System 27 (1999) 493513

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Key variables in language learning: what do

learners believe about them?
Sara Cotterall
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600,
Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
This paper reports on a study which investigated the language learning beliefs of a group of
students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes course. The study drew on the results
of an earlier study of language learning beliefs (Cotterall, 1995. Readiness for autonomy:
investigating learner beliefs. System 23 (2), 195205) which used factor analysis to identify six
dimensions underlying learner responses to a questionnaire, and explored the relationship
between each factor and autonomous language learning behaviour. This study extends the
earlier work in three ways, Firstly, it adds new items based on the factor structure previously
identied. Secondly, it incorporates items designed as a result of a survey of current research
in second language acquisition (SLA). This survey identied factors which the literature sug-
gests are important in successful language learning, particularly in autonomous language
learning. Thirdly, it provides a learner perspective on topics in the SLA literature which
researchers and teachers often claim as their domain. The paper discusses the beliefs reported
by the subjects, and considers the implications of these beliefs for future research and for
interventions in the learning process. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Language learning beliefs/strategies; Language learning/autonomy; Questionnaire

1. Introduction

Learners approach the task of learning another language in dierent ways,

according to various individual characteristics. One of these characteristics is the
beliefs they hold about language learning. Investigation of the beliefs which inform
dierent behaviours in the language classroom is useful in making teachers aware
of dierent learner types that need to be accommodated. Wenden (1986) considers
that if we are to discover what characterises successful language learning, we need to:

E-mail address: sara.cotterall@vuw.ac.nz

0346-251X/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(99)00047-0
494 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

. . .discover what . . . students believe or know about their learning, and to pro-
vide activities that would allow students to examine these beliefs and their
possible impact on how they approach learning. . .

A previous study (Cotterall, 1995) identied six factors underlying subjects'

responses to questionnaire items about language learning beliefs and explored the
relationship between each factor and autonomous language learning behaviour.
This paper reports on beliefs learners hold about factors which the literature on
second language acquisition (SLA) suggests are key to language learning, speci-
cally those related to learner autonomy.1 This area was investigated for three rea-
sons. Firstly, the researcher wished to identify beliefs about language learning
which might reect the nature of autonomous language learning behaviour. Broady
(1996) concludes her report on learner beliefs about self-directed learning by stating
that ``there may be distinct sets of beliefs held within the student group'' and
claims:

Future investigation now needs to focus on investigating clusters of items which

represent particular types of orientation to learner autonomy and which would
help us dene more precisely some of the attitudes held by students. . . (p. 224).

The second motive for the study was pedagogical. It was hoped that the study
would result in a better understanding of the relationship between the beliefs lan-
guage learners hold and their behaviour in instructional programmes. Such an
understanding should assist teachers in adopting a more sensitive approach to the
organisation of learning opportunities in their classes. The third reason for explor-
ing what learners think about variables presented in the SLA literature was to
obtain a learner perspective on topics which researchers and teachers claim as their
domain.

2. Previous studies

2.1. Why investigate learner beliefs?

A growing body of evidence suggests that beliefs play a central role in learning
experience and achievements. In a study of the relationship between individual dif-
ference variables and prociency ratings for a large group of adults involved in
intensive language training, Ehrman and Oxford (1995, p. 79) report that ``Believing
that one can learn languages well was signicantly correlated with prociency in
both speaking and reading.'' Gremmo and Riley (1995, p. 158) cite a number of
recent reports which emphasise the central role learners' beliefs and representations

1
An earlier aim of the study was to identify clusters of beliefs shared by groups of language learners.
Issues raised by the methodological impasse which occurred when this was attempted are discussed in the
nal section of this paper.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 495

about language and language learning play in determining behaviour. Riley (1996,
p. 155) claims that beliefs about language and beliefs about language learning ``may
directly inuence or even determine. . .(a learner's) attitude or motivation or behav-
iour when learning the language in question.''

2.2. Published studies of learner beliefs

To date, discussions have appeared in the research literature on the degree of

`match' between learner and teacher beliefs (Kern, 1995), on gender-related (Bacon
and Finnemann, 1992) and culture-related (McCargar, 1993; Cortazzi and Jin, 1996)
dierences in beliefs, on the link between beliefs and prociency (Mantle-Bromley,
1995; Wen and Johnson, 1997), on domain-specic beliefs (Mori, 1997), on dimen-
sions underlying learners' beliefs (Cotterall, 1995; Sakui and Gaies, 1998), on the
impact of beliefs on language learning (McDonough, 1995; Victori and Lockhart,
1995) and on methods of investigating learner beliefs (Kalaja, 1995; Sakui and
Gaies, 1998). These studies are briey reviewed here.
Kern (1995) used the `Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory' (Horowitz,
1988) to compare the beliefs about language learning of students at two north
American universities with each other and with their teachers' beliefs. He found
strong similarities when the beliefs of whole groups were analysed, but dierences
appeared when individuals were compared. Dierences related to pedagogy, the
nature of language learning and the length of time needed to achieve uency in
the target language. Bacon and Finnemann (1992) investigated the impact of gender
on learner beliefs, attitudes, strategies and experience by surveying 938 adult foreign
language students. They found that women reported a higher level of motivation
and strategy use in language learning than male students, greater use of global
strategies in dealing with authentic input and a higher level of social interaction with
the target language (Spanish).
The impact of culture on beliefs has also been investigated. McCargar (1993)
conducted a study with 161 English as a Second Language (ESL) students and 41
ESL teachers in the USA. He found signicant dierences between the beliefs of
groups of students from dierent cultural groups and between teachers' and stu-
dents' beliefs (e.g. with regard to treatment of error, use of group work, encourage-
ment to disagree with the teacher). In a paper on language learning in China,
Cortazzi and Jin (1996, p. 169) discuss learners' and teachers' views of what con-
stitutes good learning, and claim:

Such views will form an important part of the ideological model of what
learners and teachers expect from each other. This is part of a culture of learning
which may be a determining factor on what happens in language classrooms
and what is judged to be successful language learning.

