
language skills were already good enough to start university and many did not necessarily
feel that language proficiency had a strong influence on academic achievement. Only seven
of the 102 participants were enrolled in the Academic Skills for IELTS level, whereby
successful completion of this level would place students at an estimated IELTS band score
of 5.5. Since Malaysian university entry requirements usually require a band score of
between 4.5 and 6.5, it can be concluded that most participants do not have the necessary
English proficiency to cope with the language demands of academic programmes.
Nevertheless, 43% of participants felt they were ready for university, in terms of language
proficiency and only three of the 16 interview participants expressed any concerns about
PERCEPTIONS OF MALAYSIA AS AN ENGLISH LEARNING DESTINATION
PERCEPTIONS OF
COMMUNICATION
OUTSIDE THE CLASS
PERCEPTIONS OF
ENGLISH USE IN
MALAYSIAN
UNIVERSITIES
Malaysia is a good place to learn English
Learning English in Malaysia is not as good as in an English –speaking country
Perceptions of Malaysian English
Limited interaction opportunities
Social isolation
Underestimation of importance of English in academic programmes
High optimism about adequacy of present language skills to deal with the language demands of university
OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS
LEARNING
ENGLISH IN
MALAYSIA
INDIVIDUAL LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS:
AFFECTIVE &
MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS
187
facing language problems at university. As discussed in Chapters Four and Five,
participants’ underestimation of the language skills needed to cope at university could be
due to several factors, including a lack of understanding of the kinds of tasks they will be
required to complete at university, a tendency to be confident, and their low regard for
Malaysian English.
This section has presented a discussion of the key findings in relation to participants’ beliefs
about perceptions about factors outside the classroom, as summarized in Figure 6.3 on the
previous page. As discussed in the earlier sections, in both the factors outside the classroom
and the factors inside the classroom, certain affective and motivational characteristics of this
learner group were found to have a strong influence on their language learning beliefs and
perceptions of their language learning experience. This leads to the third major area of
findings, individual learner characteristics, which will be discussed in more detail in the
following section.
6.2.3. Key Findings: Individual Learner Factors
In the previous sections, individual learner characteristics have already been discussed in
terms of their relationship to the participants’ beliefs about language learning and
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. For example, highly motivated learners were
found to have more positive perceptions of Malaysia as a language learning destination and
of their language course itself. In addition, the participants’ confidence was found to be
related to their beliefs about the difficulty of language learning. These findings underline the
fact that the learners themselves are an important part of the overall learning experience that
cannot be ignored, especially since personality traits and emotional factors invariably
influence a person’s beliefs and perceptions. An underlying theme was evident from
participants’ responses to various items on the PELLEM, BALLI and the interview
questions. This group of learners was highly motivated, but even more significant was their
confidence and optimism about their potential success in learning English and their present
188
language skills. The exact relationship among these learner factors and those resulting from
the BALLI and PELLEM is still unclear. It is likely that participants’ high self-confidence
causes them to underestimate the difficulty of language learning and the importance of
English at university, but it is also likely that their low estimation of Malaysian English
could lead participants to underestimate the level of English necessary to succeed at a local
university. Although the causal relationship between the factors cannot be determined at this
point, there are a number of theoretical, methodological and pedagogical implications of this
study’s significant findings. Figure 6.4 presents the findings related to individual learner
characteristics.
Figure 6.4. Key Findings: Individual Learner Characteristics
Based on the findings of this study, a significantly cohesive profile of the learners in this
group emerged. These learners were highly motivated, confident and optimistic about their
English proficiency in terms of ultimate success as well as their readiness to cope with the
language demands of university study in Malaysia.
Section 6.2 of this chapter has provided a summary of the key findings of this study in
relation to factors inside the classroom, factors outside the classroom and individual learner
characteristics. These findings are useful not only in the information collected about the
participants’ language learning beliefs and perceptions of their learning experience, but also
INDIVIDUAL LEARNER
CHARACTERISTICS:
AFFECTIVE &
MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS
Highly Optimistic
Expect success in language learning
Do not expect to face language problems at university
Do not expect to have communication problems with lecturers
Highly Confident
Low assessment of language learning difficulty and time needed to learn English
High regard for language learning ability of countrymen
Believe that their language skills are good enough for university
Highly Motivated
Instrumentally motivated: work, academic success,
Would like to speak English very well
189
in terms of the implications they hold for the teaching and learning of English as well as
research in this area. The implications of these findings will be discussed in the following
sections.
6.3. Theoretical Implications
The final chapter of this study began with a discussion of the key findings of this
investigation into the language learning beliefs held by international students learning
English in Malaysia and their perceptions of their language learning experience in Malaysia.
In this section, the theoretical implications of these findings will be discussed.
The findings of the BALLI survey, which were summarized in the previous section, provide
further evidence for Horwitz’s (1999) assertion that there are some beliefs that are common
across all learner groups. However, the variance between certain beliefs of the present group
of participants and those of other BALLI studies raises several questions. Firstly, although
the idea of cultural influences on language learning beliefs has been refuted by Horwitz
(1999) and Bernat (2006), it is premature to conclude that culture has no bearing on
language learning beliefs. The factor analysis of the BALLI findings showed a strong
thematic relationship between items related to confidence and those related to perceived
difficulty of language learning. Moreover, the findings of this study corroborated Siebert’s
earlier supposition that Middle Eastern students were more likely to have lower estimates of
the time it takes to learn a language when compared to Asian students (Siebert, 2003). It is
a logical step of reasoning that an overconfident individual is more likely to assess a task as
being less difficult; thus, confidence and beliefs on difficulty could be culturally influenced.
The socio-cultural aspect of language learning beliefs has long been a contention of
researchers working towards a more multilayered representation of language learning
beliefs, for example, Barcelos (2000) and Kalaja (2003). The statistical relationship found
in this study between some aspect of learners’ perceptions of learning English in Malaysia
190
and their language learning beliefs further reinforces the preliminary conclusion that factors
outside the classroom can influence how learners view the language learning process.
Furthermore, the circumstances of the learning context, for example, as in the participants’
negative views towards Malaysian English and its possible relationship to their beliefs about
the difficulty of language learning, indicate that contextual factors have the potential of
affecting their beliefs about language learning. Therefore, a broader examination of
language learning beliefs within a particular context and in relation to an individual
learner’s experience of the language learning process appears to have the potential of
producing more useful findings. The normative approach to measuring learner beliefs, such
as in the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987), remains a very useful way to begin an investigation into
the language learning beliefs of a particular group of students, as has been done in this
study. However, for a deeper understanding of this variable, the various aspects of the
learning experience must be taken into account.
Several theoretical implications that can be concluded from the findings of this study have
been discussed in this section. In addition to these, there are implications on methodological
aspects of research in second language acquisition, which will be outlined in the following
part of this chapter.
6.4. Methodological Implications
Based on the application of this study’s research methods, several implications can be
identified. Firstly, in the collection of questionnaire data from English language learners,
the provision of a bilingual instrument greatly enhanced the data collection procedure,
which leads to several conclusions about the preparation of instruments when surveying
learners of English. In this study, the variables being studied were relatively abstract; thus,
many of the items required participants to make evaluative decisions, for example, deciding
whether women are better language learners or whether Malaysia is a good place to learn
English. Having the survey instruments in Arabic and English enabled the collection of data
191
from learners at all levels of proficiency. Since the original BALLI was used with a mixed-
nationality group of English learners, providing a first language translation of the BALLI
would not have been a practical method for Horwitz (1987). However, other researchers
focusing on learner groups which shared a first language, for example, Sakui and Gaies
(1999) and Hong (2006) also used questionnaires in the first language of the English
language learners being studied. Even if the researcher shares a first language with the
subjects, for example, as Hong (2006) did with her Korean subjects, the problem of subjects
misunderstanding of items can still be significant, particularly with large samples.
Therefore, translation and back-translation are valuable steps in instrument preparation, not
only for ease of administration but also to increase the accuracy of the data.
Secondly, the statistical analysis of the quantitative data from the BALLI and PELLEM led
to some implications with regard to these instruments. To prepare the data for analysis,
several statistical procedures were performed, including the generation of descriptive
statistics, factor analysis and Pearson r correlations. Based on the statistical analysis of the
BALLI and PELLEM results, a number of conclusions can be made. Firstly, the low
reliability scores on the BALLI themes, ranging from 0.237 to 0.668, can be attributed to
the nature of the instrument. Items within a certain theme and within the BALLI itself cover
a broad range of issues related to language learning.
