System 27 (1999) 473492

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about

language learning
K. Sakui a,*, S.J. Gaies b
a

Konan University/St. Andrew's University, Osaka, Japan

b
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

Abstract
This article reports on a study of the beliefs about language learning of almost 1300 Japanese university learners of English. The primary aims of the study were: (1) to validate a
questionnaire, developed for the Japanese context and written in Japanese, on a variety of
beliefs (e.g. person, task, strategy, achievement) about language learning; (2) to investigate the
value of interview data to complement and explain questionnaire data; and (3) to describe
the beliefs about language learning of Japanese learners of English and to determine, through
factor analysis, how those beliefs are organized. One of the principal ndings of the study is
that without complementary sources of data, learners' responses to questionnaires such as the
one developed for this study can be easily misinterpreted as evidence of instrument unreliability. The study found evidence that many of the respondents' beliefs about learning English
correspond to the distinction which many teachers would make between traditional and contemporary approaches to language teaching and learning. The article concludes by describing
how data on learners' beliefs can inform eorts at policy and program evaluation. # 1999
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Beliefs; Metacognition; Second language learning; Learning processes; Self-evaluation; Selfconcept; Language attitudes; Cognitive style; Language culture relationship; Second language instruction

1. Introduction
The research we report in this article investigated Japanese learners' beliefs about
language learning. Some of the questions which we set out to answer were psychometric and methodological: How reliable are responses to questionnaire data on
learners' beliefs? Can questionnaire responses be understood better with the help of

* Corresponding author. 5-1-522-109 Koyocho-Naka, Higashi Nada-ku, Kobe 658 0032, Japan.
E-mail addresses: ksakui@gol.com (K. Sakui), stephen.gaies@uni.edu (S.J. Gaies)
0346-251X/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(99)00046-9

474

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

interview data? Others were more substantive: What beliefs do Japanese learners
of English have about language learning? How are those beliefs organized?
1.1. The nature and importance of beliefs about learning
Language educators have long recognized that learners bring to the languagelearning task a complex set of attitudes, experiences, expectations, and learning
strategies (e.g. Nyikos and Oxford, 1993; for examples relating to English education
in Japan, see Benson, 1991, and Stone, 1989). Within this complex web of variables
are beliefs: beliefs about the nature of language, about the language-learning task,
about likely outcomes, about learners' personal language learning strengths and
limitations.
Beliefs are a central construct in every discipline which deals with human behavior
and learning. In the psychological literature, there is a rich body of theoretical and
empirical work on beliefs. Dierent, theoretical orientations and concerns have
produced somewhat dierent, but nonetheless clearly related, views of the nature of
beliefs (Dole and Sinatra, 1994). In cognitive psychology, beliefs about learning are
viewed as a component of metacognitive knowledge (for a review, see Wenden,
1998b). Flavell (1987), for example, views beliefs as a part of self-knowledge, which
includes all that individuals understand about themselves as learners and thinkers,
including their learning goals and needs. A related view comes from Alexander et al.
(1991), who place beliefs and attitudes within the domain of sociocultural knowledge, on the basis of which new experiences and information are interpreted. In
social psychology, a prominent view of beliefs is that they are understandings which
arise from an individual's life history and educational experiences and which are the
basis for value judgments (Dole and Sinatra, 1994). Collectively, these views, along
with the constructivist notion that individuals actively construct and attempt to
validate their understandings (Paris and Byrnes, 1989), recognize that beliefs are
both outcomes of format and informal learning experiences and determinants of
subsequent learning (for discussions of how beliefs relate to learning, see, for example, Ryan, 1984; Weinert and Kluwe, 1987; Schommer, 1990).1
1.2. The scope and focus of recent research on language-learners' beliefs
Recent research on the beliefs of second- and foreign-language learners' beliefs has
explored a number of learning settings: foreign-language learners in the USA (Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995; Kuntz, 1996; Oh, 1996; Hurt, 1997; Mori, 1997; adult learners of English as a second language in multi-ethnic communities in the USA
(Wenden, 1986, 1987; Horwitz, 1987) and New Zealand (Cotterall, 1995); and learners of English as a foreign language in Brazil (Barcelos, 1995), China (Wen and
Johnson, 1997), North Cyprus (Kunt, 1997), Japan (Luppescu and Day, 1990; Keim
1
The focus in this article on learners' beliefs should not be taken to mean that we do not consider teachers' beliefs to be equally important. For a review of research on teachers' beliefs, see Pajares
(1992).