They go on to explain the term ``culture of learning'' and to emphasise the impor-
tance of examining the beliefs and expectations which learners and teachers hold
(Cortazzi and Jin, 1996, p. 169):
496 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

By the term ``culture of learning'' we mean that much behaviour in language

classrooms is set within taken-for-granted frameworks of expectations, atti-
tudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to
teach or learn. . .and how language teaching relates to broader issues of the
nature and purpose of education. . . In many language classrooms. . . it is pos-
sible that there may be largely unnoticed gaps between the expectations of the
teacher and students, or between dierent groups of students.

In a paper which examines the beliefs and attitudes of rst year students of
Spanish and French, Mantle-Bromley (1995, p. 372) reports that many young lan-
guage learners approach language learning with ``misconceptions that may hinder
their progress and persistence in language study''. Wen and Johnson's (1997, p. 40)
recent article on second language learner variables and their relationship to English
achievement reports:

The direct eects of belief variables on strategy variables were strong and con-
sistent, reinforcing the view that teachers and materials writers need to be aware
of, and sensitive to, students pre-existing assumptions about the language
learning process.

Other research has considered how the beliefs which individuals hold about lan-
guage learning relate to their more general beliefs. Mori (1997) found some empiri-
cal evidence for the existence of domain-specic (i.e. language learning-related)
belief dimensions and for a relationship between general beliefs about learning
and beliefs about language learning. She also found some evidence for a relationship
between beliefs and performance.
Cotterall (1995) reports on a questionnaire study of the language learning
beliefs of a mixed nationality group of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) learn-
ers. She identied six factors underlying subjects' responses to the questionnaire
items (role of the teacher, role of feedback, learner independence, learner con-
dence in study ability, experience of language learning, approach to studying)
and argued that learners' beliefs reect their readiness for assuming greater
responsibility for their learning. Sakui and Gaies (1998) report on a study of the
English learning beliefs of 1296 Japanese university students. Analysis of responses
to their questionnaire identied four factors underlying learners' responses: con-
temporary (communicative) orientation to learning English, traditional orienta-
tion to learning English, beliefs about the quality and suciency of classroom
instruction for learning English and beliefs about foreign language aptitude and
diculty.

2.3. Impact of beliefs on learners' behaviour

A number of researchers have written about the impact of beliefs on learners'

behaviour. For example, McDonough (1995, p. 9) points out that beliefs can be
important stimuli for action:
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 497

. . .what we believe we are doing, what we pay attention to, what we think is
important, how we choose to behave, how we prefer to solve problems, form
the basis for our personal decisions as to how to proceed. An important fact
about this argument is that it is not necessary for these kinds of evidence to be
true for them to have important consequences for our further development.

Victori and Lockhart (1995) discuss dierences between ``insightful beliefs'' which
successful learners hold, and the ``negative or limited beliefs'' which poorer learners
hold, and conclude that:

. . .if students develop or maintain misconceptions about their own learning, if

they attribute undue importance to factors that are external to their own
action. . .they are not likely to adopt a responsible and active attitude in their
approach to learning and may never become autonomous. (p. 225)

Holec (1996, p. 89) also discusses the potential for learners to hold dysfunctional
beliefs about language learning and writes of the importance of learners' ``correc-
ting. . .and/or completing'' representations about learning which have been con-
structed as a result of previous learning experiences. He goes on to suggest a number
of indirect means of identifying learners' representations about language learning.
Most of these depend on the methodological tool of discourse analysis.

2.4. Methodology for investigating beliefs

Like Holec, Kalaja (1995) also supports the use of discourse analysis as a means of
investigating learner beliefs and criticises methodological approaches which rely on
questionnaire data or content analysis of learner statements. She claims that ques-
tionnaires ``only measure beliefs in theory and not on actual occasions of talk or
writing'' (Kalaja, 1995, p. 197) and that in analysing the discourse produced in
interviews, ``the data are read selectively and analysed in broad categories''. Instead,
she proposes obtaining naturalistic discourse data which would be analysed using
discourse analytic methods. Sakui and Gaies (1998, p. 6) also discuss research
methods for studying learner beliefs and state, ``We believe that research in this area
will be served well by aiming for the greatest possible conceptual, methodological
and psychometric rigor.'' Clearly there is value in investigating learner beliefs using
both qualitative and quantitative approaches. For the purposes of the present study,
it was decided to adopt a combination of the two methodologies by including items
aimed at eliciting open-ended responses as well as items demanding objective
responses. However, this paper reports only on the quantitative data.

2.5. Purpose of the study

While the studies cited above have identied links between learners' beliefs about
language learning and selected learner characteristics (e.g. motivation, prociency)
and areas in which learners' (and teachers') beliefs diverge, little attention has been
498 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

paid to identifying what learners believe about factors which the literature suggests
contribute to successful language learning. This study aimed to examine the beliefs
which subjects held about factors discussed in the SLA literature, such as the role of
feedback, opportunities to practise and knowledge of language learning strategies. It
also sought to consider the implications of these ndings for encouraging learners to
adopt autonomous approaches to their language learning.

3. The study

3.1. Design of the questionnaire 2

The questionnaire sought primarily to target beliefs about variables implicated in

successful SLA which are considered important by researchers interested in learner
autonomy (Victori and Lockhart, 1995; Broady, 1996; Riley, 1996). While other
important beliefs about language learning may exist, they were not of central con-
cern in this study.
Questionnaire items were generated from a number of sources. An earlier study of
learner beliefs (Cotterall, 1995) had set out to gauge learners' readiness for the
changes in behaviour and beliefs which an autonomous approach to language
learning implies. The study had revealed the existence of six dimensions underly-
ing learners' responses to the questionnaire: the role of the teacher, the role of
feedback, learner independence, learner condence, experience of language learn-
ing and approach to studying. The rst ve of these factors were retained for inclu-
sion in the new questionnaire, though not necessarily as separate variables. The sixth
factorapproach to studyingwas not considered to relate specically to language
learning, but to be a more general factor and was therefore not retained.
A number of publications on SLA research (Krashen, 1981; Lightbown, 1985;
Spolsky, 1989; Nyikos and Oxford, 1993) and on methods of measuring beliefs
(Lavelle, 1993; Lee and Bobko, 1994; Stevenson and Evans, 1994) were surveyed in
order to identify major variables implicated in SLA, and methodological issues
involved in investigating beliefs. This survey resulted in a number of innovations.
Firstly, it suggested additional items related to ve of the six factors identied in the
earlier study. Secondly, it prompted the inclusion of new items focused on beliefs
about the strategies which promote language learning. Thirdly, it resulted in the
inclusion of a number of items aimed at measuring subjects' sense of self-ecacy, a
variable recently identied as contributing to language learning motivation
(Dornyei, 1994; Dickinson, 1995). Bandura (1986, cited in Lee and Bobko, 1994,
p. 364) denes perceived self-ecacy as:
. . .people's judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of
action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not
2
Due to its length, the questionnaire has not been included here. However, a copy can be obtained
from the author at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of
Wellington or via e-mail.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 499