The BALLI was designed so that items could be interpreted individually (Hong, 2006;
Horwitz, 2007). The factor analysis of the BALLI results showed items loading on three
different themes compared to Horwitz’s five themes. Researchers who have conducted
factor analysis of the BALLI have come up with varying results, for example, many of these
studies found four BALLI themes with different items loading under each theme (Nikitina
& Furuoka, 2006; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1999; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Park, 1995, Hong,
2006). Others, such as Truitt (1995), Kuntz (1996), Bernat et al. (2009) and Rieger (2009)
have found five BALLI factors. In addition, different constructs loaded on different factors
192
in many of the studies, for example, items related to motivation were the first factor in this
study and those conducted by Hong (2006), Nikitina & Furuoka (2006) and Park (1995), yet
for Truitt (1995), motivation was the fifth factor. This has led some researchers to propose
that the structure of beliefs may vary from one group of learners to another. On the other
hand, there are several things that previous studies seem to have in common. In many of
these studies, as in this one, motivational factors seem to be a core structure in learner
beliefs; moreover, factors related to difficulty, formal learning beliefs and spoken
communication were also found. Although Horwitz (1999, 2007) seems to have responded
to criticisms raised by other researchers with regard to the statistical validity of the BALLI,
the low reliability within each theme as well as the factor analysis results found in this study
indicate that the items and themes within the instrument could be refined to enhance its
usefulness.
While the BALLI has been used widely in a variety of contexts, the PELLEM was designed
for use in this study and, therefore, there are no previous studies to which the present
findings can be compared. As described in the third chapter of this dissertation, reliability
tests of the themes in the initial version of the PELLEM were performed, after which a
number of changes were made. Next, when the finalized PELLEM had been administered
and the results tabulated, the Cronbach’s Alpha for each theme was computed with the
results depicted in Table 6.1 on the next page.
193
Table 6.1. Statistical Analysis of PELLEM Structure
Theme Cronbach’s
Alpha:
Factor, items Items
dropped from
factor
analysis
Theme 1-General Opinion of Learning
English in Malaysia:
9 items
0.752 Factor 1: 5 items
Factor 2: 1 item
Factor 3:1 item
1 item
Theme 2-Out of Class Experience:
6 items
0.607 Factor 1: 1 item
Factor 2:4 items
Factor 3:1 item
0 items
Theme 3-Perceptions of English Use in
Malaysian Universities:
8 items
0.340 Factor 3: 2 items 4 items
Theme 4-Teaching & Learning in a
Local Language Course:
7 items
0.844 Factor 1: 6 items 1 item
As can be seen from the table above, five of the nine items in Theme 1 loaded on the first
factor of the PELLEM, Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia-the Classroom and
beyond. Incidentally, four of these items loaded on the lower end of the theme, in terms of
factor loadings. Of the items from the second theme, four out of six loaded on the second
factor of the PELLEM-Perceptions of Malaysian English & its Speakers and Expectations
of English Use at University. Of the third theme, very few items actually loaded above 0.40
in the factor analysis. The two items that loaded above 0.40, loaded under Factor Three-
Motivation for and Benefits of English Proficiency at Malaysian Universities. These two
items were related to motivational factors in terms of the benefits that English proficiency
would offer participants at university, namely social and academic rewards. Finally, six of
the seven items in Theme 4 loaded on the first factor of the PELLEM, with all six items
loading at the higher end of the factor.
From Table 6.1, several conclusions can be made about the structure of the PELLEM, based
on the Cronbach’s Alpha and final factor loadings of the PELLEM. Firstly, perceptions of
matters related to the teaching and learning activities on the present course are significant
constructs in the structure of participants’ perceptions of learning English in Malaysia. Also,
certain factors outside the classroom including practice opportunities and learners’
194
perceived improvement of their language skills also play a role in their perceptions. In
addition, items previously thought to be related to out-of-class experience appear to be
connected to participants’ perceptions of the local variety of English. These perceptions also
form participants’ view of Malaysia as an English language learning destination. Moreover,
motivational factors, in terms of the social and academic benefits that come with English
proficiency, also play a role. Finally, the third theme, which includes various items on
perceptions of English use at Malaysian universities, is not as strong a factor in participants’
overall perceptions of English language study in Malaysia when compared to Factors One
and Two. In addition, the Cronbach’s Alpha for this theme was the lowest of all the
PELLEM themes.
These statistical findings could be used to make revisions to the PELLEM in order to
increase its reliability and validity as a potential instrument for measuring the learning
experience perceptions of foreign English language learners in Malaysia. In addition, the
revised versions of this instrument could be further applied to other contexts in which
international students from Expanding Circle countries are learning English in Outer Circle
countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and India.
Thus far, the theoretical and methodological implications of this study’s findings have been
discussed. While the theoretical and methodological implications of this study contribute to
research in the field of language teaching and learning, neither of these directly affect the
learning experience of language learners in the classroom. However, the pedagogical
implications resulting from this study can be used to improve the courses provided to
international students learning English as well as language learners in general. In the
following section, the pedagogical implications of this study will be presented.
195
6.5. Pedagogical Implications
The results of the study show that learners have very clear ideas about what language
learning constitutes, which will likely affect the strategies they choose and even the amount
of effort they expect to put into to the process. As learners of English in Malaysia,
participants also face specific challenges particularly in getting sufficient practice
opportunities outside class. These findings can be used to improve the teaching and learning
of English for the participants, future students at the college, as well as other international
students in Malaysia.
The findings of this study have significant implications for the participants of the study as
well as the teachers and administrators of the Intensive English programme they were
enrolled in. The participants of this study could benefit from being informed about their
language learning beliefs and perceptions, especially those that are unrealistic or that affect
their language learning negatively. For example, the participants’ lack of awareness with
regard to the importance of English in their academic programmes is of particular
importance. In addition, the learners’ misconceptions about the language learning process,
evident in their high regard for grammar, vocabulary and translation as important parts of
the language learning process, are issues of significance to their teachers.
These misconceptions imply that learner training should be included in the language course
at the college. Learner training involves the explicit teaching of language learning strategies
as well as a discussion of learner beliefs about language learning with the main objective of
improving learners’ effectiveness at language learning and preparing them for self-directed
language learning. Researchers such as Ellis (2008) have already proposed that learner
training be a part of all language teaching syllabi. Yet, most general English course books
either ignore this aspect of the learning process, or focus on prescribing specific strategies
such as dictionary skills and the recording of vocabulary.
196
What is needed is a means of finding out what students think about language learning at the
onset, so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example, the first day of the language
course could include an activity for teachers to identify students’ language learning beliefs,
followed by a discussion to correct any disabling misconception. Throughout the course,
instructors can refer back to these beliefs and the students’ preferred learning strategies and,
perhaps, demonstrate more beneficial ways of improving one’s language skills. Teachers
could also show learners real examples of the types of assignments that they will be
required to produce at university.
Learner training is also a potential solution to another important finding of this study, which
was the participants’ underestimation of the importance of English proficiency at university
level. An important part of language learning is for learners to know what their goals are. As
found by Pandian (2008), Hamzah (2009), and Kaur & Sidhu (2009), language difficulties
are a significant issue in the learning experience of international students in Malaysia.
However, the previous studies mentioned involved participants who had already started
university. On the other hand, the participants in this study were preparing for university
admission and were found to underestimate the language demands that they would face at
university in relation to their present language proficiency. With the participants of this
study, at least, it appears that the learners’ understanding of their final goal, which is to
improve their English for university, is not consistent with the reality of the situation. The
ESL instructors at the college could consider initiating a discussion on learners’
expectations about the language skills they will need for university. This would enable them
to assess whether their learners have realistic expectations, and allow them to demonstrate
to the learners the type of tasks they will be required to perform as university students.
One of the most significant implications of this study is the important role played by factors
outside the classroom on the overall learning experience of foreign English language
learners. Administrators and instructors at the college could attempt to address this problem
197
by incorporating activities which increase the opportunity for authentic communication
outside the classroom. For example, the international students in the English programme
could be paired up with Malaysian students from other programmes so that they would have
the opportunity to practice speaking English. This would also reduce the social isolation
perceived by participants of the study. More trips and talks can be scheduled so that learners
will have a chance to practice speaking outside the confines of the classroom. The school
could also prepare a guidebook to provide learners with more information about English
language facilities and practice opportunities in the city where they live. For instance,
information on English language radio channels may seem an insignificant detail, but an
international student who is new to the country may not even know of their existence. If
possible, activities which give English learners the opportunity to build relationships with
English-speaking locals should be arranged.
The pedagogical implications of this study, namely the need to identify learners’ beliefs and
perceptions, the need for learner training, as well as the need to increase opportunities for
social interaction could also provide useful information to other stakeholders involved in the
teaching of English to international students. For example, language schools, colleges and
universities providing similar courses would be able to tailor their courses to these students
needs, both inside and outside the classroom by incorporating some of the suggestions
above. These findings could also be used by the universities which these students are
headed to, for example, by providing language support programmes and social programmes
for international students. English language programmes for international students in other
regions where another variety of English may be dominant outside the classroom, may also
use the findings of this study to better understand the difficulties faced by their students and
to find ways to overcome these limitations.
Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 have given a detailed account of the theoretical, methodological
and pedagogical implications arising from the findings of this study. While the findings of
198
this study have answered some questions about the language learning beliefs and
perceptions held by international students learning English in Malaysia, they have also
pointed towards certain areas in which there is a paucity of data. These areas can be studied
further in order to answer many of the questions, which have come to light in view of
knowledge collected during this study. In the following section, several suggestions for
future studies are made.