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

475

et al., 1996), Korea (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995), Hong Kong (Benson and Lor, 1999),
Russia (and in other former Soviet republics) (Tumposky, 1991; Gaies et al.,
1999), and Taiwan (Yang, 1992; Huang, 1997). With few exceptions (Huang, 1997;
Hurt, 1997; Gaies et al., 1999), these studies have investigated university-level or
adult language learners.2
These research studies have collected data on learners' beliefs (and have analyzed
data) in dierent ways. Some studies have looked at a small number of learners. For
example, Barcelos (1995) collected data from 14 learners through classroom observations, interviews, and open-ended questionnaires. Brown (1996) videotaped seven
adult English as a Second Language (ESL) learners in classes and then used stimulated recall and follow-up interviews. Ellis (1998) conducted a metaphor analysis of
the language-learning diaries of six adult learners of German; and Hosenfeld (1999)
used a case-study approach to investigate, among other things, the language-learning beliefs of ve adult learners. Interviews have been a principal means of data
collection in other studies by Wenden (1986, 1987), Benson and Lor (1999), and by
Shaw (1999).
Far more frequently, however, data on language-learners' beliefs have been collected through closed (forced-choice) questionnaires. Questionnaires on learners'
beliefs have been developed and analyzed in two ways. The rst involves grouping
items a priori into logically-derived categories, with the analysis of data focusing on
similarities and dierences in response patterns to items within a category. This is
the approach used by Horwitz's `Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory'
(BALLI), but it has also been used in other quenstionnaire research on learner
beliefs (e.g. Wen and Johnson, 1997). The second approach to questionnaire development, used in the study reported in this article, is to collect responses to a large set
of items presumably tapping dierent beliefs and then to identify, on the basis of a
statistical procedure such as factor analysis, a set of empirically-derived categories
(e.g. Yang, 1992; Kuntz, 1996; Mori, 1997).
1.3. Psychometric issues
When we began looking at the existing research on language-learners' beliefs
and related variables, we noted that questionnaires such as the BALLI had been
developed very carefully, with frequent consultation of learners and language
teachers while the questionnaire was being designed and items were being written.
However, we were struck by the fact that in the studies using questionnaires, concern
2
It should also be pointed out that recent research on the beliefs of language learners has been almost
exclusively inductive rather than hypothesis driven. It has consisted of attempts to describe the languagelearning beliefs of groups of learners, the relationship between beliefs and other variables related to differential language-learning behavior, such as foreign-language classroom anxiety or language-learning
strategies. Other correlational research has examined the relationship between language-learning beliefs
(and other variables) and achievement (Wen and Johnson, 1997), the relationship between epistemological beliefs and language-learning beliefs (Mori, 1997), and the eect of a particular methodology on
learners' beliefs (Shaw, 1999). Only Mori's and Shaw's research is explicitly based on research which has
examined the eects of beliefs on learning.

476

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

for questionnaire validation had not been given high priority.3 For example, we found
no evidence of any attempt, either in the rst or in subsequent uses of a questionnaire, to establish empirically the degree of stability, or consistency, of responses to
questionnaires on beliefs about language learning. By `stable', we are not concerned
with the question of how easily and under what conditions beliefs change, although
this is certainly an important issue (Kern, 1995). Rather, we are referring to the fundamental psychometric requirement that instrument error should be measured (and,
if possible, minimized): in terms of the topic under discussion; that a questionnaire on
learners' beliefs should produce a stable measure of those beliefs unless those beliefs in
fact change. In short, we felt that the reliability of learners' responses to questionnaire
items on their beliefs about language learning should be examined empirically, and
not simply assumed. This was the starting point for the study which we conducted.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Research questions
Our research was designed to address three questions:
1. Are Japanese learners consistent from one time to another in reporting their
beliefs about language learning?
2. Can interview data be useful in conrming and explaining data collected
through a questionnaire on learners' beliefs about language learning?
3. What beliefs do Japanese learners of English have about language learning,
and how are these beliefs organized?
The questions are listed in the order in which we felt that they should be addressed. The logical starting point, we felt, would be to seek evidence of the reliability of
the questionnaire we were developingparticularly in terms of the stability, or
consistency, of responses to questionnaire items. We also wanted to determine,
through interviews, whether factors other than instrument error might account for
inconsistency in responses to questionnaire items.
2.2. Participants
A total of 1296 students participated in the study. The participants included students at public and private 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Some of
the participants were English majors, although the majority were not.
3
One notable exception is a study by Luppescu and Day (1990), which sought to determine whether
the responses of learners and teachers of English in Japan would validate the attitude variable of
orientation: specically, a continuum ranging from a classical orientation to a contemporary orientation
toward the teaching and learning of English in Japan. Although Luppescu and Day (1990) were not able
to validate orientation as a way of characterizing learners' beliefs and attitudes, their study left them fully
convinced of the need for validation of measures and procedures used to explore language-learners' (and
teachers') beliefs.

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

477

2.3. Instrumentation
Our study, like other studies of learners' beliefs about language learning, was not
based on any single denition or conceptualization of beliefs. On the contrary, we
wanted to examine as wide a range of beliefs as possible. We wanted to determine
whether Japanese learners' beliefs can be measured reliably, what beliefs they hold,
and how their beliefs relate to one another.
The development of the questionnaire used in this study was guided by three
priorities: (1) the need for a context-sensitive instrument (i.e. one which would tap
beliefs most relevant to the learning of English in Japan); (2) the importance of an
instrument written in the students' rst language (cf. Wen and Johnson, 1997); and (3)
the value of several stages of outside review of the questionnaire items and instructions.
We began by examining the items in existing instruments dealing with beliefs,
attitudes, and other individual factors in language learning. Many items from these
instruments, together with additional items which we wrote, were given to a number
of English teachers working at dierent educational levels, who were asked to: (1)
judge the relevance of the items for senior high school and/or college-level English
education in Japan; and (2) suggest additional topics for items.
Many of the additional topics suggested by these teachers were used to write new
items, and the total pool of items was then examined to eliminate duplication and
overlap. Each of the remaining items was then written in two versions, in most cases
with relatively slight alterations in wording or with alternative wordings of the same
proposition. All were of the Likert type, consisting of a statement to which respondents would indicate one of four responses: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, or
Strongly agree.
All of the pairs of items were then translated into Japanese by the rst author,
then back-translated by JapaneseEnglish bilinguals to ensure the accuracy of the
translations. A set of instructions in Japanese was prepared, and these, together with
the pairs of items, were distributed to other Japanese teachers of English as well
as to a group of Japanese students doing graduate degree work in the USA for
recommendations for changes or deletions.
Based on the feedback we received, two versions (the Original and Scrambled) of a
45-item questionnaire were prepared. Items in the Scrambled version are identical to
those in the Original version; only the order of the items diers.
An Alternate version was also prepared by using, from each pair of items, the
item which had not been used in the Original/Scrambled versions. The Alternate
version, which diers from the Original version in terms of the wording of each item
as well as the order of the items, was created to test the sensitivity of responses to
the wording of items.
2.4. Data collection
Data were collected at dierent schools throughout Japan during the period June
1996April 1997. With the exception of students in classes taught by the rst author