with the skills one has but with the judgements of what one can do with what-
ever skills one possesses.

The 90-item questionnaire was divided into four parts and investigated learner
beliefs about six key variables:
1. the role of the teacher;
2. the role of feedback;
3. the learner's sense of self-ecacy;
4. important strategies;
5. dimensions of strategies-related behaviour; and
6. the nature of language learning.
Part 1 of the questionnaire contained 64 items of three dierent types: 24 standard
Likert items on a ve-point scale; eight Likert items containing four linked parts and
four items containing two linked parts. The eight items consisting of four linked
parts investigated beliefs about important strategies. They were designed to try and
distinguish between four hypothetical dimensions of strategies-related behaviour:
1. knowledge of a given strategy;
2. condence to adopt a given strategy;
3. willingness to adopt a given strategy; and
4. acceptance of responsibility for adopting a given strategy.
The four items consisting of two linked parts investigated beliefs about self-ecacy
and reected the ndings of a recent comparison of ve measures (Lee and Bobko,
1994) which suggested the superior validity of measures involving composite meas-
ures of strength and magnitude.
The second part of the questionnaire contained 21 items and required subjects to
rank six sets of beliefs (related to the six key variables being investigated in the
questionnaire) in terms of their importance. The third part of the questionnaire
contained four items and required subjects to rank descriptions of three dierent
learner types in reference to themselves and then to draw a diagram representing the
relationship between these three types. The fourth part of the questionnaire con-
tained a single item which required subjects to write a letter to a friend providing
advice on language learning.

3.2. Subjects

The subjects in the study were 131 learners of English enrolled on three dierent
English language courses oered concurrently at Victoria University of Wellington
during a 12-week period from November 1994 to February 1995. The group con-
sisted of 80 female subjects and 51 males who came from 19 dierent countries
(Appendix). Some subjects had been in New Zealand for a number of years; others
had arrived within several weeks of the administration of the questionnaire. All were
enrolled in EAP courses, and intended either to enrol at tertiary institutions in New
Zealand or to return to their home countries to use their academic English skills
500 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

within their degree courses. The questionnaire was administered by class teachers in
a one hour session during the third week of the 12-week course. Subjects received
oral instructions from their teacher about how to complete the questionnaire, and
were encouraged to seek clarication of any items they did not understand.

3.3. Data analysis

Subjects' responses were analysed descriptively by calculating percentages and

mean scores, in order to determine what trends in the data suggested about the
learners' potential for autonomous language learning behaviour. The results of this
analysis are discussed below.

3.4. Results

This section reports on learners' responses to items in Parts 1 and 2 of the ques-
tionnaire. (Learner responses to Parts 3 and 4 of the questionnaire included quali-
tative data and are not reported on in this paper.) The results are presented in
relation to the six variables which the questionnaire statements had been designed to
investigate. Responses to the Likert scale items, the two-part items and the ranked
items are presented in separate tables. In the discussion which follows, subjects'
column 1 and 2 responses (strongly agree and agree) are presented together, as are
their column 4 and 5 responses (disagree and strongly disagree). This has been done
in order to allow generalisations to be made about overall trends in subjects'
responses.

3.4.1. Role of the teacher (Items 1, 3, 7, 15, 22, 24, 29, 32, 33, 35, 74, 75, 76)
These items concern the functions and attributes of the language teacher. Table 1
shows clearly that the majority of subjects saw the teacher's role as consisting of
helping learners learn eectively (Item 3: 97.6%), discussing their progress with

Table 1
Responses to Likert Scale a role of the teacher items (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe the role of the teacher is to. . . 1 2 3 4 5

1 tell me what to do 13.0 53.8 12.3 19.2 1.5

3 help me learn eectively 52.6 45.0 1.5 0.7
7 tell me what progress I am making 32.5 51.1 11.6 4.6
15 say what my diculties are 18.6 46.5 18.6 12.4 3.8
22 create opportunities for me to practise 31.0 48.0 10.0 9.3 1.5
24 decide how long I spend on activities 1.5 24.6 23.0 36.1 14.6
29 explain why we are doing an activity 20.0 47.7 16.9 13.1 2.3
32 set my learning goals 5.4 25.4 20.1 34.6 13.8
33 give me regular tests 15.3 41.2 20.6 17.5 5.3
35 oer to help me 31.5 55.4 9.2 3.8
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 501

them (Item 7: 83.6%), oering them help (Item 35: 86.9%), creating opportunities
for them to practise (Item 22: 79%), explaining the purpose of learning activities
(Item 29: 67.7%), telling them what to do in their learning (Item 1: 66.8%), identi-
fying learners' diculties (Item 15: 65.1%) and giving learners regular tests (Item 33:
56.5%). More than half of the respondents disagreed with the idea that the teacher
should decide how long learners spend on activities (Item 24: 50.7%) and almost
half (48.4%) disagreed with the statement that learning goals should be set by the
teacher (Item 32).
Table 2 shows the subjects' rank ordering of three teacher attributes. Responses to
items 74, 75 and 76 indicate that the majority of students (58.3%) considered the
teacher's expertise at showing students how to learn more important than their
ability to teach language (31.5%), or to learn languages (11.8%).