6.6. Suggestions for Future Studies
The findings of this study have answered some preliminary questions about the language
learning beliefs and perceptions of English learning experience held by a group of
international students learning English in Malaysia. This group of learners is very much
under-studied although it is becoming an increasingly significant client base of the local
education industry. Thus, there is the need for further studies, particularly with regard to the
learning of English in countries outside the Inner Circle, as well as specifically on
international students learning English in Malaysia. The following sections, 6.6.1 and 6.6.2,
summarize the potential for various research projects in these two areas.
6.6.1. Studies on English Language Learning Destinations Outside the Inner Circle
The demand for English language instruction continues to grow around the world with non-
native speakers of English long ago outnumbering native-speakers. English proficiency is
not only a necessity for immigrants into English-speaking nations; it is also the language of
education and commerce in Outer Circle Countries like Malaysia and India. Expanding
Circle countries, such as China, Iran and Korea, have also seen a huge growth in their
English Language Teaching industries due to the increased globalisation of education and
commercial interests. For this reason, learners of English from the Expanding Circle
countries are increasingly looking for more effective ways to improve their English
proficiency, rather than attending courses in their home countries. English language learning
199
in countries other than the Inner Circle countries are becoming an increasingly attractive
option due to financial reasons as well as greater restrictions on immigration into native
English-speaking countries such as the U.S.A. and the U.K. In the past, students learning
English for university were either headed for English-medium academic courses in
countries where English is the native language, for example, Australia and the U.K., or for
English-medium academic courses in their own countries. However, as Coetzee-Van Rooy
(2008) suggests, the increasing number of Korean ESL learners coming to South Africa
indicates a potential trend in English language learning. This is also reflected in the efforts
of many nations, such as Malaysia, the U.A.E., and Singapore, to establish education hubs
that will attract international students. This means there will be an increase in the number of
international students learning English in destinations other than their home country or
English speaking countries. If the host country already has an indigenized version of
English, then factors outside the classroom must be taken into consideration when planning
English language instruction for these learners.
This study has identified several challenges faced by English language learners as a result of
learning English in a country where English is not a native language, whereby authentic
practice opportunities are limited and negative perceptions of the local variety of English
may be affecting language learning. With the potential for a large number of English
language learners in various countries around the world, more research is needed to identify
the contextual factors that might play a role in their language learning success. Studies
could examine factors such as the effects of efforts to increase out-of-class communication
opportunities, and the perceptions held by learners towards different varieties of English. In
addition, the influence of the local variety of English on English learners from Expanding
Circle countries could also be investigated. As an increasing number of international
students commence English language study in countries like Malaysia, India, Singapore and
South Africa, research focusing on this new context of English language learning and
200
teaching will improve the ability of instructors and course providers to cater to these
students’ needs.
6.6.2. Studies on International students Learning English in Malaysia
The enrolment of international students in Malaysian universities and colleges has reached
an all-time high, with the government’s target of 80,000 international students in 2010
achieved within the first half of the year. Currently, the Malaysian government is aiming
for international student enrolment of 120,000 by 2015 (New 120,000-foreign student
target, 2010). The financial and political instability of many developing nations around the
world, combined with the tightening visa regulations of traditional student destinations,
have resulted in a new student population entering Malaysia’s tertiary education industry. In
addition, the increasing significance of university ranking bodies, which award marks for an
internationally-diverse student body, among other criteria, has prompted bureaucratic
measures to increase the enrolment of international students. For example, the Times Higher
Education (THE) -World University ranking awards 5% of the total points given to any
university based on a category called ‘International Mix’, which comprises the international
diversity of both faculty and students. Since the Ministry of Education places a heavy
importance on the THE ranking achieved by Malaysian universities, many universities have
increased their targets for international student enrolment in both undergraduate and
graduate programmes.
With universities already struggling to increase the English proficiency of local students and
staff, the entry of a new student group with varying levels of exposure to English will surely
have an impact on teaching and learning practices, affecting all parties involved:
international students, local students and their lecturers. Because of this, it is essential for
administrators and policy makers to rethink the English language support and instruction
provided to international students as well as the current practices used to evaluate the
201
language proficiency of international students who are applying for university admission.
As described in Chapter Five of this study, the different, and sometimes contradictory,
English language requirement policies practiced by Malaysian universities at present, may
contribute to the tendency of the participants of the present study to underestimate the
language-related challenges that they will face at university. For example, many universities
still accept students who do not meet the English requirement and require them to take
English courses, often while taking their academic courses at the same time. This sends the
message that English proficiency is not a necessity for academic success.
6.7. Conclusion
Overall, this study has provided further evidence on learners’ beliefs about language
learning, by applying the widely-used BALLI (Horwitz, 1987) questionnaire to a new
context, that of international students learning English in Malaysia. While the findings show
some commonality in language learning beliefs across learner groups, the variances found
in the beliefs of this group of learners indicate that it is necessary for teachers to explore the
language learning beliefs of each new group of students. While the link between language
learning beliefs and strategy choice found by other researchers such as Hong (2006), Park
(1995) and Truitt (1995) has strengthened the notion that individual learner factors should
not be overlooked in the teaching and learning of any language, the possible influence of
ethnicity and learning context also indicate that teachers cannot afford to ignore factors
outside the classroom when planning and conducting language courses. This is particularly
true when the language learners in question are international students in a host country, like
the participants in this study. The PELLEM results and interview data of this study show
that although participants may be satisfied with the specifics of their language course, their
out-of-class experience, for example, the lack of communication opportunities and exposure
to another variety of English, can lead to negative perceptions and can also influence the
way they view the language learning process. As seen in this study, participants’ lack of
202
access to English-speaking Malaysians and a social-context or community of practice in
which to use English may have caused them to turn to grammar and vocabulary learning,
rather than communicative practice, as a means of improving their language skills. In
addition, participants’ negative views about Malaysian English may have led them to
underestimate the need for English proficiency to do well at university.
For institutions involved in the teaching of English and academic subjects to international
students, this study has provided further evidence that specific measures must be taken to
address the needs of this student group. Learner training appears to be the logical solution to
addressing the problem of ineffective learning strategies, which can result from the
potentially harmful language learning beliefs held by learners. In addition, international
students who are learning English in an environment like that in Malaysia need additional
help to ensure they have access to opportunities for meaningful, authentic communication
outside the classroom. Unlike students in English- speaking countries, it takes a little more
effort for international students in countries like Malaysia to locate proficient English
speakers with which to practice. Enabling international students to have venues for
interaction with Malaysians who are proficient in English will also go a long way in
improving their negative perceptions of the local variety of English.
The lessons learned from this study are applicable across a wide range of contexts, for
example, that of language learners around the world, as well as that of English language
learners in Outer Circle countries such as Malaysia, India, Singapore and South Africa. In
addition, the key findings of this study echo the current climate in language learning and
teaching, in that it further emphasizes the powerful role of individual learner characteristics
as well as socio-cultural factors of the learning context in the process of language learning.
Ultimately, a good language course will have to find the right balance of classroom teaching
and learning activities which are useful for most learners, while at the same time accounting
for individual learner factors and the specifics of the language learning context.
203
Bibliography
Alanen, R. (2003). A socio-cultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about
language learning. In P. Kalaja, and A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
Research Approaches (pp. 55-85). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ali, Z. (2007). Willing Learners Yet Unwilling Speakers In ESL Classrooms. Asian Journal
of University Education, 3(2), 57-73. Retrieved 3 July 2010 from
http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/333/
Altan, M. Z. (2006). Beliefs about language learning of foreign language-major university
students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 45-52.
Bailey, F.B. (2005). Overseas language learning experience: Student beliefs about their
teachers’ qualifications. Master’s Dissertation. The University of Texas at
Arlington, TX, USA.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2000). Understanding teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs
in experience: A Deweyan Approach. PhD Dissertation. The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.
Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering Learners’ Perceptions of ESL Classroom
Teaching/Learning Activities in a South African Context. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1),
85-108.
Baskaran, L.M. (2002).Whose English? Whose/what standard/the role of English in
Malaysia. Paper presented at the International Conference IPBA. 24 -26 September,
2002. Retrieved 6 November, 2010 from http://apps.
emoe.gov.my/ipba/rdipba/cd1/article131.pdf
Baskaran, L. (1994). The Malaysian English Mosaic. English Today, 10, 27-32.
Benson, P. & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of Language and Language Learning.
System,27, 459-472.
Bernat, E. (2004). Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners' beliefs about language learning.
EA Journal, 21(2), 40-54.
Bernat, E. & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge,
pedagogical implications and new research directions. TESL Electronic Journal,
9(1). Retrieved 15th January, 2009 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej33/a1.html
Bernat, E. (2006). Assessing EAP learners' beliefs about language learning in the Australian
context. P. Robertson, & J. Jung (Eds.) Asian EFL Journal, 8(2). Retrieved 15th
January, 2009 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_06_eb.php
Bernat, E. & Lloyd, R. (2007). Exploring the gender effect on EFL learners’ beliefs about
language learning. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology,
7, 77-91.
Bernat, E. (2007a). Bridging the Gap: Teachers’ and Learners’ Diversity of Beliefs.
Proceedings of the 20th English Australia Education Conference, Sydney,
September 14 -15.