478

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

herself, the questionnaire was administered by the participants' regular English

teacher, without the assistance or presence of either of the researchers.4
A subsample of 98 college-age students from several dierent 2- and 4-year
colleges and universities in the Kanto and Kansai regions was used to estimate the
reliability of the questionnaire. Of this subsample, 44 participants responded twice
(the rst time to the Original version, the second time to the Scrambled version),
approximately 4 weeks apart, to the same 45-item questionnaire in order to produce
an estimate of the consistency of responses (the testretest method). The remaining
54 participants in the subsample responded to the Original and Alternate versions of
the questionnaire approximately 4 weeks apart in order to provide a measure of the
sensitivity of responses to item wording (the alternate-forms method).

2.5. Data analysis

2.5.1. Estimates of reliability
For both the testretest and the alternate-forms method, consistency of responses
was calculated in two ways: (1) by determining for each item the percentage of
respondents who answered exactly the same way (i.e. who chose Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Agree, or Strongly agree both times) on the two administrations; and (2)
by determining for each item the percentage of respondents who indicated agreement (or disagreements) on both administrations (i.e. who chose Strongly disagree,
Disagree, Agree, or Strongly agree both times, or who chose Strongly disagree one
time and Disagree the other, or Agree one time and Strongly agree the other).5 This
latter measure is obviously a less rigorous measure of consistency, since it requires
only that respondents remain consistent in agreeing or disagreeing with a statement;
the former on the other hand, requires that respondents indicate the same strength
of agreement (or disagreement) both times in order to demonstrate testretest
consistency.
2.5.2. Descriptive statistics
Based on the responses of 1296 participants to the Original version of the questionnaire, means and standard deviations for each of the 45 questionnaire items
were computed.

4
The classroom teachers who conducted the rst administrations of the questionnaire indicated
that their students understood the instructions for the task, took the task seriously (rather than simply
marking the answer sheet in a haphazard way), and were without exception able to complete the questionnaire in approximately 10 min.
5
For the 11 pairs of items in which one member of the pair was a negation of the statement of the
other, the calculation was slightly dierent: exact agreement occurred when, for example, a respondent
chose Strongly disagree for the armative statement, and Strongly agree for the negative statement.

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

479

3. Findings
3.1. Estimates of reliability
The results indicate that the choice of how to operationalize reliability may lead
to very dierent conclusions. If we insist that respondents choose the same point on
the scale both times to demonstrate the stability of the instrument over time, our
questionnaire yields only 13 items (out of 45) for which 75% or more of the participants were consistent on the two administrations (Table 1). On the other hand, the
use of the less rigorous denition of stability yields, for the same data, 34 items for
which 75% or more of the participants were consistent on the two administrations.
Using 70% as a criterion, the number of items eliciting consistent responses over the
two administrations rises to 21 for exact agreement and 39 for general agreement.
For the alternate-forms method, the results indicate that the participants often
responded very dierently to alternative wordings of an item. There were only three
pairs of items (out of the 45) for which 75% or more of the participants marked the
same response for both items in the pair; using a lower criterion of 70% added only
one item. The less rigorous, general agreement denition of response consistency
yielded, for the same data, 21 items for which 75% or more of the participants

Table 1
Reliability: testretest and alternate forms
Consistency of responses: original and scrambled (n=44)
1. Exact agreement (the percentage of respondents who answered exactly the same way (i.e. who
chose Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, or Strongly agree both times)
75% or more
13 items
70% or more
21 items
2. General agreement (the percentage of respondents who indicated either agreement or disagreement on
both administrations (i.e. who chose Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, or Strongly agree both times,
or who chose Strongly disagree one time and Disagree the other, or Agree one time and Strongly agree
the other)
75% or more
34 items
70% or more
39 items
3. Tests of signicance of dierence of means (t-tests): for ve items, the dierence of the means on the
Original and Scrambled versions was statistically signicant ( p<0.05)
Equivalence of responses: original and alternate (n=54)
1. Exact agreement
75% or more
70% or more

3 items
4 items

2. General agreement
75% or more
70% or more

21 items
27 items

3. Tests of signicance of dierence of means (t-tests): for 18 pairs of items, the dierence of the means
was statistically signicant ( p<0.05)

480

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

agreed or disagreed with the corresponding items on the two forms; lowering the
criterion level to 70% increases the number to 27.
It became clear to us that the testretest method and the alternate-forms method
lead to very dierent judgments about the stability of our participants' responses.
This discrepancy is revealed in another way: by comparing, through individual
t-tests, the dierence in means for pairs of items. We found that for the Original
Scrambled (testretest) comparison, there was a statistically signicant dierence in
the mean response to only ve of the 45 items. However, for the OriginalAlternate
(alternate-forms) comparison, there was a statistically signicant dierence in the
means for 18 pairs of items.
3.2. Interviews
The rst author of this article conducted a number of interviewssome individual, some involving more than one studentto nd out what some students who
took the questionnaire twice (the Original and Scrambled versions)6 could recall
about the experience of responding to the questionnaire and what additional information they could provide about their beliefs. A number of questions had been
prepared by the two authors for the interviews; however, the interviews were not
intended to elicit the same information from all interviewees in the same order.
Thus, although the interviewer attempted to include certain topics in all interviews
e.g. ``When you did the questionnaire the second time, did you remember how you
responded to certain items the rst time?'' and ``Were there any items which you had
diculty interpreting?''she also attempted to allow the interviewees to nominate
and pursue topics of interest to them. The interviews, which were conducted in
Japanese and then translated into English, oer many insights that have helped us to
interpret responses to the questionnaire.
First of all, we found that some of the dierences in responses to the questionnaire
at dierent times should be understood not as ``inconsistency'' or ``unreliability'',
but as an indication that the learners' beliefs had actually changed. For example, in
the case of Excerpt 1 (Appendix), when M completed the questionnaire the rst
time, she had not had a native-speaker teacher, and she thought it would be nice for
such a teacher to speak only English. However, by the time she responded to the
questionnaire the second time, she had had 4 weeks of instruction with a nativespeaker teacher who spoke Japanese. She had apparently come to believe that having a native-speaker teacher who speaks Japanese is good, and her response the
second time to this item reects that.
6

