BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY USE IN AN EFL CONTEXT : A COMPARISON STUDY OFMONOLINGUAL KOREAN AND BILINGUAL KOREAN-CHINESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구의 목적은 단일 언어(Monolingual) 구사자인 한국 대학생과 이중언어(Bilingual) 구사자인 중국 조선족 대학생의 영어 학습에 대한 소신(Beliefs) 과 영어학습 전략(Language learning strategies)의 사용을 비교 분석하는데 있다. 또한 본 연구에서는 한국 대학생과 중국 조선족 대학생 학습자의 성별(Gender), 자가진단 영어 능숙도(Self-rated English proficiency), 전공(Academic major)이 그들의 영어 학습 소신과 전략 사용에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가를 비교 분석하였다. 본 연구를 위하여 428명의 한국대학생과 420명의 중국 조선족 대학생에게 설문지를 배포하여 실증 분석하였다. 본 연구를 위하여 영어 학습에 대한 소신 목록(Beliefs about Language Learning: BALLI, Horwitz, 1987), 영어학습 전략 목록(Strategy Inventory for Language Learning: SILL, Oxford, 1990), 개인 신상 설문지 (Background Information Questionnaire, Hong, 2005)를 이용하여 자료를 수집하였으며, 기술 통계(Descriptive statistics), 주성분분석(Principal-component Analysis), 요인 분석 (Factor Analysis), Pearson 상관분석(Pearson r correlation), 다변량분산분석(Multivariate Analysis of Variance: MANOVA), 사후다중비교(Scheffe post hoc test) 등 통계기법을 통하여 자료를 분석하였다. 본 연구분석 결과에서는 단일 언어 구사자인 한국 대학생과 이중언어 구사자인 중국 조선족 대학생의 영어 학습에 대한 소신 (Beliefs) 과 영어학습 전략(Language learning strategies)에 중요한 차이점이 있음을 나타났다. 단일언어 구사자인 한국대학생들은 보상전략(Compensation strategies)을 가장 많이 사용하였으며, 인지 전략(Cognitive strategies), 메타인지 전략(Metacognitive strategies), 암기 전략 (Memory strategies), 사회적/ 실용적 연습 전략 (Social and practical practice strategies), 감정전략(Affective strategies) 순으로 많이 사용 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이중언어 구사자인 중국 조선족 대학생들은 인지전략(Cognitive strategies), 메타인지 및 감정 전략(Metacognitive and affective strategies), 보충전략(Compensation strategies), 암기 전략(Memory strategies), 사회적 전략(Social strategies), 독립적인 연습 전략(Independent practice strategies) 순으로 많이 사용하는 것으로 보고 되었다. 연변지역 공립학교의 열악한 영어 학습 환경과 조선족 대학생들의 짧은 정규 영어 학습 기간에도 불구하고 이중언어 구사자인 중국 조선족 대학생들이 더 높은 영어 학습 전략 사용을 보여주었다. 한국 대학생과 중국 조선족 대학생 모두 영어학습을 하는데 강한 도구적 동기(Instrumental motivation)을 가지고 있으며, 조선족 대학생들은 정규 영어 학습(Formal learning)의 중요성에 대한 강한 소신을 가지고 있으며, 중국 조선족 대학생들은 한국 대학생들보다 원어민과 대화하는데 있어서 덜 두려워하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 학습자의 영어학습에 관한 소신과 영어 학습전략 변수들과의 밀접한 상호 관계(Correlations)는 영어학습소신이 영어학습전략에 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여주었음을 의미한다. 학습자의 성별(Gender) 비교분석에서는 한국 대학생과 중국 조선족 대학생 모두 영어 학습에 관한 소신이나 학습전략 사용에 성별은 영향을 미치지 않는 반면 영어 능숙(Self-rated English proficiency)은 영어 학습에 관한 소신과 학습전략에 긍정적인 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여주었다. 단일언어 구사자와 이중언어 구사자의 전공별 비교분석에서는 이중언어구사자인 중국 조선족 인문대학과 공대 전공 학생들이 더 많은 전략을 사용하였고 정규영어학습의 중요성에 강한 소신을 가지고 있었다. 마지막으로 본 연구에서는 한국과 중국 연변지역의 지역적, 사회교육적 교육 환경 차이점에서 기인하는 한국 대학생과 중국 조선족 대학생들의 서로 다른 학습경험이 그들의 영어학습에 관한 소신과 영어학습의 전략 사용에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The current study was the first research attempt to investigate what monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese university students believe about learning languages and what kind of language-learning strategies they use. This study has presented empirical evidence reflecting the interaction between learners’ beliefs about language learning and their selfreported use of learning strategies. Additionally, evidence of the relative influence of individual background variables (e.g., gender, academic major, and self-rated proficiency) on the frequency of strategy use and learners’ beliefs about language learning has been also provided. Several conclusions from the findings are discussed in the following section.
First, monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese EFL students employed a variety of language-learning strategies when learning English and reported similarities and differences in strategy use. Although the context for formal English education in the Yanbian Autonomous Prefecture (Korean-Chinese community) appears to be less favorable than that in Korea, bilingual Korean-Chinese students showed higher use of learning strategies than did monolingual Korean students, evidence of bilinguals’ greater potential ability to learn a new language or superior language learning abilities as previous studies presented (Nation ＆ McLaughlin, 1986; Nayiak, et al., 1990; Thomas, 1988). At this point, although evidence of English proficiency (measured by standardized tests) of two groups is not available, higher selfreported proficiency of bilinguals was reported, which appear to support some evident of the assumption of bilingual superior ability to learn a new language.
In addition, a comparison of the findings of previous studies revealed several similarities as well as some interesting differences in the responses to the SILL items between beliefs about language learning of the participants of the current study and those of ESL learners (Chang, 1990; Phillips, 1991; Osanai, 2000), FL learners (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Wharton, 2000), EFL learners (Al-Otabi, 2004; Bremner, 1998; Chang, 2003; Chou, 2002; Mullins, 1992; Nisbet, 2002; Wang, 1996; Yang, 1999), and other Korean learners (Kim, 2001; Lee, 1998; Park, 1997).
Second, the current study reported monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese students reported holding various opinions about language learning. For instance, students from both groups held strong instrumental motivation for learning English, possibly, because of selfimposed or other-imposed pressures at home, students were motivated to learn English for academic purposes and better job opportunities more so than rather than the purpose of social interaction. This study found that not only learning context influenced beliefs of the students in this study but also societal trends in language learning regarding the advantages of English fluency.
The difference in language use in daily life in two countries was also a factor that made differences in strategy use as well as beliefs of the students. For example, some degree of fluency in two languages (Korean and Chinese) for Korean-Chinese students is necessary for survival reasons in the community. Dual language acquisition at an early age is encouraged at all social, educational, and economic levels in the Korean-Chinese community. This may influence opinions of Korean-Chinese students concerning language learning. In addition, Horwitz’s (1987) argument for the significance of previous learning experiences on language learners’ is applicable here. The difference in learning experiences of the participants from different socioeducational learning setting between the two countries could likely have been one of the factors that affected beliefs of the students in the current study. In addition, the sacrifice that many students have made to come to America to study English and continue their education would leave no doubt as to the seriousness of these language learners’ desire to learn English.
Furthermore, the participant in this study held not only similar but also different beliefs concerning language learning from those of American foreign language learners (Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995; Oh, 1996), ESL university students (Horwitz, 1987; Siebert, 2003), Taiwanese EFL university students (Yang, 1992), Korean EFL university students (Park, 1995; Truitt, 1995; Kim-Yoon, 2000), Turkish EFL university students (Kunt, 1997), and Lebanese EFL university students (Diab, 2000). Some of contrasting findings across the studies with learners in various learning and cultural contexts may support the argument that learners’ beliefs influenced by the different language learning contexts (ESL, EFL, or FL), educational or cultural background, and stages of language learning.