Bernat, E. (2008). Beyond beliefs: Psycho-cognitive, socio-cultural and emergent ecological
approaches to learner perceptions in foreign language acquisition. Asian EFL
Journal, 10 (3). Retrived 15th
January, 2009 from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/September_08_eb.php
Bernat, E., Carter, N. & Hall, D. (2009). Beliefs about Language Learning:Exploring Links
to Personality Traits, University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4, 115- 148.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Pearson
Education.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs
204
across cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs:
Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures (pp. 65-112). The Netherlands:
Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Christison, M.A. & Krahnke, K. J. (1986). Student Perceptions of Academic Language
Study. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 60-80.
Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2008). From the Expanding Circle to the Outer Circle: South
Koreans learning English in South Africa. English Today, 24(4), 3-10.
Coterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learners’ beliefs. System, 23(2),
195-205.
Creswell JW & Plano Clark VL 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, W.J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd
ed.) New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Diab, R. L. (2006). University student’s beliefs about learning English and French in
Lebanon. System, 34(1), 80-96.
East, J. (2001). International students identified as customers: Their expectations and
perceptions. Paper presented at the Changing Identities. Language and Academic
Skills Conference, University of Wollongong. Retrieved 22 August, 2010, from
http://learning. uow.edu.au/LAS2001/index.htm.
Ellis, R. (2002). A metaphorical analysis of learner beliefs. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske and
A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of
Henning Wode. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
10 (4), 7-25.
Ellis, R. (2008b). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Farrell, T. S. E. (2006). The teacher is an octopus: Uncovering Pre-service English language
teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. RELC Journal, 37(2), 236-248.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Foreign Students Turn to Malaysia (2009, Apr 5). The New Straits Times, pp 5.
Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 Learners’ Beliefs: An Overview. Journal of Language and
Learning, 3(2), 233-260.
Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S (2002). Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL
teaching and learning. Language Teaching Research, 6 (2), 95-120.
Hamzah, S. G. Moloudi, M., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009). Exploring perceptions and
expectations of the international postgraduates regarding with the English course at
University Putra Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 7-25.
Ho, E. S., Li, W.W., Cooper, J., & Holmes, P. (2007). The Experiences of Chinese
International Students in New Zealand. Migration Research Group, University of
Waikato, Auckland: Education New Zealand:
Hong, K. (2006). Beliefs Cabout language learning and language learning strategy use in
an EFL context: A comparison study of monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-
Chinese university students. PhD Dissertation. University of North Texas, Denton,
Texas, USA.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A.L. Wenden
& J. Robbins (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-132). London:
Prentice Hall.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. Modern Language Journal , 72 (3), 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K. (1989). Facing the blackboard:Student perceptions of language learning and
the language classroom. ADFL Bulletin 20 (3), 61-64.
205
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’
beliefs about language learning: A Review of BALLI studies. System, 27 (4), 557-
576.
Horwitz, E.K. (2007). Why student beliefs about language learning matter. Issues in the
development and implementation of the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory.
In Siskin, H. J. (Ed.) AAUSC 2007 From Thought to Action: Exploring Beliefs and
Outcomes in the Foreign Language Program. (pp. 2-7). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Students' mini-theories of second language learning. Association
Bulletin, 29, 2.
Jani, R. & Zubairi, Y. Z. (2010). International students’ views of Malaysian higher
education. Paper presented at the Internationalisation and Marketing of Malaysian
Higher Education Seminar, Putrajaya, Malaysia. 17th June, 2010. Retrieved on 6th
November 2010 from http://jpt.mohe.gov.my/PENGUMUMAN/mohe%20
seminar%202010/SPEAKER%206%20International%20Students%20Views%20of
%20Malaysian%20Higher%20Education.pdf
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the
world: teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp.11-30). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kalaja, P. (2003). Researching Beliefs about SLA: A Critical Review. In P. Kalaja, and
A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp 7-32).
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kaur, S. (1999). Problems in assessing proficiency in English among foreign postgraduate
students. Paper presented at the "Sixth International Literacy and Education
Research Network Conference on Learning", Bayview Beach Resort, Penang,
Malaysia 27 - 30 September, 1999. Retrieved 19 May, 2009 from
http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/may00/kaur1.htm
Kaur, S. & Sidhu, G. K. (2009). A qualitative study of postgraduate students’ learning
experiences in Malaysia. International Education Studies, 2(3), 47-56.
Kunt, N. (1998). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Turkish-speaking
university students learning English in North Cyprus. Dissertation Abstracts
International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences. 59 (1).
Kuntz, P. S. (1996). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz model. Unpublished
manuscript. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Retrieved 22 September 2010 from
the ERIC Document Reproduction Service database. (ED397658)
Kuntz, P. S. (1996a). University students’ beliefs about foreign language learning with a
focus on Arabic and Swahili at US HEA Title V1 African Studies Centres.
Dissertation Abstracts International A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 57(8).
Kuntz, P.S. (1996b). Students of "easy" languages: Their beliefs about language learning.
Retrieved 22 September 2010 from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service
database, (ED397658).
Landau, S. & Everitt, B. (2004). A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using SPSS. Chapman
& Hall: Boca Raton, Florida.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & M.H. Long (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research. London: Longman.
Lee, D. S. (1997). What Teachers Can Do to Relieve Problems Identified by International
Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1997 (70), 93-100.
Lee, E. H. (2007). An investigation of learner beliefs at two stages of study abroad.
Master’s Thesis. Department of Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African
Languages, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.
Lee, M.C. (2008). Learning English language: experiences, perceptions, beliefs and
206
motivation of adult English language learners in an ESL program. PhD Dissertation.
State University of New York, New York, USA.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University Students’ Perceptions of the
Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: implications for theory and
practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.
Lord, P. & Dawson, C. (2002). The Induction needs of international students at
postgraduate level. London: TVU.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. The
Modern Language Journal, 79 (3), 372-386.
Mary, A., Chong, V.S., Hanisah, M.F. & Tan, B.F. (2006). IPBA Students’ Beliefs in
Learning English as a Second Language. IBPA Journal, 6 (3) Retrieved 24 May
2009 from http://apps.emoe.gov. my/ipba/rdipba/cd1/article139.pdf
Mehdizadeh, N. & Scott, G. (2005) Adjustment problems of Iranian international students
in Scotland. International Education Journal, 6(4), 484-493.
Mohamed, B. (2010). Managing international students in Malaysia-Issues & strategies.
Paper presented at the Internationalisation and Marketing of Malaysian Higher
Education Seminar, Putrajaya, Malaysia. 17th
June, 2010. Retrieved on 6th
November
2010fromhtp://jpt.mohe.gov.my/PENGUMUMAN/mohe%20seminar%202010/SPE
AKER%203%20Managing%20International%20Students%20in%20Malaysia.pdf
Mokhtari, A. (2007). Language learning strategies & beliefs about language learning: a
study of university students of Persian in the United States. Unpublished
Dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What dolanguage
learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49, 377–415.
New 120,000-foreign student target for varsities. (2010, April 18). The Star, pp. N3.
Nikitina, L. & Furuoka, F. (2006). Re-examining Horwitz's Beliefs about Language
Learning Inventory(BALLI) in the Malaysian Context. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Learning, 3(2), 209-219, Retrieved on 18 January 2009, from
http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/v3n22006/nikitina.htm
Nikitina, L., & Furuoka, F. (2006a). Beliefs about Language Learning: A Case Study of
Students Learning the Russian Language at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).
MANU, Jurnal Pusat Penataran Ilmu & Bahasa, 11 (Special Issue on Language),
79-93.
Nikitina, L. & Furuoka, F. (2007). Beliefs about language learning: a comparison between
novice and intermediate level students learning Russian at a Malaysian university.
The Linguistics Journal , 2 (1), 7-27.
Nikitina, L. and Furuoka, F.(2008). “A language teacher is like…” Examining Malaysian
students’ perceptions of language teachers through metaphor analysis. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5(2), 192–205, Retrieved on 18 January
2009, from http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/v5n22008/nikitina.pdf
Nola, R. & Gurol, I. (2005). Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture, (pp 51-90).
Springer Academic Publications: The Netherlands.
Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 35 (2), 307-322.
O’ Fathaigh, M. (1997). Irish Adult Learners' Perceptions of Classroom Environment:Some
Empirical Findings. International Journal of University Adult Education, 36 (3), 9-
22.
Othman, J. (2005). English Language Use Among EFL Learners in Sunway University
College. Sunway Academic Journal, 2,. 93-100.
Oz, H. (2007). Understanding Metacognitive Knowledge of Turkish ESL Students in
Secondary School. Novitas-ROYAL, 1(2), 53-83.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
207
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 307-332.
Pandian, A. (2008). Multiculturalism in Higher Education: A Case Study of Middle Eastern
Students’ Perceptions and Experiences in a Malaysian University. IJAPS Journal, 4
(1), 33-57.
Park, G. P. (1995). Language Learning Strategies and Beliefs about Language Learning of
University Students Learning English in Korea. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
University of Texas at Austin.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning:a
longitudinal study. System, 29, 177-195.
Piquemal, N. & Renaud, R. (2006). University Students’ Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding
foreign language learning in France. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du
Canada, 24(1), 113-133.