3.4.2. Role of feedback (Items 11, 34, 65, 66, 67)

These items concern the source and functions of feedback in language learning.
Subjects' responses to Items 11 and 34 (Table 3) reected greater condence in the
teacher as a source of feedback (53.1%) than in themselves (46.6%). Approximately
a third of the population were undecided as to whether the teacher knows best what
progress the learner is making (26.9%), and more than a third were undecided about
their own ability to know how well they were learning (34.3%).
Table 4 presents learners' beliefs about the relative value of self-generated feed-
back, feedback from the teacher and feedback from others, The results show that
the majority valued teacher feedback more highly (Item 66: 63.1%) than feedback
from themselves or from others, whereas 20.1% considered feedback they gave
themselves was the most helpful (Item 65) and 16.3% believed that feedback from
others was the most helpful (Item 67).

Table 2
Responses to ranked role a of the teacher items (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe the teacher should be an expert at. . . 1 2 3

74 teaching language 31.5 48.0 20.5

75 learning languages 11.8 27.5 60.6
76 showing students how to learn 58.3 25.2 16.5
a
1, Most important; 2, next most important; 3, least important.

Table 3
Responses to Likert a items on feedback (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe that. . . 1 2 3 4 5

11 the teacher knows best how well I am learning 13.1 40.0 26.9 18.5 1.5
34 I know best how well I am learning 9.2 37.4 34.3 15.3 3.8
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.
502 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

Table 4
Responses to ranked a items on feedback (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe feedback on my language learning. . . 1 2 3

65 that I give myself helps me most 20.1 24.8 55.0

66 from the teacher helps me most 63.1 26.9 10.0
67 from other people helps me most 16.3 49.6 34.1
a
1, Most important; 2, next most important; 3, least important.

3.4.3. Sense of self-ecacy (Items 10, 21, 26, 31, 8a, 14a, 19a, 28a, 8b, 14b, 19b, 28b)
These items concern the learners' condence in their overall ability to learn a
language, as well as their ability to achieve more specic language goals. Table 5
indicates that over half of the subjects (53.8%) believed they were average at lan-
guage learning (Item 10) and 29.2% considered themselves above average (Item 26).
84.7% of the subjects believed that having their work evaluated by others was
helpful (Item 31), suggesting a reasonably robust sense of self-ecacy while 22.4%
felt apprehensive about having others evaluate their work (Item 21).
Table 6 reports responses to the self-ecacy magnitude (SEM) items. These indi-
cate that the majority of subjects believed they had the ability to learn a language
successfully (Item 8a: 87.6%), to achieve the score they were trying for in their next
test (Item 19a: 75.9%) and to nd an eective way to learn (Item 28a: 68.2%).
However, they were considerably less condent of their writing ability (Item 14a),
with 57.7% indicating that they did not believe they had the ability to write accu-
rately in English. It must be noted that reporting of group responses to these items
has the eect of masking variability in individual responses. Three individuals in the
population responded ``No'' to all four SEM items, reecting a very low sense of

Table 5
Responses to Likert Scale a self-ecacy items (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe that. . . 1 2 3 4 5

10 I am average at language learning 12.3 41.5 27.7 16.9 1.5

26 I am above average at language learning 4.6 24.6 39.2 20.7 10.7
21 having my work evaluated by others is scary 3.8 18.6 29.4 34.1 13.9
31 having my work evaluated by others is helpful 39.7 45.0 11.4 2.3 1.5
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.

Table 6
Responses to self-ecacy magnitude items (expressed as percentage of total population)

Yes No

8a Do you believe you have the ability to learn a language successfully? 87.6 12.4
14a Do you believe you have the ability to write accurately in English? 42.3 57.7
19a Do you believe you have the ability to get the score you are trying 75.9 24.0
for in your next English test?
28a Do you believe you know how to nd an eective way to learn English? 68.2 31.8
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 503

self-ecacy in relation to language learning. Clearly this kind of response warrants a

teacher's attention.
Table 7 reports the self-ecacy strength of the subjects for each item and reports
the group mean for each. The subjects' condence was highest on the general lan-
guage learning ability item (Item 8b: 6.68), and lowest on Item 14b (5.39), which
focused on their ability to write accurately in English. Subjects demonstrated a
slightly higher self-ecacy strength on Item 19bwhich concerned a very specic
learning goal (that of achieving the score they were trying for in their next test)than
on Item 28b (which concerned their ability to nd an eective way to learn English).
Item 8b could be considered to relate to Item 28b in that learners' condence in
their general ability to learn a language successfully is likely to be greater than their
condence about nding an eective means of learning a particular language, in this
case, English. Consequently, responses to Item 28b are likely to reect learners'
actual experience of learning English, with all its positive or negative connotations.

3.4.4. Important strategies (Items 2a, 6a, 9a, 12a, 16a, 18a, 20a, 36a)
These items concern knowledge of a number of strategies considered important in
successful learning, and especially for autonomous language learning. Responses to
these items (presented in Table 8) reect variable knowledge of the strategies. The
majority of the subjects reported knowing how to ask for help (Item 16a: 86.2%),
explain why they need English (Item 9a: 79.3%), identify their strengths and weak-
nesses (Item 12a: 73.3%), plan their learning (Item 20a: 67.9%), nd ways of prac-
tising (Item 2a: 67%) and set their learning goals (66.4%). However, fewer than half
of them reported knowing how to measure their progress (Item 36a: 43.5%) and
only 31.5% reported knowing how to check their work for mistakes (Item 6a).