Third, significant correlation between learners’ beliefs concerning language learning and their use of learning a strategy indicates that learners’ beliefs about language learning seem to relate to their use of learning strategies in parallel and inverse ways, all of which, however, are logical relationships. Beliefs of students from both groups concerning self-efficacy and confidence in learning English significantly correlated to most learning strategies. This indicates that the higher students’ feelings of efficacy and confidence in learning English, the higher the frequency of strategy use as well as a variety of strategy use. This is likely a reciprocal relationship, meaning that as ability grows, so does confidence and vice versa. Beliefs of monolinguals about motivation for and the nature of learning English were also significantly associated with their use of compensation strategies, while those of bilinguals had significant correlation with cognitive strategies. In addition, some beliefs of students in the present study also negatively affected the use of learning strategies, indicating that in some cases students’ beliefs may restrict the use of learning strategies (e.g., learners with strong beliefs in importance of formal learning are more likely not use social strategies). However, caution is needed when interpreting the relationship between learners’ beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies. Similar to findings reported in Yang (1992), a reciprocal correlation between learner’s beliefs and strategy use might exist instead of a causal relationship between them. In other words, it is possible that learners’ beliefs may cause their use of strategies, and that learners’ use of strategies may lead their use of learning strategies.
Finally, the findings of the current study have served as a useful reminder that not only learners’ beliefs about language learning affect the use of learning strategies, but also individual background variables (e.g., academic major and self-rated English proficiency) influence frequency of use and choice of strategy and beliefs about language learning.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• TABLE OF CONTENTS = ⅳ
• LIST OF TABLES = ⅷ
• CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION = 1
• Beliefs and Strategy use of Monolingual versus Bilingual Students = 2
• Statement of the Problem = 3
• Purpose of the Study = 5
• Questions of the Study = 6
• Context of the Study = 6
• Monolingual Koreans Living in Korea = 7
• Bilingual Korean-Chinese Groups in China = 9
• Significance of the Study = 13
• Limitations of the Study = 14
• Definition of Terms = 15
• Summary = 17
• CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW = 19
• Introduction = 19
• Language-Learning Strategies = 19
• "Good" Language Learners Studies = 20
• Definitions of Language-Learning Strategies = 24
• Classifications of Language-Learning Strategies = 26
• Research on Variables Influencing the Use of Language-Learning strategies = 32
• Beliefs about Language Learning = 45
• The Development of the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) = 45
• Studies on Beliefs in an ESL Context = 47
• Studies on Beliefs in an EFL Context = 48
• Studies on Beliefs in a FL Context = 49
• Studies on Beliefs in Korean Context = 50
• Cross-Cultural Studies on Beliefs = 52
• Studies of Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs About Language Learning = 54
• Studies on Investigating Relationship Between Beliefs and Strategy Use = 55
• Studies on the Comparison of Monolinguals and Bilinguals in Language Learning = 58
• Summary = 64
• CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY = 67
• Introduction = 67
• Research Design = 68
• Instruments = 68
• Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) = 69
• Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) = 71
• Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ) = 73
• Pilot Study = 74
• Participants = 75
• Monolingual Students in Korea = 75
• Bilingual Students in China = 76
• Demographic Information about the Participants = 78
• Data Collection = 81
• Data Analysis = 82
• Brief Overview of Quantitative Data Analyses = 82
• Qualitative Data = 84
• Summary = 85
• CHAPTER 4 RESULTS = 86
• Introduction = 86
• Research Question 1 = 86
• Descriptive Analyses of the SILL = 87
• Factor Analyses of the SILL = 100
• Research Question 2 = 112
• Descriptive Analyses of BALLI = 112
• Factor Analyses of BALLI = 120
• Research Question 3 = 128
• Pearson r Correlation Analyses = 128
• Research Question 4 = 132
• Overall Strategy Use by Other Variables = 132
• Multivariate Analysis of Variance = 138
• Qualitative Analysis = 143
• Analysis of Open-ended Questions from the SILL = 143
• Analysis of Open-ended Questions from the BALLI = 144
• CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS = 149
• Discussion = 149
• Research Question 1 = 150
• Research Question 2 = 161
• Research Question 3 = 169
• Research Question 4 = 173
• Conclusions = 182
• Implications = 186
• Recommendations for Future Research = 189
• APPENDIX A STRATEGIES INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING = 192
• REFERENCES = 276