Ransom, L., Larcombe, W. & Baik, C. (2005). The English language needs and support:
International-ESL students’ perceptions and expectations. Language and Learning
Skills Unit, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. Retrieved 18 March,
2010 from http://www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/
Rantala, M. (2002). Beliefs about Learning English as a Foreign Language: Comparison of
Two Groups of Finnish University Students. Unpublished Thesis, Department of
English, University of Jvaskyla, Finland.
Rieger, B. (2009). Hungarian university students’ beliefs about language learning: a
questionnaire study. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy, 3, 97-113.
Riley, P. (1980). Mud and stars: Personal constructs sensitization and learning. Melanges
Pedagogiques C.R.A.P.E.L., 2, 137-156. Retrieved 27 September 2010 from the
ERIC Document Reproduction Service database. No. ED20198).
Riley, P. (1989). Learners’ Representations of Language and Language Learning. Melanges
Pedagogiques C.R.A.P.E.L., 2, 65-72.
Riley, P. A. (2009). Shifts in beliefs about second language learning. RELC Journal, 20,
102-124.
Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International Students, Learning
Environments and Perceptions: a case study using the Delphi technique, Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-102.
Sakui, K. and Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about language
learning. System, 27(4), 473-492.
Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of
prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6 (5), 567-580.
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.C.
Gingras, Ed., Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379-392.
Shen, M.C. (2006). The Relationship between Beliefs about Language Learning and
Learning Strategy Use of Junior High School Students in Remote Districts. Masters
Dissertation. Department of Applied English, Leader University, Tainan, Taiwan,
Republic of China.
Siebert, L. L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL
Journal, 21, 7-39.
Singh, R.J.K.B. (2004). Students’ beliefs in learning English as a second language.
Unpublished dissertation. Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sirat, M. (2008). The Impact of September 11 on International Student Flow into Malaysia:
Lessons Learned. IJAPS, 4(1), 79-95.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward
208
Arnold.
Sng, B. B., Pathak, A., Serwe, S. K. (2009). Modelling the English Learning Process of
Foreign Students in Singapore: Thematic Analyses of Student Focus Groups,
Humanising Language Teaching, 11(4). Retrieved on 23 March 2010 from
http://www.hltmag.co. uk/aug09/mart01.htm
Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad, language proficiency and learner beliefs
about language learning. JALT Journal, 25 (1), 63-85.
Tanveer, M. (2007). Investigation of the factors that cause language anxiety for ESL/EFL
learners in learning speaking skills and the influence it casts on communication in
the target language. Master’s Dissertation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
Scotland. Retrieved 4 April 2009 from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/thesis_M_Tanveer.pdf
Truitt, S. (1995). Beliefs about Language Learning: A Study of Korean University Students
Learning English. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2 (1), 1-14.
Tse, L. (2000) Student Perceptions of Foreign Language Study: A Qualitative Analysis of
Foreign Language Autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1).
Tumposky, N. R. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study.
Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, 50-65.
Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23 (2), 223-234.
Wang, C.W., Singh, C, Bird, B. & Ives, G. (2008). The Learning Experiences of Taiwanese
Nursing Students Studying in Australia. Journal of Transcultural Nursing.19(2), 140
– 150.
Wenden, A. L. (1986). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions
from L2 Learners. In A.L. Wenden & J. Robbins (Eds.), Learner strategies in
language learning (pp. 103-117). London: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19 (4), 515-537.
Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and language learning:
Beyond the basics [Special Issue]. System, 27(4), 435-441.
Wierstra, R.F.A., Kanselaar, G., Linden, J.L. Van Der & Lodewijks, H.G.L.C. (1998).
Learning Environment Perceptions of European University Students. Learning
Environments Research, 2, 79-98.
Yang, N. D. (1999). The Relationship between EFL Learners' Beliefs and Learning Strategy
Use. System, 27 (4), 515-535.
Young, C. (2003). “You dig tree tree to NUS”: Understanding Singapore English from the
perspectives of international students. In G. L. Lee, L. Ho, L. Meyer, C. Varaprasad
& C. Young (Eds.), Teaching English to students from China, (pp. 94-106).
Singapore: Singapore University Press.
209
APPENDIX A
BALLI QUESTIONNAIRE
210
APPENDIX A-BALLI QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY
إستبيان
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
STATEMENT CIRCLE JUST
ONE PLEASE
1 It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language.
الكبار عند يةاالجنب اللغة تعلم من اسهل االطفال عند االجنبية اللغة تعلم ان
1 2 3 4 5
PERSONAL INFO
البيانات الشخصية AGE:______
العمرGENDER: M/F
لجنسا NATIONALITY:______________
لجنسيةا LEVEL: Beginner Elementary Pre-intermediate Intermediate Academic Skills for IELTS
الدراسية المرحلة HIGHEST EDUCATION SO FAR(CIRCLE ONE):
:االن حتى عليها حصلت شهادة اعلى Elementary school / High School / Bachelor’s Degree / Master’s Degree FIRST LANGUAGE: _______________
:تجيدها التي اللغات OTHER LANGUAGES (IF ANY) 1)__________________
:تجيدها التي للغات 2)__________________
3)__________________ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN LEARNING ENGLISH? (including in your country, school etc)
؟ االنكليزية اللغة تتعلم انت و متى منذ _________________________________________ WHEN DID YOU COME TO MALAYSIA? ___________________
متى وصلت الى ماليزيا ؟
NO_________________
211
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
2 Some people have a special ability for learning foreign languages.
االجنبية اللغات تعلم على خاصة قدرات لديهم االشخاص بعض
1 2 3 4 5
3 Some languages are easier to learn than others.
االخرى من اسهل تعلمها اللغات بعض
1 2 3 4 5
4 English is
:تعتبر االنكليزية اللغة
a. A very difficult language الصعوبة شديدة.
b. A difficult language .صعبة
c. Language of medium difficulty الصعوبة متوسطة.
d. An easy language .سهلة
e. A very easy language .جدا سهلة
a b c d e
5 I believe I will learn to speak English very well.
جدا جبد بشكل االنكليزية باللغة التحدث على قادرا سأكون بأني اعتقد أنا
1 2 3 4 5
6 People from my country are good at learning foreign languages.
االجنبية اللغات تعلم بجيدون بلدي في الناس
1 2 3 4 5
7 It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation.
جيد نطق و بلفظ باالنكليزية التحدث المهم من
1 2 3 4 5
8 It is necessary to know about English speaking cultures to speak English.
االنكليزية تحدث ثقافة معرفة المهم من االنكليزية لتتحدث
1 2 3 4 5
9 You shouldn’t say anything in English until you can say it correctly.
بشكل نطقه من تتمكن مالم االنكليزية باللغة شيء اي تقول ال ان يجب
صحيح
1 2 3 4 5
10 It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one.
أخرى أجنية لغة يتعلم ان اجنبية لغة اي يتحدث لشخص االسهل من
1 2 3 4 5
11 People who are good at mathematics or science are not good at learning foreign languages.
اللغات تعلم اليجيدون العلوم و الرياضيات يجيدون الذين االشخاص ان
االجنبية
1 2 3 4 5
12 It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country.
االنكليزية اللغة يتكلم بلد في تكون ان هو االنكليزية لتعلم طريقة افضل ان
1 2 3 4 5
13 I enjoy practising English with the people I meet.
اقابلهم الذين الناس مع االنكليزية باللغة التكلم بممارسة استمتع انا
1 2 3 4 5
212
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: لناليةا االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
14 It’s OK to guess if you don’t know a word in English.
معناها تعرف لم اذا باالنكليزية ما كلمة معنى تخمن ان المقبول من
1 2 3 4 5
15 If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it take then to speak the language very well?
التي المدة ما, يوميا االنكليزية اللغة تعلم في كاملة ساعة شخص قضى اذا
جيدا اللغة ليتحدث سيقضيها
a. Less than a year .سنة من اقل
b. 1-2 years .سنتين الى سنة من
c. 3-5 years .سنين 5 الى 3 من
d. 5-10 years .سنين 01 الى 5 من
e. You can’t learn a language in one hour per day
اليوم في واحدة ساعة درست اذا بيةاجن لغة تعلم يمكن ال.
a b c d e
16 I have a special ability for learning foreign languages.
االجنبية اللغات لتعلم خاصة قدرات لدي
1 2 3 4 5
17 The most important part of learning a foreign language is learning new words.
جديدة كلمات تعلم هو االجنبية اللغة تعلم في اهمية راالكث
1 2 3 4 5
18 It is important to repeat and practise a lot.
اجنبية لغة تعلم عند جدا مهمة الممارسة و التكرار
1 2 3 4 5
19 Women are better than men at learning languages.
اللغات تعلم في لرجالا من افضل النساء
1 2 3 4 5
20 People in my country feel that it is important to speak English.
االجنبية باللغة التكلم تعلم اهمية مدى يدركون بلدي في الناس
1 2 3 4 5
21 I feel shy speaking English with other people.
االنكليزية باللغة االخرين مع اتكلم عندما بالخجل اشعر
1 2 3 4 5
22 If beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English, it will be difficult for them to speak correctly later on.