3.4.5. Dimensions of strategies-related behaviour (Items 2abcd, 6abcd, 9abcd,

12abcd, 16abcd, 18abcd, 20abcd, 36abcd)
These items attempted to explore subjects' knowledge, condence, willingness to
adopt and acceptance of responsibility for eight language learning strategies.
Whereas Table 8 focuses on subjects' knowledge of each strategy (Item a of each set

Table 7
Responses to self-ecacy strength a items (expressed as percentage of total population)

How condent are you that you. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean

8b have the ability to learn a 1.6 1.6 4.7 3.9 11.0 13.4 29.1 19.7 14.9 6.68
language successfully?
14b have the ability to write accurately 1.6 6.3 13.4 14.2 18.1 18.9 15.7 7.8 3.9 5.39
in English?
19b have the ability to get the score 1.6 3.9 9.5 6.3 11.9 21.4 23.0 14.3 7.9 6.16
you are trying for in your next
English test?
28b know how to nd an eective 3.1 2.3 10.1 11.7 11.7 16.4 21.8 16.4 6.25 6.04
way to learn English?
a
1, Not at all condent; 9, extremely condent.
504 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

Table 8
Responses to strategies items a (expressed as percentage of total population)

I know how to. . . 1 2 3 4 5

2a nd my own ways of practising 12.9 54.1 23.6 8.4 0.7

6a check my work for mistakes 1.5 30.0 31.5 31.5 5.4
9a explain why I need English 24.4 54.9 12.2 7.6 0.7
12a identify my strengths and weaknesses 16.8 56.5 16.8 8.4 1.5
16a ask for help when I need it 23.6 62.6 6.9 6.9
18a set my own learning goals 14.5 51.9 20.6 9.9 3.0
20a plan my learning 7.6 60.3 22.1 9.9
36a measure my progress 4.6 38.9 38.9 16.8 0.7
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.

of four items), Tables 9 and 10 compare (a) learners' knowledge of each strategy,
with (b) their condence to adopt it, (c) willingness to adopt it and (d) acceptance of
responsibility for adopting it. Subjects' responses to these items revealed a pattern
which can be demonstrated by examining responses to Item 16. As Table 9 shows,
the majority of subjects believed they knew how to ask for help when they needed it
(Item 16a: 86.2%), were condent about asking for help (Item 16b: 77%), were
willing to ask for help (Item 16c: 88.4%) and accepted responsibility for asking for
help (Item 16d: 89.2%). In some cases, subjects indicated a lack of know-how con-
cerning a given strategy but their willingness to adopt it and their acceptance of
responsibility for adopting it remained comparatively high.

Table 9
Responses to Item 16dimensions of strategies-related behaviour (expressed as percentage of total
population) a

Ask for help. . . 1 2 3 4 5

16a I know how to. . . 23.6 62.6 6.8 6.8

16b I am condent about. . . 22.1 54.9 13.7 9.1
16c I am willing to. . . 35.8 52.6 8.4 3.0
16d I accept responsibility for. . . 36.9 52.3 6.9 3.1 0.7
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.

Table 10
Mean responses for dimensions of strategies-related behaviour items a

Items 2 6 9 12 16 18 20 36

(a) know how to 2.36 3.08 2.12 2.09 2.00 2.39 2.30 2.68
(b) am condent about 2.58 3.20 2.26 2.31 2.12 2.48 2.45 2.79
(c) am willing to 1.77 1.96 1.85 1.79 1.78 2.03 1.93 2.01
(d) accept responsibility for 1.76 2.15 1.91 1.76 1.77 1.99 1.74 2.00
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disagree.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 505

Table 10 presents the mean response for each of the items aimed at investigating
subjects' beliefs about the four dimensions of strategies-related behaviour. This table
enables a comparison to be made between subjects' knowledge, condence, will-
ingness to adopt and acceptance of responsibility for each of the eight strategies. It is
apparent, for example, that subjects' knowledge of how to check their work for
mistakes (Item 6a) was considerably weaker (Mean 3:08) than their knowledge of
how to identify their strengths and weaknesses as learners (Item 12a), for which the
mean score was 2.09. Table 10 also shows that subjects were most condent about
asking for help (Item 16b: Mean 2:12), and least condent about checking their
work for mistakes (Item 6b: Mean 3:2).
Given that the mean scores for Items c (willingness) and d (acceptance of respon-
sibility) in the comparisons were consistently lower (i.e. more strongly agreed with)
than the mean scores for the a (know-how) and b (condence) items, the overall
pattern appears to suggest that the subjects accepted responsibility for adopting
strategies and were willing to do so even when they lacked strategic knowledge and
condence.

3.4.6. The nature of language learning (Items 4, 5, 13, 17, 23, 25, 27, 30, 68, 69, 70)
These items concern beliefs about variables which contribute to successful lan-
guage learning. As Table 11 shows, the majority of the respondents believed that
making mistakes in language learning is normal (Item 30: 96.1%), that dierent
people learn languages in dierent ways (Item 27: 93%), that learning a language
takes a long time (Item 23: 82.4%) and that it is necessary to know language rules
before you can communicate (Item 25: 53%). The remaining four items included in
Table 11 were negatively worded versions of the same items, and were spread
throughout the questionnaire to act as a check on reliability.
Items included in Part 2 of the questionnaire sought to probe subjects' under-
standing of the nature of language learning by asking them to rank variables
believed to contribute to language learning success. As Table 12 shows, 76.7% of
respondents considered they should nd their own opportunities to use the language
(Item 69), 17.8% felt that such opportunities should be provided by the teacher

Table 11
Responses to Likert Scale a nature of language learning items (expressed as percentage of total population)

I believe that. . . 1 2 3 4 5

4 I can communicate in English without knowing the rules 3.0 14.5 25.2 45.0 12.2
25 I need to know language rules before I can communicate 10.7 42.3 14.6 26.1 6.1
in English
5 all people learn languages in the same way 0.7 3.8 7.75 41.0 46.5
27 dierent people learn languages in dierent ways 51.l 41.9 3.8 3.0
13 making mistakes is harmful in language learning 3.0 9.1 7.6 25.9 54.2
30 making mistakes is a natural part of learning 64.1 32.0 0.76 3.05
17 it is possible to learn a language in a short time 7.6 14.5 21.4 19.8 36.6
23 language learning takes a long time 43.5 38.9 9.92 6.8 0.76
a
1, Strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, undecided; 4, disagree; 5, strongly disgaree.
506 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

Table 12
Responses to ranked a nature of language learning itemsOpportunities to use the language (expressed as
percentage of total population)

I believe that. . . 1 2 3

68 opportunities to use the language should be provided by my classmates 5.4 42.6 51.9
69 I should nd my own opportunities to use the language 76.7 13.9 9.3
70 opportunities to use the language should be provided by the teacher 17.8 44.1 37.9
a
1, Most important; 2, next most important; 3, least important.