The students who participated in the interviews were not part of the group of 44 whose responses to
the Original and Scrambled versions (in June 1996) were used to measure consistency of responses over
time. Together with their classmates, the students who were interviewed took both the Original and
Scrambled versions of the questionnaire approximately 4 weeks apart in AprilMay 1997 so that the
rst author would be able to investigate, through interviews, what some of her students (who were
not invited to participate in individual or small-group interviews until after they had taken the Scrambled version) could recollect of their experience with the questionnaire and of their responses on each
administration.

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

481

Second, we found that the beliefs we were trying to measure may not be uniform;
rather, they are better thought of as situationally conditioned. Excerpts 2 and 3
illustrate this point. In reference to the item, ``You need to learn English from native
speakers of English'', Student S said that it was dicult to choose one answer
because it all depends on the individual teacher. She said that one native-speaker
teacher spoke too slowly and that it was dicult to understand his speech. What she
considers important is not the distinction between native- or non-native speaker
teacher, but the appropriate speed and clarity of a teacher's speech.
In other words, dierent responses to the same questionnaire item at dierent
times may simply reect the fact that a learner was thinking of dierent situations.
Unless we limit ourselves to questionnaire items which explicitly target a very specic situation and ask about learners' beliefs relative to that situation, we may have
to accept the inherent limitations of questionnaire itemsno matter how carefully
developed, eld-tested, and revised they may be.
Excerpts 4 and 5 illustrate another lesson we learned from the interviews: despite
all the care that went into the development of the questionnaire, respondents did not
always interpret items as we had intended. As can be seen in Excerpt 4, the item, ``I
cannot improve my English by speaking English with my classmates'', was intended
to tap beliefs about classroom interaction such as group work, or pair work. Student
M, however, interpreted this item as relating to interaction outside the classroom,
such as in the cafeteria.
In addition, we learned that some students were aware of how their response to
one item related to their response to another item. In Excerpt 6, Student Ki says
that she was conscious of the contradictory nature of some of her responses. She
said she disagreed with the item, ``My teacher should correct all of my mistakes'',
but she also disagreed with the item, ``If I do not correct my mistakes at the beginning, I cannot get rid of them later on.'' We also learned that some students
responded to particular items to describe their beliefs in a way that the questionnaire
did not allow. In Excerpt 7, Ky indicates that for an item which she could not decide
how to answer, she marked one answer (e.g. Agree) the rst time, and the opposite
answer (e.g. Disagree) the second time. In this way, she felt, she attempted to cause
her two responses to cancel one another out.
3.3. Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the 45 items in the Original version of
the questionnairethe version to which all 1296 participants responded. The broad
range of item means supports the view (which was also noted by the teachers who
administered the questionnaire) that the respondents took the questionnaire
seriously, rather than casually or randomly responding to the items simply to nish
the task.
Although space does not permit a discussion of each questionnaire item, it can be
pointed out that the six items with which these respondents agreed most strongly
(items which had a mean of 3.25 or higher) cover a variety of beliefs: the belief that
English conversation classes should be enjoyable, behaviors that promote the

482

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

Table 2
Descriptive statistics
Fa

Meanb

SD

Item

1
1
1

3.52
3.40
3.34

0.63
0.58
0.59

2
11
15

3.30
3.25

0.55
0.61

37
5

3.25
3.19

0.63
0.67

1
31

3.01
2.99

0.61
0.78

28
17

1,2
1

2.96
2.94
2.93
2.93

0.81
0.70
0.60
0.73

33
21
9
39

2.88

0.76

40

2.86
2.83

0.71
0.70

24
12

2.76

0.74

36

2.75
2.75
2.67

0.64
0.71
0.78

34
19
8

2.63
2.62

0.77
0.79

22
30

2.60
2.59

0.68
0.72

35
13

2.54
2.44

0.81
0.73

43
42

2.41
2.40

0.67
0.77

38
44

2.40
2.36
2.31
2.22
2.18

0.77
0.78
0.66
0.71
0.80

25
18
32
41
10

2.09
2.09

0.75
0.75

4
16

2
2
1
4

English conversation class should be enjoyable

In learning English it is important to repeat and practise a lot
Listening to tapes and watching English programs on television are very
important in learning English
I should be able to learn everything I am taught
It is useful to know about English-speaking countries in order to speak
English
It is easier for children than adults to learn English
Speaking and listening to English are more useful than reading and writing
English
Some languages are easier to learn than others
If I learn to speak English very well, I will have many opportunities to
use it
I am studying (studied) English only to pass the entrance examination
If I learn to speak English very well, it will help me get a good job
It is OK to guess if you do not know a word in English
If my teacher is a native speaker, he/she should be able to speak Japanese
when necessary
I study English because it is useful to communicate with English-speaking
people
Japanese think it is important to speak English
I would feel embarrassed to speak English in front of other Japanese
students
To say something in English, I think of how I would say it in Japanese
and then translate it into English
I can improve my English by speaking English with my classmates
Learning English is dierent from learning other subjects
In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide explanations in
Japanese
It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand it
Some people are born with a special ability which is useful for learning
English
I make mistakes because I do not study enough
If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning, it will be hard to get
rid of them later on
The longer I study English, the more enjoyable I nd it
It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn
another one
I want my teacher to correct all my mistakes
If I heard a foreigner of my age speaking English, I would go up to that
person to practice speaking
People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent
It is easier to speak English than to understand it
Learning a word means learning the Japanese translation
To understand English, it must be translated into Japanese
If a person studies English by himself for 1 hour a day, he will be uent
in English in 5 years
I believe that someday I will speak English very well
Girls are better than boys at learning English