, بالنكليزية التحذث اثناء اخطاء بارتكاب المبتدئين للطالب سمح اذا
الحقا صحبح بشكل التحث عليهم عبالص من سيكون
1 2 3 4 5
23 The most important part of learning a language is learning grammar.
اللغة قواعد تعلم هو اجنبية لغة تعلم عند اهمية االكثر
1 2 3 4 5
24 I would like to learn English so that I can get to know its speakers better.
بسهولة متكلميها على التعرف من التمكن االنكليزية اللغة التعلم اريد
1 2 3 4 5
25 It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language.
فهمها من اسهل اجنبية بلغة التحدث
1 2 3 4 5
213
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
26 It’s important to practise with tapes.
صوتية اشرطة باستخدام اللغة يمارس ان للمتعلم الضروري من
1 2 3 4 5
27 Learning a foreign language is different from learning other academic subjects.
اخرى اكاديمية مواضيع اي تعلم نع يختلف اجنبية لغة تعلم
1 2 3 4 5
28 The most important part of learning English is learning how to translate from my own language.
لغتي من اليها الترجمة كيفية تعلم هو االنكليزية اللغة تعلم في المهم من
االم
1 2 3 4 5
29 If I learn English very well, I will have better job opportunities.
اكثر عمل فرص على ساحصل, جيدا االنكيليزية اللغة تعلمت اذا
1 2 3 4 5
30 People who speak more than one language are very intelligent. جدا اذكياء هم واحدة لغة من اكثر يتحدثون الذين االشخاص
1 2 3 4 5
31 I want to learn to speak English well.
جيد بشكل باالنكليزية التحدث اتعلم ان اريد
1 2 3 4 5
32 I would like to have English-speaking friends.
ماليزبين اصدقاء لدي يكون ان احب انا
1 2 3 4 5
33 Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
اجنبية بلغة التحدث يتعلم ان بامكانه شخص كل
1 2 3 4 5
34 It is easier to read & write English than to speak & understand it.
بها والتحدث فهمها من اسهل االنكليزية باللغة الكتابة و القراءة
1 2 3 4 5
214
APPENDIX B
PELLEM QUESTIONNAIRE
215
APPENDIX B-PELLEM QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME: _____________________ (NO__________)
االسم: العدد
Questionnaire on Perceptions of Language Learning Experience in Malaysia (P.E.L.L.E.M)
استفتاء حول المالحظات المتعلقه بتجربه تعلم اللغه في ماليزيا Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
STATEMENT
إستبيانCIRCLE JUST ONE PLEASE
اختيار رقم الرجاء واحد
1. I would recommend learning English in Malaysia to my family and friends.
انا انصح عائلتي واصدقائي بتعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا
1 2 3 4 5
2. My English has improved since I came to Malaysia.
دومي الى ماليزيالغتي االنكليزيه قد تحسنت منذ ق 1 2 3 4 5
3. I have lots of opportunities to practice speaking English in Malaysia
لدي الكثير من الفرص لممارسه اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا
1 2 3 4 5
4. Learning English in Malaysia is better than learning English in my country.
تعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا افضل من تعلمها في بلدي
1 2 3 4 5
5. I don’t need to be very good in English to do well in a Malaysian university.
ال احتاج ان اكون بارع تماما باللغه االنكليزيه لكي اكون متفوق في الجامعات الماليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
6. I face problems communicating in English with Malaysians.
أواجه بعض الصعوبات في التواصل مع الماليزيين بالغه اإلنجليزيه1 2 3 4 5
7. You can only learn English well in a country where it is a native language. (e.g. the U.S.A & U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand & Ireland)
استطيع تعلم اللغه االنكليزيه بصوره صحيحه فقط في بلد تكون فيه الواليات المتحده )االنكليزيه هي اللغه االم
(ايرلندا,نيوزيلندا,كندا,استراليا,وبريطانيا )
1 2 3 4 5
216
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
8. The English language instructors in Malaysia are qualified and experienced.
معلمي اللغه اإلنجليزيه في ماليزيا مؤهلين وأصحاب خبره
1 2 3 4 5
9. Malaysia is a good place to learn English.
النكليزيهماليزيا مكان جيد لتعلم اللغه ا 1 2 3 4 5
10. I would be happier if I could learn English in another country (not Malaysia).
غير )سوف اكون اسعد اذا استطعت تعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في بلد اخر (ماليزيا
1 2 3 4 5
11. People who want to come to Malaysia to study should learn English in their own countries first.
من االفضل للراغبين في الد راسه في ماليزيا تعلم اللغه اإلنجليزه قبل إلى ماليزيا القدوم
1 2 3 4 5
12. My lack of English proficiency causes me many problems in Malaysia.
كليزيه يسبب لي الكثير من المشاكل في ماليزياافتقادي للكفاءه باللغه االن
1 2 3 4 5
13. Speaking English with Malaysians does not help me improve my language skills.
التكلم باللغه االنكليزيه مع الماليزيين ال يساعدني لتحسين مهاراتي اللغويه
1 2 3 4 5
14. The only time I speak English is when I am in class. الوقت الوحيد الذي اتكلم فيه اللغه االنكليزيه هو داخل الصف
1 2 3 4 5
15. I find it hard to use English when I go shopping or when dealing with daily events( for example paying bills, at the doctor’s)
به في استعمال اللغه االنكليزيه عند الذهاب للتسوق او عند اجد صعو(عند الطبيب ,على سبيل المثال دفع الفواتير)التعامل مع الحاجات اليوميه
1 2 3 4 5
16. If I can communicate well in English, my results at a Malaysian university will be good.
فان نتائجي في , اصل بشكل جيد باللغه االنكليزيه من التو اذا تمكنتسوف تكون افضل الجامعه الماليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
17. If I can communicate well in English, I will make more friends at a Malaysian university.
قات سوف اقيم عال, اذا تمكنت من التواصل بشكل جيد باللغه االنكليزيه الماليزيه صداقه اكثر في الجامعه
1 2 3 4 5
18. Living in Malaysia is easier if your English is good.
إدا كنت تجيد التحادث باللغه اإلنجليزيه العيش في ماليزيا سيكون أسهل 1 2 3 4 5
19. My language skills are already good enough to join an academic programme in a Malaysian university.
أعتقد أن لغتي اإلنجلزيه جيده للدرجه الكافيه التي تؤهلني للدراسه في الجامعات الماليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
217
Please rate each statement according to the numbers below.
: النالية االرقام حسب ادناه العبارات بتقييم يرجى 1 =Strongly agree 4 = Disagree
اوافق ال. تمام اوافق
2 =Agree 5 = Strongly disagree
تماما اوافق ال ا وافق
3 =Neither agree nor disagree
اخالف ال و اوافق ال
20. I am worried about facing language problems when I start university.
أشعر أني سأواجه مشاكل في اللغه عند بداية الدراسه في الجامعه الماليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
21. Students who are going to do courses need to be better in English than those who are going to do research studies.
الفصول الدراسيه يحتاجون إلى تعلم اللغه اإلنجليزيه أكثر من طلبة طلبة االبحاث الدراسيه
1 2 3 4 5
22. All the information foreign students need at Malaysian universities is available in English.
زيه كل المعلومات التي يحتاجها الطلبه االجانب في الجامعات المالي متوفره باللغه اإلنجليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
23. I don’t expect to have any problems interacting with my lecturers or supervisor.
ال أعتقد أني سأواجه صعوبات في التعامل مع المحاضرين و المشرفين
1 2 3 4 5
24. The language course I am taking has helped improve my English language skills.
دراسة اللغه اإلنجليزيه في المعهد حسنت من لغتي اإلنجليزيه
1 2 3 4 5
25. The skills I am learning in this English course will help me when I start at a local university.
د ستساعدني عند بداية دراستي في مهارات اللغه التي أتعلمها في المعه الجامعه
1 2 3 4 5
26. The course book and materials we use in the English language class are useful and interesting.
المناهج والطرق الدراسيه المستعمله في المعهد مفيده و مشوقه
1 2 3 4 5
27. The activities we use in the English language class give me the chance to practice my language skills.
النشاطات الدراسيه داخل الفصل ساعدت في تنمية مهاراتي اللغويه
1 2 3 4 5
28. I learn something new in my English language class every day.
لغتي اإلنجليزيه داخل الفصل كل يوم أضيف شئ جديد إلى 1 2 3 4 5
29. The teachers in my English language class can show me how to improve my language skills.
مدرسي اللغه اإلنجليزيه في المعهد قادرين على تعليمي على كيفية تنمية مهاراتي اللغويه
1 2 3 4 5
30. The way English is taught in my language course is easy to understand.
طريقة تعلم اللغه اإلنجليزيه في المعهد سهلة الفهم
1 2 3 4 5
218
APPENDIX C
LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
219
APPENDIX C-LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
Interview Questions by Theme
BALLI
Theme 1-Foreign Language Learning Aptitude
1. If you had children, would you like them to start learning English at a very young age?
Why/not?
2. Are there any students in your class who you feel are better at language learning than
you are?
3. If you had started this course ten years ago, do you think it would be easier?
4. What makes you believe that some people have a special ability to learn languages?
Theme 2-Difficulty of Language Learning
1. If a Beginner student learns English for 20 hours a week, do you think he will be able to
attain sufficient proficiency to do an academic programme within a year?