(Item 70) and 5.4% believed that classmates should provide such opportunities
(Item 68).
Table 13 presents the subjects' rankings of four variables believed to contribute to
success in language learning. The majority considered their own eorts outside the
classroom to be the most important variable (Item 77: 65.6%), while 22.6% believed
their in-class behaviour was the most important (Item 78), 13.3% believed that the
teacher's behaviour in the classroom was the most important (Item 80) and 1.6%
believed that their success depended on their classmates' behaviour (Item 79).
Table 14 presents subjects' views of the relative importance of ve variables in
their language learning success. Personal eort (Item 85) was ranked the most
important variable by just under half of the students (45.7%), practice (Item 83)
was ranked the most important by 28.9% of the subjects, opportunities to use the

Table 13
Responses to ranked a nature of language learning itemsEort (expressed as percentage of total popu-
lation)

I believe my language learning success depends on. . . 1 2 3 4

77 what I do outside the classroom 65.6 18.7 10.1 5.5

78 what I do in the classroom 22.6 52.3 23.4 1.6
79 what my classmates do in the classroom 1.6 4.0 17.6 76.8
80 what the teacher does in the classroom 13.3 26.6 48.4 11.7
a
1, Most important; 2, next most important; 3, next most important; 4, least important.

Table 14
Responses to ranked a nature of language learning itemsOverall (expressed as percentage of total
population)

. . .plays an important role in successful language learning 1 2 3 4 5

81 Feedback. . . 4.7 8.6 16.4 33.6 36.7

82 Opportunities to use the language. . . 20.3 28.9 20.3 21.1 9.4
83 Practice. . . 28.9 38.3 20.3 9.3 3.1
84 The language teacher. . . 1.5 13.9 18.6 26.3 39.5
85 My own eort. . . 45.7 15.5 21.7 7.7 9.3
a
1, Most important; 2, next most important; 3, next most important; 4, next most important; 5, least
important.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 507

language (Item 82) were ranked most important by 20.3%, feedback (Item 81) was
ranked most important by 4.7% and the teacher (Item 84) was ranked most impor-
tant by 1.5% of the population.

3.5. Discussion

It must be acknowledged that administering an English language questionnaire on

learner beliefs to a group of learners of English is problematic. It is possible that
subjects will misunderstand items or interpret them in ways other than those inten-
ded by the researcher. This constraint highlights the diculty faced by researchers
and teachers who wish to explore learner beliefs with multilingual student groups.
This diculty is compounded by the ambiguities of interpretation inherent in using
Likert Scale data. As Block (1998, p. 403) points out, not all students ``invest the
same meaning in the numbers on a 15 rating scale''. Nevertheless, the trends
obtained from this kind of analysis represent useful indicators of group norms. In
what follows, trends in the beliefs reported by this group of students will be high-
lighted and briey discussed in terms of insights they aord into the nature of
learner autonomy in language learning.

3.5.1. Role of the teacher

Certain beliefs held by the majority of students in this study are encouraging
for those who wish to promote learner autonomy. Subjects' responses to items
which investigated the role of the teacher reect their acceptance of shared respon-
sibility (with the teacher) for their learning, and their recognition of the teacher's
ability to show students how to learn as a key attribute of a language teacher. While,
for example, 79% of respondents believed that the teacher should create opportu-
nities for learners to practise (Table 1), 76.7% of them ranked their own responsi-
bility for nding opportunities to use the language ahead of that of the teacher
(Table 12). Furthermore, as Table 14 shows, subjects ranked all four other variables
(eort, practice, opportunities to use the language, feedback) ahead of the teacher in
terms of their importance for successful language learning, indicating that ultimately
they believed their language learning success depended on their own eorts.
Littlewood (1996, p. 427) considers learners' ability and willingness to make
choices independently to be ``at the core of the notion of autonomy''. These
responses provide evidence of the subjects' willingness to assume responsibility for
their learning and reect their acceptance of their role in determining their language
learning success. Following Littlewood's model of autonomy in language learning,
any intervention planned for the subjects of this study should involve a shift in focus
to the learners' ability, by enhancing their knowledge and skill.

3.5.2. Nature of language learning

It is also encouraging to notice to what extent beliefs about the nature of language
learning held by SLA researchers were also held by these learners. The majority
of these subjects agreed that making mistakes is a natural part of language learn-
ing, that dierent people learn languages in dierent ways and that language learning
508 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

takes a long time (Table 11). This kind of knowledge, one of the components
essential to autonomy, represents what Wenden (1991) refers to as task knowledge
important understanding about the nature of the endeavour in which the learners
are engaged. Furthermore, the subjects' belief that they need to know language rules
before they can communicate (see Item 25 in Table 11), may reect the demands of
the contexts in which these learners would be using English after the course (i.e. for
tertiary study), where knowledge of the rules of the language is essential for eective
communication.

3.5.3. Dimensions of beliefs about strategy use

The third main area where the data revealed evidence of autonomy-favouring
behaviour was in relation to what the subjects believed and knew about various
strategies. Subjects indicated their willingness to adopt and accept responsibility for
employing a range of key language learning strategies such as analysing needs (Item
9), setting goals (Item 18) and planning their learning (Item 20), even when they
lacked knowledge of these strategies (Table 10). This trend ran counter to the
researcher's expectation; it had been assumed that subjects would only express will-
ingness to adopt a particular strategy when they were familiar with it. This nding is
promising in that it shows these language learners to be positively disposed to gain-
ing experience of new learning strategies.

3.5.4. Autonomy-fostering strategies

The strategies singled out for investigation in this questionnaire were those which
the researcher considered particularly important in situations where learners choose
to manage their own language learning. They included examples of cognitive (e.g.
Item 2a, ``I know how to nd my own ways of practising''), social (e.g. Item 16a, ``I
know how to ask for help'') and metacognitive strategies (e.g. Item 12a, ``I know
how to identify my strengths and weaknesses as a learner''). Analysis of responses to
these items (Table 8) shows that the majority of subjects reported knowing how
to adopt six out of the eight strategies. These strategies represent important know-
ledge and behaviour for learners who wish to assume responsibility for aspects of
their language learning.