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

483

Table 2 (continued)
Fa

Meanb

SD

Item

2.04

0.59

29

2,3
2
3
4

2.02
1.86
1.85
1.84

0.61
0.61
0.68
0.60

14
20
45
23

3
3

1.83
1.82

0.51
0.66

26
3

1.64

0.61

27

1.64

0.63

1.59

0.57

You can learn to improve your English only from native speakers
of English
Learning English is mostly a matter of learning grammar rules
Learning English is mostly a matter of translating from Japanese
I am satised with the English education I received
People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreign
languages
Japanese are good at learning foreign languages
In order to learn to read and write English very well, English education at
school is enough
In order to speak and understand English very well, English education at
school is enough
Considering the amount of time I have studied English, I am satised
with my progress
You should not say anything in English until you can speak
it correctly

Factor(s) on which item loads at 0.35 or higher.

Means are based on a four-point scale: 1, Strongly disagree; 2, Disagree; 3, Agree; 4, Strongly agree.
n=1296.
b

learning of English, and the relative diculty of language learning for children and
adults. The ve items with which the respondents disagreed most strongly (items
which had a mean of 1.83 or lower) also deal with several dierent beliefs: satisfaction with one's progress, the limitations of English education, the ability of Japanese
to learn foreign language, and the importance of producing correct speech.
3.4. Factor analysis
In order to investigate patterns in the subjects' responses to the 45 questionnaire
items, a factor analysis was performed. Principal components analysis, followed by
varimax rotation, yielded a four-factor solution. These four factors together included 25 of the 45 items on a questionnaire which had been designed without any
assumptions regarding the number and diversity of factors which would emerge.
Table 3 lists these four factors, the items which loaded on each factor, and the
reliability coecient (alpha coecient) for each factor.
3.4.1. Beliefs about a contemporary (communicative) orientation to learning
English
Factor 1 includes 11 items. Five items (2, 17, 21, 40, 43) deal with the enjoyment
derived from studying English, its instrumental and communicative value, and the
likelihood of using it in the future. Another ve items (4, 5, 9, 15, 44) state goals
and practices endorsed by contemporary language-teaching methodology. Item 4
reects the view that speaking ability in English is an attainable goal. The others

484

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

Table 3
Four-factor solution for English-learning beliefs of Japanese students a
Items

Factor loadings
F1

Factor 1: Beliefs about a contemporary (communicative)

orientation to learning English (=0.749)
43
The more I study English the more enjoyable I nd it
40
I study English because it is useful to communicate with
English-speaking people
15
Listening to tapes and watching English programs
on television are very important in learning English
17
If I learn to speak English very well, I will have
many opportunities to use it
44
If I heard a foreigner of my age speaking English
I would go up to that person to practice speaking
5
It is useful to know about English-speaking countries
in order to speak English
4
I believe that someday I will speak English very well
21
If I learn to speak English very well it will help
me to get a good job
2
English conversation class should be enjoyable
11
In learning English it is important to repeat and practice a lot
9
It is OK to guess if you do not know a word in English
Factor 2: Beliefs about a traditional orientation to learning
English (=0.636)
41
To understand English it must be translated into
Japanese
36
To say something in English, I think of how I would
say it in Japanese and then translate it into English
32
Learning a word means learning the Japanese translation
20
Learning English is mostly a matter of translating from
Japanese
8
In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide
explanations in Japanese
14
Learning English is mostly a matter of learning grammar rules
Factor 3: Beliefs about the quality and suciency of classroom
instruction for learning English (=0.638)
45
I am satised with the English education I received
7
Considering the amount of time I have studied English,
I am satised with my progress
27
In order to speak and understand English very well,
English education at school is enough
3
In order to learn to read and write English very well,
English education at school is enough
26
Japanese are good at learning foreign languages

F2

F3

0.630
0.584
0.573
0.560
0.550
0.536
0.513
0.503

0.367

0.449
0.423
0.369

0.676
0.634
0.585
0.531
0.460

0.413
0.371

0.356

0.645
0.636
0.609
0.555
0.497

F4

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

485

Table 3 (continued)
Items

Factor loadings
F1

Factor 4: Beliefs about foreign-language aptitude and

diculty (=0.456)
16
Girls are better than boys at learning English
30
Some people are born with a special ability which is
useful for learning English
23
People who are good at math and science are not good
at learning foreign languages
a

F2

F3

F4

0.736
0.608
0.594

Note: Only loadings of 0.35 or greater are included in this solution.