2. How long have you been learning English? Has it gotten easier, or harder?
3. Do you think it is easier for you to learn English or for a foreigner to learn your first
language?
4. Have you learned any other language? Did you find it easier or more difficult? Why?
Theme 3-Nature of Language Learning
1. Is this your first foreign/second language learning experience? (details if ‘No’)
2. Compare your present LLE to the past one?
3. Should a language learner spend more time on learning grammar or on practicing
speaking?
Theme 4-Language Learning Strategies
1. What do you do to improve your English? In class, out of class
2. Do you think you should be doing other things? If so, what?
3. Which skill do you spend the most time practicing?
Theme 5-Learning & Communication
220
1. English today is not connected to any particular culture. Do you agree with this
statement? Why/not?
2. Do you feel that it English teaching is culture-specific? Why/not?
General
1. Are there any other views you have about language learning that you would like to share
with us? If so, please elaborate.
2. Have any of your views about language learning changed since you started learning
English? If so, please elaborate.
PELLEM
Theme 1-General Opinion of Learning English in Malaysia
1. If one of your friends is planning on coming to Malaysia to learn English, what would you
tell him/her?
2. Have you got any friends in university here? What have they told you about the language
problems they face as students?
3. In the questionnaire you stated that you would/would not recommend learning English in
Malaysia to your family & friends. Why/not?
4. Although you stated that your English had improved, why did you state that you would
not recommend learning English in Malaysia to your family & friends?
5. You said you would be happier if you could learn English in another country. Which
country and why do you think it would be better?
Theme 2-Out-of-class Experience
1. Who do you speak English to? In what situations?
2. What problems do you face in communicating with locals?
3. How do you communicate when you are shopping or doing other events?
4. Tell me about an experience in which you have faced language-related problems in
Malaysia
5. Do you have/ Would you like to have Malaysian friends? Why/not?
6. Do you feel welcome here?
221
7. What types of problems do you face as a foreign student in Malaysia?
8. Why are you happy/unhappy here in Malaysia?
Theme 3-Perceptions of English in Malaysian Universities
1. Have you got any friends in university here? What have they told you about the language
problems they face as students?
2. What do you think your biggest challenge will be at university?
3. In the questionnaire, you stated that you did not need English to do well at university.
Why?
4. In the questionnaire, you stated that you were a little worried about having language
problems at university. What type of problems are you worried about?
Theme 4- Learning English in a Malaysian Educational Institute
1. If you could change anything about your language course, what would it be?
2. For those who have learned English prior to this course-Which course did you feel was
more effective? Your present English course, or the one you did in the past? Why? What
are the differences between the teaching methods? What about the materials?
3. For those who have learned another language prior to this course-Which course did you
find more useful? Why?
4. Do you find the teaching method used in your present course helpful? Why or why not?
5. Do you have sufficient interaction with other students in class?
6. Which skill would you like more practice of? Why?
7. Do you find the coursebook suitable? Why or why not?
8. You said that English teachers in Malaysia were/not qualified to teach English. What
makes you say that?
9. Was your teacher able to explain language points in a way that you could understand?
10. Would you recommend this course to any other students? Why/not?
General
1. Are there any other views you have about learning English in Malaysia that you would
like to share with us? If so, please elaborate.
222
2. What did you expect from your English language learning experience in Malaysia before
you arrived here? How are your expectations different to your experience?
3. Have any of these views changed in the time that you have been here? Which ones and
why?
223
APPENDIX D
CONSENT FORM
224
APPENDIX D-CONSENT FORM
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
نموذج اعالم بالموافقه
Title of Study: An Investigation of International Students’ Language Learning Beliefs and
Perceptions of Learning English in Malaysia
االجانب لتعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا بحث يتناول مفاهيم وادراك الطلبه:عنوان الدراسه
Researcher’s Statement
اقرار الباحثI am a student at the University of Malaya in the Master of English as a Second Language
programme. I am asking you to be part of a research study that I am conducting in order to
write my dissertation. The purpose of this consent form is to give you the information you
will need to help you decide whether you would like to be in the study or not. Please read
this form carefully. You may ask questions about the purpose of the research, what I would
ask you to do, the possible risks and benefits, your rights as a volunteer and anything else
about the research or this form that is not clear. When I have answered all your questions,
you can decide if you want to be in the study or not. This process is called “informed
consent”. I will give you a copy of this form for your records.
اطلب منكم ان .انا طالبه في جامعه مااليو وادرس لنيل شهاده الماجستير باللغه االنكليزيه كلغه ثانيه
من هذه االقرار هو اعطاءكم الغرض .تكونوا جزء من البحث الذي اقوم به لغرض كتابه اطروحتي
الرجاء قراءة هذه االستماره بشكل .المعلومات التي تفيدكم لتقرروا االتشتراك بهذه الدراسه او ال
حقكم ,المجازفه والمنفعه المتوقعه,ما الذي سأطلبه منكم,يمكنكم السؤال عن الهدف من هذا البحث.جيد
عند اجابتي لجميع .او هذه االستماره كمتطوعين واي شئ اخر غير مفهوم يتعلق بهذا البحث
اعالم " هذا االجراء يسمى.يمكنكم ان تقرروا ما اذا اردتم ان تشتركوا بهذا البحث ام ال,اسئلتكم
. سوف ازودكم بنسخه من هذه االستماره كمرجع لالحتفاظ به".بالموافقه
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
الهدف من البحثI am inviting you to participate in a research study about the language learning beliefs and
perceptions of learning English in Malaysia as held by international students who are
learning English in Malaysia. I want to know more about what international students
believe about the process of language learning and also find out how they feel about
(perceive) their experience of language learning in Malaysia. I want to record students’
beliefs so that there is information about international students in Malaysia similar to the
information about students’ beliefs about language learning that have been recorded in
other countries around the world. I also hope that learning more about international
students’ beliefs and perceptions will help language teachers like me to understand
students like you better and improve our courses to better fulfil their needs.
225
ادعوكم للمشاركه في دراسه متعلقه بمفاهيم وادراك تعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا والذي يتم بواسطه
ارغب في معرفه المزيد عن معتقدات الطالب .الطالب االجانب الدارسيين للغه النكليزيه في ماليزيا
ارغب .م اللغه في ماليزيااالجانب فيما يتعلق بعمليه تعلم اللغه وكذلك معرفه مشاعرهم عن تجربه تعل
في تسجيل مفاهيم الطلبه لكي تكون هنالك معلومات متعلقه بالطلبه االجانب الدارسين في ماليزيا مشابه
ارجو من خالل تعلم ومعرفه المزيد .لتلك المعلومات المسجله عن الطلبه في الدول االخرى حول العالم
من امثالي لفهم الطلبه بشكل افضل وكذلك تحسين من مفاهيم الطلبه االجانب مساعدة مدرسيين اللغه
. المناهج الدراسيه لتفي متطلباتهم
You have been selected to participate in this study because you are an international
student learning English in Malaysia.
.بي تدرس اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيالقد تم اختيارك للمشاركه في هذه الدراسه النك طالب اجن
STUDY PROCEDURES
اجراءات البحث
If you choose to take part in this study, you will be asked to take part in two sessions.
The first session will require you to read and respond to two questionnaires. The first
questionnaire has 34 statements about language learning and the second has 17
statements about learning English in Malaysia. You will read each statement and decided
whether you agree or disagree with these statements. Both these questionnaires will be in
English AND Arabic. It should take less than 30 minutes for you to complete the first
session. We will also record information about you such as age, nationality, languages
spoken, how long you have been in Malaysia as well as your language learning
background.
The second session is an interview session. Only 10% of the participants will be chosen for
this session, so you may or may not be involved in the second session. This session will
take no more than 20 minutes and will be recorded. The interview questions will ask about
the same topics as the questionnaire, but in more detail.
.سيطلب منك المشاركه في جلستين,عند قبولك المشاركه في هذه الدراسه
عباره متعلقه 43االستبيان االول يتضمن .االولى تتضمن قراءة مجموعتين من االسئله واالجابه عليها
سوف تقرأ كل عباره وتقرر .عباره عن تعلم اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا 71بتعلم اللغه والثاني يتضمن
االجابه على .كلى االستبيانيين سيكونان باللغتيين العربيه واالنكليزيه.ا كنت توافق اوال توافق عليهاما اذ
سوف نسجل معلومات متعلقه بكم مثل .دقيقه تقريبا 43المجموعه االولى تستغرق
.منذ متى وانتم في ماليزيا وكذلك خلفيه دراستكم للغه,اللغات التي تتكلمونها,الجنسيه,العمر
فالجلسه الثانيه لن ,من المشتركين سيتم اختيارهم لهذه الجلسه فقط% 73.جلسه الثانيه ستكون مقابلهال
اسئله المقابله ستدور حول .دقيقه كحد اقصى وتكون مسجله 03الجلسه الثانيه ستستغرق .تشمل الجميع
.نفس المواضيع في االستبيانات ولكن بصوره مفصله
You may not benefit directly from taking part in this study. However, by recording
information about international students’ beliefs about language learning and their
perceptions of their experience of learning English in Malaysia, we hope to know more
226
about foreign students like you. Knowing more about foreign students may lead to changes
that will improve the courses that we offer them.