3.5.5. Monitoring and evaluating strategies

However, the two strategies in which subjects' know-how was most limited (Table
8)checking one's work and measuring progressrelate to key metacognitive
strategies in language learning: monitoring and evaluating learning. Only 31.5% of
subjects were condent that they knew how to check their work for mistakes (see
Item 6a in Table 8), only 43.5% believed they knew how to measure their progress
(see Item 36a in Table 8) and almost one third of all subjects were undecided as to
whether the teacher or they knew best how well they were learning (Table 3). Fur-
thermore, feedback was ranked most important by only 4.7% of the subjects in
terms of its contribution to language learning success (Table 14), suggesting that the
role of monitoring and evaluating one's performance may not be well understood by
learners.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 509

Research has shown that a major dierence between eective and less eective
learners is the ability to self correct (Hosenfeld, 1977; Vann and Abraham, 1990).
Evaluation is considered equally important for eective learning. Dam (1995, cited in
Wenden, 1998) refers to learners' ability to assess their progress as ``the backbone of
the learning process''. However these two metacognitive behaviours were lacking
from the repertoires of the majority of subjects in the present study. This is surprising,
given that editing and other monitoring activities are common in most language
classes. However, whatever the reason for this lack of knowledge, the implication of
learners' responses is clear: they need training in ways of monitoring and evaluating
their learning. Without training, they will be forced to depend on the teacher's (or
some other individual's) feedback on and assessment of their learning. Promisingly,
subjects' responses to parts c and d of all eight items (Table 10) suggest that they are
willing to accept responsibility for these aspects of their learning. Rubin (1998) sug-
gests that there are three major teaching interventions for developing learners' moi-
toring and evaluating strategies: raising awareness, providing practice and providing
scaolding. Such interventions oered separately or together might be appropriate
interventions for willing learners who lack knowlede of these metacognitive strategies.

3.5.6. Self-ecacy
The subjects' inability to use strategies for monitoring and evaluating ]earning was
linked to a lack of condence, identied in the items which investigated self-ecacy
(Tables 6 and 7). Responses to these items indicated that while the majority of sub-
jects expressed condence in their general ability to learn a language (Item 8a in
Table 6), most lacked condence in their ability to write accurately in English (Item
14a in Table 6), and reported less condence in their ability to evaluate their work
(Item 6b in Table 10) and measure their progress (Item 36b in Table 10) than in their
ability to adopt any of the other six strategies investigated. Inspection of individual
self-ecacy magnitude (SEM) ratings revealed that the mean SEM was relatively
low, and that a number of individuals expressed no condence at all in their ability
to learn a language.
These ndings are interesting given recent discussion of the concept of self-
ecacy. Oxford and Shearin (1994, p. 21) warn that ``. . .many L2 students do not
have an initial belief in their own self-ecacy. They feel lost in the language class.''
Autonomous language learners, on the other hand, are likely to have ``a robust sense
of self'', according to Breen and Mann (1997, p. 134), who claim:

. . .autonomous learners' relationship to themselves as learners is one which is

unlikely to be undermined by any actual or assumed negative assessments of
themselves or their work by signicant others in the teachinglearning process.
Assessment can be used by the autonomous learner as a potentially rich source
of feedback or can be discarded if it is judged to be irrelevant or unhelpful.

Providing teachers with a means of identifying and supporting individual learners

who need to develop their sense of self-ecacy before they engage in learning tasks
may lead to a crucial intervention in the language learning experience of such learners.
510 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

4. Conclusion

There is general consensus that learner beliefs represent an important area for
further investigation. Yet researchers and teachers need guidance in determining
which belief areas to investigate, which research questions to pursue and how to
make use of the ndings of existing studies in their classroom pedagogy. This study
has useful suggestions to make in each of these areas.
Analysis of the data obtained in this study has highlighted a number of belief
areas which warrant further research. In particular, future studies could target the
beliefs (and knowledge) that learners hold about the metacognitive strategies of
monitoring and evaluating their learning. Learners' beliefs about the role that feed-
back plays in language learning represent another important area for further study.
Attention could also be paid to learners' beliefs about their ability as language
learners, along with other aspects of their self-ecacy and self-esteem.
For proponents of learner autonomy, an interesting research question concerns
whether it is possible to identify prototypical beliefs about language learning asso-
ciated with autonomous learners. The writer originally attempted to answer this
question by using cluster analysis to analyse subjects' responses to the ques-
tionnaire, but found that dierent clusterings resulted each time. (The statistical
consultant associated with the project commented that the diculty of using cluster
analysis with the study data threw into question the frequent use of cluster analysis
by social scientists with multinominal (many possible responses) distribution data
on ordinal scales, such as a Likert Scale.) While cluster analysis was unable to
identify groups of learners in this study who held similar beliefs about language
learning, that is not to say that such groupings do not exist. If an appropriate
methodology can be found future research could explore whether `proles' of
learner beliefs can be identied. The goal of such research is not to assign learners
to rigid categories, but rather to further our understanding of the framework within
which language learners operate.
A second focus for future research might be further exploration of the dimensions
relating to learning strategy use which were tapped in the present study. Much of the
literature on language learning strategies involves presenting learners with lists of
strategies (Oxford et al., 1988; Nyikos and Oxford, 1993) and asking them to indi-
cate how frequently they use each of them. Yet, language learning strategy use is
only one aspect of interest. Learners' use of a given strategy is inevitably associated
with their knowledge of that strategy, their condence to adopt it, their willingness
to use it and their acceptance of responsibility for adopting it. No doubt there are
more dimensions to strategic behaviour than these four. Studies need to probe the
metacognitive knowledge on which strategic behaviour depends.
Finally, what are the implications of the present study for intervention? Teachers
need to allocate class time and attention to raising awareness of monitoring
and evaluating strategies, as well as to provide learners with opportunities to
practise using these metacognitive strategies. This might also incorporate more
general discussion of the role of feedback, monitoring and evaluation in language
learning. Teachers also need to explore learners' beliefs about their ability as
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 511

language learners and take action where they discover that learners lack condence.
This would allow teachers to acknowledge their learners' beliefs in the design of
classroom tasks and in the organisation of learning opportunities. Teachers who
have access to their learners' beliefs may choose to reinforce or to challenge certain
beliefs. In either case, they will be better equipped to engage in meaningful dialogue
about learning with their learners.
Beliefs about language learning warrant attention from both researchers and
teachers. Researchers can help us better understand the role of beliefs in individuals'
language learning experiences; teachers need to devise tasks, roles and materials
which will challenge and explore those beliefs. Riley (1996, p. 152153) claims:

What they [learners] believe will inuence their learning much, much more than
what we believe, because it is their beliefs that hold sway over their motivations,
attitudes and learning procedures. And obviously if there is a mist between
what learners believe and the beliefs embedded in the instructional structure in
which they are enrolled, there is bound to be some degree of friction or dys-
function.

This provides a strong incentive for further exploration of the role of learner
beliefs in language learning.

Appendix: Countries of origin

Country of origin Number of students

Japan 31
China 18
Thailand 17
Korea 15
Taiwan 9
Vietnam 9
Sri Lanka 7
Hong Kong 6
Indonesia 5
Russia 3
Laos 2
Malaysia 2
Somalia 1
Peru 1
Germany 1
Cambodia 1
Philippines 1
New Caledonia 1
Yugoslavia 1
512 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513

References
Bacon, S.M.C., Finnemann, M.D., 1992. Sex dierences in self-reported beliefs about foreign language
learning and authentic oral and written input. Language Learning 42 (4), 471495.
Block, D., 1998. Exploring interpretations of questionnaire items. System 26 (3), 403425.
Breen, M., Mann, S., 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun. In: Benson, P., Voller, P. (Eds.), Autonomy and
Independence in Language Learning. Longman, London, pp. 132149.
Broady, E., 1996. Learner attitudes towards self-direction. In: Broady, E., Kenning, M.M. (Eds.), Pro-
moting Learner Autonomy in University Language Teaching. CILT, London, pp. 215235.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L., 1996. Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In: Coleman, H. (Ed.),
Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169206.
Cotterall, S.M., 1995. Readiness for autonomy: investigating learner beliefs. System 23 (2), 195205.
Dickinson, L., 1995. Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23 (2), 165174.
Dornyei, Z., 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language
Journal 78 (3), 273284.
Ehrman, M.E., Oxford, R.L., 1995. Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success. Modern
Language Journal 79 (1), 6789.
Gremmo, M.J., Riley, P., 1995. Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language teaching and learn-
ing: the history of an idea. System 23 (2), 151164.
Holec, H., 1996. Self-directed learning: an alternative form of training. In: Holec, H., Little, D., Richter-
ich, R. (Eds.), Strategies in Language Learning and Use. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp. 75127.
Horwitz, E.K., 1988. The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language stu-
dents. Modern Language Journal 72, 283294.
Hosenfeld, C., 1977. A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and non-successful
language learners. System 5 (2), 110123.
Kalaja, P., 1995. Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (2), 191204.
Kern, R.G., 1995. Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals 28
(1), 7192.
Krashen, S., 1981. The fundamental pedagogical principle in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica
35 (1-2), 5070.
Lavelle, E., 1993. Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 489499.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., 1994. Self-ecacy beliefs: comparison of ve measures. Journal of Applied Psychology
79 (3), 364369.
Lightbown, P., 1985. Great expectations: second language acquisition research and classroom teaching.
Applied Linguistics 6 (2), 173189.
Littlewood, W., 1996. ``Autonomy'': an anatomy and a framework. System 24 (4), 427435.
McCargar, D.F., 1993. Teacher and student role expectations: cross-cultural dierences and implications.
Modern Language Journal 77 (2), 192207.
McDonough, S., 1995. Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. Edward Arnold, London.
Mantle-Bromley, C., 1995. Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: links to prociency. Modern Language
Journal 79 (3), 372386.
Mori, Y., 1997. Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: what do language learners believe
about their learning? A paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Chicago, March.
Nyikos, M., Oxford, R., 1993. A factor analytic study of language learning strategy use: interpretations
from information processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal 77 (1), 1122.
Oxford, R., Shearin, J., 1994. Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. The
Modern Language Journal 78 (1), 1228.
Oxford, R., Nyikos, M, Ehrman, M., 1988. ``Vive la dierence?'' Reections on sex dierences in use of
language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 21 (4), 321329.
Riley, P., 1996. ``BATs and BALLs'': Beliefs about Talk and Beliefs about Language Learning. Proceed-
ings of the International Conference AUTONOMY 2000: The Development of Learning Independence
in Language Learning, Bangkok, November, pp. 151168.
 S. Cotterall / System 27 (1999) 493513 513

Rubin, J., 1998. Techniques for Promoting Monitoring and Evaluating. Contribution to AUTO-L Elec-
tronic Discussion Forum, 14 October.
Sakui, K., Gaies, S., 1998. Investigating Japanese language learners' beliefs about language learning.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Seattle,
1417 March.
Spolsky, B., 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stevenson, J.C., Evans, G.T., 1994. Conceptualization and measurement of cognitive holding power.
Journal of Educational Measurement 31 (2), 161181.
Vann, R.J., Abraham, R.G., 1990. Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly 24 (2),
177198.
Victori, M., Lockhart, W., 1995. Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23
(2), 223234.
Wen, Q., Johnson, R.K., 1997. L2 learner variables and English achievement: a study of tertiary-level
English majors in China. Applied Linguistics 18 (1), 2748.
Wenden, A., 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look
at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7 (2), 186205.
Wenden, A., 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Prentice Hall International, Hertfordshire,
UK.
Wenden, A., 1998. Learner Training in Foreign/Second Language Learning: A Curricular Perspective for
the 21st Century (ERIC Reproduction Servces ED 416 673).