deal with the value of guessing in language learning (Item 9); the value of interaction with uent speakers of English (Item 44); of tapes and television programs
(and presumably other authentic materials) as a source of language and cultural
input (Item 15); and of learning about English-speaking countries (Item 5). The
nal item (Item 11) loading on this factor deals with the importance of oral practice. Although in some teaching and learning contexts this item would probably
measure beliefs about the value of audiolingual-style classroom repetition and
practice (as opposed to more meaning-based oral activities), in the Japanese context the broad range of classroom activities involving oral practice, both precommunicative and communicative, can be viewed reasonably collectively as a distinct departure from traditional grammar- and reading-based methodology. Taking
these 11 items as a group, we can describe Factor 1 as reecting `Beliefs about a
contemporary (Communicative) orientation to learning English'.
3.4.2. Beliefs about a traditional orientation to learning English
Six items loaded on Factor 2. Four of these (20, 32, 36, 41) deal with the role of
translation in learning, comprehending and producing English. The other two items
(8, 14) involve one of the most characteristic features of traditional methodology in
Japanese English classes: the focus on the learning of grammar rules which are presented and explained by the teacher in Japanese. (It can be noted that as one might
expect, Item 8 loads negatively on Factor 1; the use of Japanese by the teacher was
perceived by many respondents to be incompatible with contemporary methodology.)
Factor 2 can be labeled, `Beliefs about a traditional orientation to learning English'.
3.4.3. Beliefs about the quality and suciency of classroom instruction for learning
English
Five items loaded on Factor 3. Two of these items (7, 45) relate to satisfaction
with English education. Two others (3, 27) address the suciency of classroom
instruction in developing the four language skills. The remaining item (Item 26)
deals with the ability of Japanese to learn foreign languages. All ve of these items
had means of less than 2, indicating lack of satisfaction with English education,

486

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

doubts about the capability of classroom instruction by itself to lead to skills in

English, and a view that Japanese are not adept at language learning and therefore have diculty in overcoming the limitations and deciencies of classroom
instruction. Factor 3 may therefore be described as `Beliefs about the quality and
suciency of classroom instruction for learning English'.
3.4.4. Beliefs about foreign-language aptitude and diculty
Three items loaded on Factor 4. All of these items (16, 23, 30) deal with variables
in foreign-language learning ability: gender, aptitude in math and science, and
foreign-language aptitude. Factor 4 can be labeled, `Beliefs about foreign-language
learning aptitude'.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument and procedures for investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about language learning. In
developing our questionnaire, we employed a system of checks at each step in the
questionnaire development process; we used interview data to help us interpret
the questionnaire data more accurately; we measured the consistency of questionnaire
responses over time (through a comparison of responses to the Original and Scrambled versions of the questionnaire), and the sensitivity of responses to item wording
(through a comparison of responses to the Original and Alternate versions).
Our study was based on the premise that the value of data on learners' beliefs
about language learning depends on evidence that the stability (or lack of stability)
of those beliefs about language learning can be measured reliably. The conclusion
that our participants had demonstrated satisfactory consistency in their responses
was based on a testretest comparison and on evidence from interviews. The interviews helped us to realize that some of the apparent inconsistency in responses to the
questionnaire items during the test and retest was not related to instrument reliability. The interviews also conrmed that students took the questionnaire seriously,
thought about their beliefs, tried to reect them as accurately as the questionnaire
permitted, and in many cases claimed to remember quite precisely why they
responded as they did.
Our interview data conrmed the value of interviews to complement questionnaire
data, to provide necessary data triangulation. There are limits to what can be learned
about language leamers' beliefs from questionnaire items. Questionnaires consisting
of closed items allow respondents only to state their beliefsand then only the beliefs
which are included in the questionnaire. Well-conducted interviews allow learners to
reveal beliefs which are not addressed in the questionnaire7 and to describe the reasons, sources, behavioral outcomes, and other dimensions of their beliefs.

7
Researchers interested in obtaining (and using) the Japanese questionnaire should contact either of
the two authors by e-mail.

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

487

The learners who participated in our study responded dierently to the 45 statements about a variety of language-learning beliefs: as a group they agreed strongly
with certain statements, indicated moderate agreement or disagreement with others,
and strong disagreement with yet other statements. An exploratory factor analysis
revealed that many of these beliefs related to one another both statistically and
logically; three of the factors on which items loaded have high internal consistency
(the fourth one, Factor 4, having a lower alpha coecient due to the small number
of items which loaded on it).
Despite the large number of learners who participated in our study, statements
about what beliefs Japanese learners of English have about language learning
and how those beliefs are organized must be tentative. This is the only defensible
position to take with regard to the ndings of an exploratory factor analysis.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to speculate on what the ndings of the study
assuming that they are conrmed by additional evidencemight mean for stakeholders (including learners, teachers, administrators, policymakers) in English education in Japan.
Those who have investigated learners' beliefs (and, more broadly, secondlanguage learners' metacognitive knowledge) have repeatedly pointed out the value
of insights gained from investigating learners' beliefs. For teachers, the insights
gained, both in a pre-course needs analysis and during an instructional program
itself, by investigating learners' beliefs about language learning can lead to more
eective instructional planning and implementation. For learners, the process of
exploring beliefs can in the best of circumstances lead to more eective in- and outof-class language-learning behaviors as well as greater self-knowledge and autonomy (Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Victori and Lockhart, 1995; Matsumoto, 1996; Oxford
and Green, 1996; Wenden, 1998a).
On the basis of our research we would suggest another way in which research on
learners' beliefs about language learning can inform second- and foreign-language
programs: as a component of policy and program evaluation, by providing insight
into the degree of awareness of and commitment to an educational innovation by
learners.
The process of implementing change is a subject of considerable interest to educational authorities and teacher educators (White, 1988; Markee, 1996). Adoption
of an innovation within an educational system is a lengthy and complex process;
individuals must rst become aware of an innovation, then be given sucient time
and opportunity to understand, become comfortable with, and nally internalize the
proposed change.
In Japan and elsewhere, the diculties surrounding eorts to emphasize oral
communication ability as a primary aim of instruction and to bring about the
adoption of classroom principles and practices consistent with that aim illustrate
the challenges of implementing curricular change. Numerous discussions have
examined how and why teachers and administrators may either resist or attempt to
understand and implement a communicatively oriented pedagogy, and then how
they internalize or reject communicative goals and methodology. However, less
attention has been given to the question of whether language learners themselves are