بتسجيلنا معلومات عن مفاهيم ,ولكن.لن تحصلوا على فائده مباشره من المشاركه في هذه الدراسه
نأمل في ,ومعتقدات الطلبه االجانب في تعلم اللغه وتجربتهم في دراسه اللغه االنكليزيه في ماليزيا
ى تغييرات تساهم معرفه المزيد عن الطلبه االجانب قد تؤدي ال.معرفه المزيد عن الطلبه االجانب مثلكم
.في تحسين الدورات التي نقدمها لهم
OTHER INFORMATION
معلومات اخرى
All the information you provide will be confidential. Each participant will be given a code
and will not be referred to by name in the dissertation or any other work that results from
this study. Only the researcher will have your name. All data from the study will be
safeguarded by the researcher and stored in a secure place.
كل مشارك بهذه الدراسه او في اي عمل ينتج عنها .كل المعلومات التي ستدلون بها ستكون سريه
الباحث هو الوحيد .ه ولن يتم االشاره لهو بصوره مباشره او استعمال اسمه الحقيقيسوف يعطى شفر
كل المعلومات في هذه الدراسه سوف تبقى سريه ومحفوظه في مكان .الذي يعرف اسماء المشاركين
. امين
You may refuse to participate or may withdraw from the study at any time.
.المشاركه بالدراسه او ان تنسحب في اي وقت تشاءيمكن ان ترفض
For further information about this study, you may contact the following people:
Sharifah Ayeshah Syed Mohd. Noori (Researcher) Dr. Ng Lee Luan (Supervisor)
[email protected] [email protected]
CONSENT FORM
نموذج موافقهI volunteer to take part in this research. The study has been explained to me and I have
had a chance to ask questions. If I have questions later about the research, I can ask one
of the researchers listed above. I will receive a copy of this consent form.
اذا اردت .لقد تم شرح البحث لي واتيحت لي الفرصه لطرح االسئله.اتطوع للمشاركه في هذا البحث
وسوف اتسلم نسخه من .اسماءهم اعالهيمكنني ان اسأل احد الباحثين المدرجه ,سؤال اي اسئله اخرى
.هذا النموذج
________________________________ ______________________
___/___/09
NAME OF SUBJECT اسم المشارك SIGNATURE التوقيع
DATE التاريخ
227
APPENDIX E
BALLI: INITIAL FACTOR SOLUTION & SCREE PLOT
228
APPENDIX E-BALLI: INITIAL FACTOR SOLUTION & SCREE PLOT
BALLI: Initial Factor Solution
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 5.403 15.892 15.892 5.403 15.892 15.892 3.306 9.723 9.723
2 2.680 7.881 23.773 2.680 7.881 23.773 2.546 7.490 17.212
3 2.420 7.117 30.890 2.420 7.117 30.890 2.336 6.872 24.084
4 1.776 5.225 36.114 1.776 5.225 36.114 1.858 5.464 29.548
5 1.724 5.071 41.186 1.724 5.071 41.186 1.744 5.130 34.678
6 1.500 4.412 45.598 1.500 4.412 45.598 1.733 5.098 39.776
7 1.426 4.193 49.791 1.426 4.193 49.791 1.602 4.710 44.487
8 1.420 4.175 53.966 1.420 4.175 53.966 1.579 4.644 49.131
9 1.282 3.772 57.738 1.282 3.772 57.738 1.520 4.472 53.602
10 1.188 3.493 61.231 1.188 3.493 61.231 1.482 4.360 57.962
11 1.126 3.311 64.543 1.126 3.311 64.543 1.451 4.268 62.230
12 1.054 3.100 67.643 1.054 3.100 67.643 1.432 4.210 66.440
13 1.016 2.989 70.631 1.016 2.989 70.631 1.425 4.191 70.631
14 .918 2.699 73.330
15 .892 2.623 75.954
16 .859 2.526 78.480
17 .729 2.144 80.624
18 .718 2.111 82.735
19 .630 1.854 84.589
20 .598 1.758 86.347
21 .576 1.694 88.041
22 .532 1.566 89.607
23 .501 1.474 91.081
24 .429 1.261 92.342
25 .393 1.157 93.499
26 .340 .999 94.498
27 .325 .956 95.454
28 .294 .864 96.318
29 .283 .832 97.150
30 .260 .764 97.914
31 .232 .681 98.595
32 .194 .571 99.166
33 .148 .436 99.603
34 .135 .397 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
229
BALLI: Scree Plot
230
APPENDIX F
BALLI: FINAL FACTOR SOLUTION
231
APPENDIX F-BALLI: FINAL FACTOR SOLUTION
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 5.403 15.892 15.892 5.403 15.892 15.892 4.745 13.956 13.956
2 2.680 7.881 23.773 2.680 7.881 23.773 3.053 8.980 22.936
3 2.420 7.117 30.890 2.420 7.117 30.890 2.704 7.954 30.890
4 1.776 5.225 36.114
5 1.724 5.071 41.186
6 1.500 4.412 45.598
7 1.426 4.193 49.791
8 1.420 4.175 53.966
9 1.282 3.772 57.738
10 1.188 3.493 61.231
11 1.126 3.311 64.543
12 1.054 3.100 67.643
13 1.016 2.989 70.631
14 .918 2.699 73.330
15 .892 2.623 75.954
16 .859 2.526 78.480
17 .729 2.144 80.624
18 .718 2.111 82.735
19 .630 1.854 84.589
20 .598 1.758 86.347
21 .576 1.694 88.041
22 .532 1.566 89.607
23 .501 1.474 91.081
24 .429 1.261 92.342
25 .393 1.157 93.499
26 .340 .999 94.498
27 .325 .956 95.454
28 .294 .864 96.318
29 .283 .832 97.150
30 .260 .764 97.914
31 .232 .681 98.595
32 .194 .571 99.166
33 .148 .436 99.603
34 .135 .397 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
232
APPENDIX G
PELLEM: INITIAL FACTOR SOLUTION & SCREE PLOT
233
APPENDIX G-PELLEM: INITIAL FACTOR SOLUTION & SCREE PLOT
PELLEM: Initial Factor Solution
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 6.540 21.801 21.801 6.540 21.801 21.801 4.348 14.492 14.492
2 2.735 9.117 30.918 2.735 9.117 30.918 2.586 8.619 23.111
3 2.291 7.637 38.555 2.291 7.637 38.555 2.562 8.541 31.652
4 1.780 5.934 44.490 1.780 5.934 44.490 2.391 7.970 39.622
5 1.723 5.744 50.233 1.723 5.744 50.233 1.858 6.194 45.816
6 1.429 4.765 54.998 1.429 4.765 54.998 1.724 5.745 51.561
7 1.321 4.404 59.402 1.321 4.404 59.402 1.656 5.519 57.079
8 1.161 3.870 63.273 1.161 3.870 63.273 1.627 5.424 62.503
9 1.083 3.609 66.882 1.083 3.609 66.882 1.314 4.379 66.882
10 .948 3.161 70.042
11 .910 3.033 73.076
12 .823 2.742 75.817
13 .762 2.541 78.358
14 .706 2.355 80.713
15 .635 2.116 82.829
16 .608 2.027 84.857
17 .574 1.915 86.772
18 .487 1.624 88.395
19 .478 1.594 89.989
20 .450 1.499 91.488
21 .405 1.349 92.836
22 .331 1.103 93.940
23 .316 1.052 94.992
24 .306 1.021 96.012
25 .297 .991 97.004
26 .263 .876 97.880
27 .206 .687 98.568
28 .156 .518 99.086
29 .149 .496 99.582
30 .125 .418 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
234
PELLEM: Scree Plot
235
APPENDIX H
PELLEM: FINAL FACTOR SOLUTION
236
APPENDIX H-PELLEM: FINAL FACTOR SOLUTION
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 6.540 21.801 21.801 6.540 21.801 21.801 5.439 18.129 18.129
2 2.735 9.117 30.918 2.735 9.117 30.918 3.496 11.653 29.782
3 2.291 7.637 38.555 2.291 7.637 38.555 2.632 8.774 38.555
4 1.780 5.934 44.490
5 1.723 5.744 50.233
6 1.429 4.765 54.998
7 1.321 4.404 59.402
8 1.161 3.870 63.273
9 1.083 3.609 66.882
10 .948 3.161 70.042
11 .910 3.033 73.076
12 .823 2.742 75.817
13 .762 2.541 78.358
14 .706 2.355 80.713
15 .635 2.116 82.829
16 .608 2.027 84.857
17 .574 1.915 86.772
18 .487 1.624 88.395
19 .478 1.594 89.989
20 .450 1.499 91.488
21 .405 1.349 92.836
22 .331 1.103 93.940
23 .316 1.052 94.992
24 .306 1.021 96.012
25 .297 .991 97.004
26 .263 .876 97.880
27 .206 .687 98.568
28 .156 .518 99.086
29 .149 .496 99.582
30 .125 .418 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