488

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

aware of and have internalized a coherent set of beliefs about methodological

options for the English classroom.
Our data provide tentative support for the view that Japanese university learners
of English have some awareness of and beliefs regarding dierent methodological
orientations which they may encounter in their classes. This nding is in stark contrast to the conclusion of Luppeseu and Day (1990), whose ndings led them to
assert that Japanese learners of English had no coherent beliefs about language
learning.
There are many plausible explanations for the disparity in the ndings of the
two studies. For example, the participants may have diered in any number of
important ways; in addition, the questionnaires and the data analyses used in the
two studies were very dierent. Another intriguing possibility is that the two studies
examined dierent generations of learners of English. This possibility should be
considered against the backdrop of policy and curricular changes which were rst
proposed in 1989 by the Japanese Ministry of Education but which did not go into
eect until 1993 (in junior high schools) and 1994 (in senior high schools). These
changes were aimed at promoting oral communication as the primary goal for
English education. The changes have led to new English classes at the secondary
level; they have also stimulated considerable discussion about the need to change
university entrance examinations, and they have been accompanied by innovations
such as the use of native English-speaking assistant language teachers in teamteaching arrangements. The apparent contradiction of the ndings of Luppescu and
Day (1990) and of our study may reect growing awareness and approval, on the
part of learners, of changes in language-learning goals which have been as highly
publicized as they have been dicult to implement.
Whether or not our interpretation of our ndings is correct, the value, for
theoretical and eminently practical reasons, of exploring learners' beliefs about language learning is uncontroversial. We hope that the main contribution of our study
to the collective eort at investigating learners' beliefs about language learning is to
make instrument validation a primary concern of all who work in this area.

Acknowledgements
We wish to express our gratitude to the many teachers and other individuals who
provided valuable comments and suggestions during the development of the questionnaire and to the teachers who administered the questionnaire in their classrooms. Their willingness to assist us helped to make the study possible, and their
interest in our research was a constant source of encouragement to us. We would
also like to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the technical assistance
and advice of Dr. Robert E. Kramer, Associate Director of the Center for Behavioral and Social Research at the University of Northern Iowa. We also wish to
acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Alexandra Galambos of the University of
Northern Iowa.

(Appendix continued on next page)

Excerpts 45: Learners sometimes interpret an item dierently from what was intended, in some cases because of the wording
M:
The item, ``I cannot improve my English by speaking English with other Japanese students''. We don't speak in English with friends, do
we? Because we are all Japanese.
I:
Do you mean in discussion classes?
M:
Well, in our discussion class, we are good and try to speak English, Or in other English classes. When I looked at this item, I thought
it referred to outside of classrooms, such as having coee at the cafeteria. So I thought we did not have chances to speak English with my
friends. Do you mean this item referring only in classroom?

Excerpts 23: At least some beliefs are situationally conditioned

I:
Or were there any items for which you could not choose one of the four options?
Ay:
``You need to learn English from native speakers of English'': I think Japanese teachers are ne, too.
I:
Did you nd it dicult to choose one option?
Ay:
It depends on the teachers. Or, ``I'd like to have English classes in which the teachers use only English'': As long as we can understand,
English is ne. But when we do not understand, especially if it is important information, then it's dicult . . . If teachers tell us ahead of
time that they are going to tell us important information, or speak more slowly, then it's OK. If they can explain it in Japanese, that's
ne, too.
I:
Was it dicult to decide?
S:
Yes, it depends on the situation. Also, ``You need to learn English from native speakers of English'': Japanese teachers are ne. And
it's not necessarily true that native-speaker teachers are good. Sometimes even native-speaker teachers use Japanese to explain
something, and we sometimes have diculty in understanding their Japanese. And there is one native-speaker teacher who speaks too
slowly. I forget what I heard. I want the appropriate speed in speaking. We do not care so much about native speakers or
non-native speakers, but we want teachers who speak at an appropriate speed and in clear language so that we can understand them.

Excerpt 1: Beliefs about language learning can change

Interviewer (I):
OK, then, are there any items which you remember from the rst time and that inuenced your answer the second time? . . . did you
try to stick to the same answer based on what you answered rst time?
M:
The item, ``In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide explanations in Japanese'': In my writing class, our teacher is
Mr. B. He speaks Japanese. When I did the questionnaire the rst time, I thought I wanted native-speaker teachers to speak English
only. So I marked ``Strongly disagree''. But by the second time, I thought it is nice to have native-speaker teachers who speak
Japanese, so I changed to ``Agree''.

Appendix
Interview excerpts

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

489

I was thinking about classroom interaction. When you took the questionnaire the second time, did you think about the same situation?
For example, at the cafeteria?
Yes.
So both times, you thought about the same situation.
Yes.
So were there any items which you had diculty in answering? And there are four options. Did you think there were too many or
too few? Or did you have any diculty because of the wording of an item?

Excerpt 7: Some responses are an attempt to respond to items in a way which the questionnaire did not allow for
I:
OK, among the items which you remembered, were there any ones to which your answers changed? . . . Or did you try to be consistent
in your answers?
Ky:
When I had diculty in deciding which answer to mark the rst time, I marked the dierent answer the second time.
I:
Why?
Ky:
Because I had more than one answer for the item.
I:
So if you could not decide which one (either ``Agree'' or ``Disagree''), then you chose the response that you didn't choose the rst time,
right?

Excerpt 6: Responses to some items are a conscious eort to be consistent across items
I:
So were there any items you had diculty in answering?
Ki:
``My teacher should correct all my mistakes'': I marked this one ``Disagree'. But the item, ``If you do not correct mistakes at the
beginning, you cannot get rid of them, later'': I marked this one ``Agree''. I nd my opinions are contradictory.
I:
I see. Within yourself, then. Why do you think your opinions are contradictory? Where is the contradiction coming from?
KI:
Even if I try to correct mistakes, they are unavoidable.

M:
I:
M:
I:

I:

Appendix (continued)

490
K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

491

References
Alexander, R.A., Schallert, D.L., Hare, V.C., 1991. Coming to terms: how researchers in learning and
literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research 61, 315343.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 1995. The culture of learning a foreign language (English) of language students.
Unpublished master's thesis, UNICAMP, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Benson, M.J., 1991. Attitudes and motivation towards English: a survey of Japanese freshmen. RELC
Journal 22 (1), 3545.
Benson, P., Lor, W., 1999. Conceptions of language and language learning. In: Wenden, A. (Ed.), System:
An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning 27 (4).
Brown, D.W., 1996. The classroom-related beliefs and learning strategies of seven adult Japanese learners
in a U.S. ESL Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Cotterall, S., 1995. Readiness for autonomy: investigating learners' beliefs. In: Dickinson, L., Wenden, A.
(Eds.), System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics: Special
Issue on Learner Autonomy 23, 195206.
Dole, J.A., Sinatra, G.M., 1994. Social psychology research on beliefs and attitudes: implications for
research on learning from text. In: Garner, A., Alexander, P.A. (Eds.), Beliefs About Text and
Instruction with Text. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 245264.
Ellis, R., 1998. Learners' Constructions of Grammar and Learning. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, 1417 March, Seattle, WA.
Flavell, J.H., 1987. Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In: Weiner, F.E.,
Kluwe, R.H. (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 129.
Gaies, S.J, Galambos, A., Cornish, Y. 1999. The beliefs about language learning of Russian learners of
English. Unpublished manuscript.
Horwitz, E.K., 1987. Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, pp. 119129.
Horwitz, E.K., 1988. The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal 72, 283294.
Hosenfeld, C., 1999. A challenge to some currently-accepted generalizations about learner beliefs and
metacognitive knowledge. Unpublished manuscript.
Huang, S.C., 1997. Taiwanese senior high school students' EFL learning: focus on learning strategies and
learning beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, IN.
Hurt, L.C., 1997. Learning French in the inner city: beliefs and attitudes of eighth-grade students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, IN.
Keim, B., Furuya, R., Doye, C., Carlson, A., 1996. A survey of the attitudes and beliefs about foreign
language learning of Japanese university students taking communicative English courses. JACET Bulletin 27, 87106.
Kern, R.G., 1995. Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals 28,
7191.
Kunt, N., 1997. Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: a study of Turkish-speaking university students learning English in north Cyprus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas,
Austin, TX.
Kuntz, P., 1996. University students' beliefs about foreign language learning, with a focus on Arabic and
Swahili in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI.
Luppescu, S., Day, R.R., 1990. Examining attitude in teachers and students: the need to validate questionnaire data. Second Language Research 6, 125134.
Markee, N., 1996. Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Matsumoto, K., 1996. Helping L2 learners reect on classroom learning. ELT Journal 50, 143149.
Mori, Y., 1997. Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: what do language learners believe
about their learning? Department of East Asian Languages, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

492

K. Sakui, S.J. Gaies / System 27 (1999) 473492

Nyikos, M., Oxford, R., 1993. A factor analytic study of language learning strategy use: interpretations
from information-processing theory and social psychology. The Modern Language Journal 77, 1121.
Oh, M.-J., 1996. Beliefs about language learning and foreign language anxiety: a study of American university students learning Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas, Austin,
TX.
Oxford, R.L., Green, J.M., 1996. Language learning histories: learners and teachers helping each other
understand learning styles and strategies. TESOL Journal 6 (1), 2023.
Pajares, F.M., 1992. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research 62, 307332.
Paris, S.G., Byrnes, J.V.P., 1989. The constructivist approach to self-regulation of learning in the classroom. In: Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H. (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Park, G.P., 1995. Language learning strategies and belies about language learning of university students
learning English in Korea. Unpublished doctoral, dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Ryan, M.P., 1984. Monitoring text comprehension: individual dierences in epistemological standards.
Journal of Educational Psychology 76, 248258.
Schommer, M.A., 1990. Eects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology 82, 498504.
Shaw, J., 1999. The eect of experiential learning on epistemological beefs: a case study of learners in an
MBA program. Paper presented at the Symposium on Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning, 12th
World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan.
Stone, R., 1989. Considerations for Japanese ESL learners prior to intensive ESL programs in the United
States: 3 case studies in awareness and motivation. Cross Currents 15 (2), 3949.
Truitt, S.N., 1995. Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: a study of Korean University students
learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Tumposky, N.R., 1991. Student beliefs about language learning: a cross-cultural study. Carleton Papers
in Applied Linguistics 8, 565.
Victor, M., Lockhart, W., 1995. Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. In: Dickinson, L., Wenden, A. (Eds.), System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Learner Autonomy 23, 223234.
Weinert, F.E., Kluwe, R.H. (Eds.), 1987. Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Wen, Q., Johnson, R.K., 1997. L2 learner variables and English achievement: a study of tertiary-level
English majors in China. Applied Linguistics 18, 2748.
Wenden, A.L., 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second
look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7, 186205.
Wenden, A.L., 1987. How to be a successful language learner. In: Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, pp. 119129.
Wenden, A.L., 1998a. Learner Training in Foreign/Second Language Learning: a Curricular Perspective
for the 21st Century (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 673).
Wenden, A.L., 1998b. Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19, 515537.
White, R., 1988. The ELT Curriculum. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Yang, N.D., 1992. Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and their use of learning
strategies: a study of college students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX.