Investigating the relationship between belief and action

in self-directed language learning

Diego Navarro
*
, Katherine Thornton
Kanda University of International Studies, 1-4-1 Wakaba, Mihama-ku, Chiba 261-0014, Japan
Received 15 January 2011; accepted 25 May 2011
Abstract
Employing the principles of a contextual approach to learner belief research and applying it to a self-directed learning context at
a Japanese university, this longitudinal study investigates the complex interplay between beliefs and actions and its contribution to
the development of language learning skills. Through the triangulation of various qualitative data sources, including language
learning histories and reective accounts of students self-directed learning actions, with detailed documentation of these actions,
we demonstrate the differing belief trajectories of two learners, and the role interaction played in the emergence, appropriation and
renement of their beliefs.
In illuminating the important role that action plays in this belief development, this paper further problematises the validity of
research which depends primarily on learner belief statements and suggests that future research on beliefs would benet from in-
depth examination of behaviour. It is argued that only through centralising the role of action that researchers will be able to gain
a more precise understanding of the true nature of a learners beliefs.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Learner beliefs; Learner autonomy; Self-directed learning
1. Introduction
Contextual approaches to learner beliefs studies centralise both the learning context and learners interpretations of
their experiences within this specic context (Barcelos, 2003a), allowing researchers to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the process in which beliefs develop and change through interaction with these contexts, by
investigating not only what learners say they believe about language learning but also how they behave.
However, despite increased awareness of the role of social context in belief research (Allen, 1996; Murphey et al.,
2009; Ning, 2008) few studies have investigated the complex relationship between learners beliefs and action within
the self-directed learning context.
This study applies the contextual approach to an autonomous learning context at a Japanese university. A course
run by two learning advisors combined classroom-based instruction with periods of self-directed learning, in which
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: navarro187@gmail.com (D. Navarro), thornton.katherine@gmail.com (K. Thornton).
0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.07.002
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
System 39 (2011) 290e301
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
learners were supported by both written and spoken interaction with the advisors. The course designed to raise
learners awareness of concepts vital for effective self-directed language learning (SDLL), provided opportunities for
experiencing an approach to learning which is largely unfamiliar to East Asian learners (Littlewood, 1999).
In describing the relationship between beliefs and learner autonomy, Barcelos and Kalaja emphasise that: we have
to proceed with a detailed investigation of how these beliefs interact related to the situation, the task and with
[learners] participation in that specic situation or task (2003, p. 234). By examining the interaction of beliefs during
learners participation in personalized learning situations, this study highlights the effects of the dynamic relationship
between action and belief on the learning process. By examining the beliefs and behaviour of two Japanese learners,
we observe the different ways in which the emergence, modication, and appropriation of beliefs can be reected in
and shaped by the actions of our learners, and how in turn these beliefs shape future learning decisions.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the literature on beliefs research, namely the relationship between belief and action, the
importance of interaction and the ways in which beliefs have been investigated in self-directed learning contexts.
2.1. Beliefs and action
Early approaches to learner beliefs (Horowitz, 1988; Sakui and Gaies, 1999; Victori and Lockhart, 1995) presented
beliefs as essentially stable factors which inuence action in a cause and effect relationship. Investigating learners
beliefs was seen as an essential component to understanding and predicting how learners behave (Keim et al., 1996;
Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Rifkin, 2000).
As researchers have gained deeper understanding of the nature of beliefs and their relationship with learning
behaviour, the role of action has become a more central tenet in beliefs research. The growing recognition of the
primary importance of social context and interaction in the language learning process, represented most explicitly in
the interest in Vygotskian sociocultural theory (Lantolf and Appel, 1994), has facilitated an approach which views
learner beliefs as a dynamic, socially-situated construct. These studies, collectively referred to as the contextual
approach (Barcelos, 2003a), examine more closely the relationship between belief, action and context, and its impact
on language learning.
Researchers applying this approach propose that beliefs are not only socially-situated, that is, positions adopted or
utterances made in reaction to experiences in particular environments, but are also socially constructed, in that they are
actually shaped by the individuals interaction with their environment (Alanen, 2003; Woods, 2003). The role of action
in contextual studies is therefore cyclical; as something which itself is shaped by belief, but also contributes to belief
change.
2.2. Interaction in belief development
Sociocultural theories on the nature of learning place primary importance on interaction, specically the role of
dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981), characterizing it as a vital tool through which learning is mediated. Contextual studies into
belief development must, therefore, pay attention to the role of interaction with others (Dufva, 2003). Through
experiences and interactions with others, learners modify and restructure their beliefs (Barcelos, 2003b; White, 1999).
In this way, the contemporary understanding of beliefs presents them as a construct inseparable from action itself, and
forming the central framework within which all learning takes place (Woods, 2003, p. 202).
2.3. Contextual belief studies into self-directed learning
Two studies applying a contextual approach to the investigation of beliefs in self-directed learning have attempted
to demonstrate the processes by which action inuences the development of beliefs in the context of self-directed
learning.
White (1999) shows a shift in expectations about the nature of language self-instruction among distance learning
students but does not detail the exact processes through which these expectations changed, concentrating instead on
the nature of the learners emergent beliefs. Although the detail of Hosenfelds (2003) journal entries about her own
291 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
self-directed Spanish learning does allow for rich insights into the process through which new beliefs emerge from
experience, her numerical account of dates of emergent beliefs and the times they generated action depicts a somewhat
simplied view of beliefs, and fails to show how these emergent beliefs may then be rened through further action.
2.4. Beliefs in the development of self-directed learning skills
It is Wenden (1998, 1999) who has posited the clearest link between what she refers to as a subset of beliefs,
metacognitive knowledge, and the strategies necessary for successful self-regulation of learning.
2.4.1. Planning, monitoring and evaluating
Building on the work of Flavell (1979), on metacognition in the eld of cognitive psychology, Wenden (1986,
1998) proposed that to be able to manage their own learning successfully, learners need to be able to plan, monitor
and evaluate their learning through the use of metacognitive strategies. According to Flavell (1979), metacognitive
knowledge, consisting of knowledge about oneself as a learner (person knowledge), the language learning task (task
knowledge) and appropriate strategies to complete this task (strategic knowledge), is a prerequisite for successful
planning, monitoring and evaluating of learning.
2.4.2. Implementing action as an SDLL skill
Wenden (1998) fails, however, to pay sufcient attention to the role of action in the development of self-directed
learning skills. Through our experiences inducting Japanese students into SDLL, we have noticed that there is often
disparity between the plans learners make for their personalized learning, and the actual implementation of these
plans. We therefore recognized implementing as an area of self-regulation equally important as planning, monitoring
and evaluating and included it in our model, PIME (planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating) (Thornton,
2010). It is through observing this implementation that we, as advisors, have become increasingly aware of the nature
of the beliefs mediating our learners actions.
Studies which regard beliefs as metacognitive knowledge are usually classied under the metacognitive
approach, which focuses on learners articulations of their beliefs through open-ended questionnaires or interviews,
yet neglects the role of action (Barcelos, 2003a, p. 16). This study, with its emphasis on the role of learners context
and learning behaviour in belief development, applies the contextual approach to the investigation of metacognitive
beliefs.
3. The study
3.1. Purpose of the study
Framed within a self-directed learning context, this study uses data from two students in a class of third and fourth
years enrolled in an elective English department course at a Japanese university to answer the following research
questions:
1. How does the relationship between learner beliefs and action inuence the self-directed learning process?
2. What is the role of interaction between learners and advisors in this process?
The contextual approach which we adopt for this study allows us, through the triangulation of data, to observe the
relationship between action and belief in the learning process and understand how this relationship is perceived and
articulated by the subjects, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of our subjects behaviour and belief
development.
3.2. Context of the course
The four-month course within which this study took place adopted its principles and practice from the eld of
language learning advising and learner autonomy (Holec, 1981; Mozzon-McPherson, 2001) and was designed to raise
students awareness of and prociency in self-directed learning. It was team taught by the two researchers in our
292 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
capacity as learning advisors. This meant that we inevitably affected, through our interaction with the students, the
data collected. However, in order to minimise any negative impact of this effect, we did not conduct any data
collection or analysis until all students had completed the course. In addition, the effect of our interactions with the
learners is examined in our second research question, making its role explicit.
Class activities were designed to raise learners awareness of their language learning beliefs and introduce
the PIME skills considered central to self-directed language learning (Wenden, 1995; Hiemstra, 1994). Class
work was followed by two 3-week periods of individualised learning cycles, taking place outside of the
classroom. During these cycles students applied PIME skills to personalised learning plans, setting their own
learning goals and determining and implementing activities to achieve these goals. The experimentation and
reection required of this process, facilitated by both written and spoken interaction with the learning advisors,
was considered essential for the development of SDLL skills. The personalised dialogue between learner and
advisor was vital in making the beliefs behind actions more salient, therefore impacting subsequent learning
decisions.
3.3. Participants
Eighteen Japanese nationals, majoring in English, sixteen in their 3rd year and two in their 4th year of study,
participated in the course. There were ve males and thirteen females with an average age of twenty-one.
3.4. Instrumentation
3.4.1. Reective journal
The primary observation instrument used was a reective journal pack. Students rst set learning goals and
completed an individualised learning plan. Each week they planned and implemented self-directed learning activities,
keeping a detailed record by answering the following prompts in their journal:
1. Weekly objectives; What do you want to achieve this week?
Explain what you will do, step by step:
2. What materials will you use? Give details.
On completion of their learning activities, they were encouraged to monitor their action by completing a written
reection in their pack, guided by several further prompts:
3. Did you achieve your objectives for this week?
Do you think your activities were useful for achieving your objectives?
Why? What did you do well? Why not? What could you have done better?
4. Looking back on this weeks work, what will you continue to do next week?
What will you change?
The journal was then submitted, along with all documentation of the weeks work, for the advisors to read and
respond to, through a combination of in-text comments, questions, and a longer overall comment. This journal, by
facilitating the dialogic interaction between advisor and learner, allowed both parties to see more explicitly the
rationale behind learning decisions. In total, six weekly entries were collected from each student.
Because of the inherent difculty in observing self-directed learning outside the classroom, the learning packs,
with their emphasis on rigorous documentation, offered us insight into the nature of the interplay between beliefs and
actions of individual students. While allowing us to see and therefore gain a better understanding of what our learners
were doing, this documentation also enhanced students awareness of their learning actions, facilitating the reections
in their journals. Documentation included: vocabulary and grammar log books, photocopies of examinations, listening
scripts, audio recordings of pronunciation and speaking practice, samples of writing, and copies of selected readings.
293 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
3.4.2. Advising sessions
All students met with an advisor three times, for 15e30 min, during the two learning cycles, and recordings fromthese
sessions are part of the data set. The rst meeting, at the beginning of the rst cycle, was used to help focus the learning
plan, asking students to clarify goals, strategies, and resources. The second session, held between the two cycles, was an
opportunity for students to discuss their reactions to their experiences on the learning cycle. Finally, the third meeting was
an overall reection on the course, specically focussing on their perceptions of their performance and what they had
learned. The second and third sessions assisted students with the completion of their self-reports (see below).
3.4.3. Self-reports
Self-reports were completed at the end of each cycle. These reports provided us with important insight into our
students perceptions of their development and progress as autonomous learners. After cycle one, students wrote
a 500-word report detailing their experiences on the cycle with emphasis on the PIME skills. After the second cycle,
students wrote a 750-word reective account of what they had learned about their language learning beliefs and their
personal learning processes. Below are examples of the guidelines given to students to facilitate their reections:
3.4.3.1. Guidelines for cycle one self-report. Use the PIME (Planning, Implementing, Monitoring, Evaluating)
categories to help you write your Post-Cycle Reection (500 words). Report on your experience on the independent
learning cycle, and reasons why you think you were successful or unsuccessful. What was enjoyable/what was
challenging about working independently? Use specic examples from your own learning cycle (use your reective
journal to help you).
3.4.3.2. Guidelines for cycle two nal report. Your report should be 750 words (/10%). It should be an analytical,
reective account of what you have learned about your own beliefs about language learning and your personal
learning processes, with reference to the activities youve completed on the course and your experiences during the
learning cycles. Do not simply describe what you did, but be critical of yourself.
3.4.4. Data enrichment instruments
Finally, a variety of tools, consisting of open-ended and closed-item questionnaires addressing language learning
beliefs, a language learning metaphor activity, and language learning histories were employed to enrich our under-
standing of individual students language learning contexts. The closed-item questionnaire, adapted from Sakui and
Gaies (1999), introduced the idea of learner beliefs and their effect on language learning. The open-ended ques-
tionnaire and the metaphor activity, both adapted from Wenden (1986), gave students the opportunity to express their
own personal beliefs rather than responding to prescribed ideas that may hold little importance for them, a common
complaint about closed-item questionnaires (Barcelos, 2003a,b; Block, 1998). These instruments (see Appendix A)
and the discussions they generated helped prepare the students to write their language learning histories. The language
learning histories provided insight into learners previous learning experiences and how they evaluated those expe-
riences. Below are examples of prompts included in the guidelines for the language learning histories:
What has motivated you to learn English?
What positive/negative experiences have you had learning English? How did you overcome them?
What has been the role of teachers/family/friends throughout your language learning experience?
What role do you think your personality has played in your language learning?
By explicitly focussing on the relationship between beliefs and behaviour throughout the rst weeks of the course,
we tried to prepare our students for the cycles, encouraging them to reect critically on their actions and choices.
3.5. Data analysis
Firstly, the data from the students was divided between the two researchers to get a general impression of how
beliefs and action were interacting and affecting one another. After a general categorisation of statements of belief
and action, specic episodes of belief modication were identied, and traced through the learning cycles. The data
was then exchanged, ensuring that both researchers examined all of the students. At this stage, several cases with
294 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
signicant belief modications were chosen. Statements of action from these cases were then triangulated with the
documentation provided, and the role of peer and advisor interaction was also investigated, by examining the written
discourse in the journals and the content of the advising sessions. In this way, the roles of both action and interaction
were extrapolated from the data. In light of this analysis, two information rich cases (Patton, 1990); useful in
illuminating how the interplay between beliefs and actions can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the devel-
opment of SDLL skills and the role of interaction in belief development, were selected. This case study selection
represents an intensity sample (Patton, 1990).
4. Findings
In this section we address each of the research questions in turn, using data from the two cases, Kimiko and Risa.
All interactions were conducted in English. Citations from students have been kept in their original form.
4.1. The interplay between belief and action in belief development
Despite having attended high school English classes with an emphasis on communication, Kimiko still felt she
lacked uency in speaking, and decided to focus on improving conversation skills during the learning cycles. She
chose to do this by visiting the university speaking practice centre several times a week. In her nal advising session,
Kimiko explained her choice, citing a belief about how best to improve speaking: I notice speaking needs speaking.
She also admits being inuenced by one of her teachers who encouraged students: you shouldnt care about
pronounce; you have to speak. Given the well-established role that both previous experiences and teachers can play in
learner belief development (Barcelos, 2003a,b; Pajares, 1992), it is easy to see how these factors inuenced Kimikos
belief, resulting in her choice of practice as a strategy to improve speaking.
Through comparing the relative success of a number of visits to the conversation practice centre in her rst weekly
reection, this belief was modied. Kimiko began to see not only practice, but focused practice, in the form of
choosing topics, as the best way to improve her speaking.
I could speak more smoothly than before. I think it was because of setting speaking theme. (Reective
journal: Learning cycle 1, Week 1)
This belief became the organizing principle for her actions throughout the learning cycles. Although this belief
originally emerged from interpretation of her own actions in her reective journal, it was reinforced the following
week through positive perceptions of speaking using a topic. Guskey (1986) highlights the role a successful expe-
rience with new or unfamiliar practice can play in modifying beliefs; in this case, Kimikos successful experiences at
the practice centre, have reinforced an emergent belief.
The inuence of action on beliefs is witnessed not only in the reinforcement, but also renement of this belief. In
Week 3, after several further practice conversations, Kimiko modied the topic belief to include an understanding of
the importance of shared interest with her interlocutor:
I noticed that I can speak everyone if I think about topic.[.], I think its good to ask hobby or favourite, and
if I also like it, I could have a lively conversation. (Self-report: Learning cycle 1)
In this way, Kimikos own interpretations of her chosen action, speaking practice, not only promote the emergence
of a new belief in focused practice through topics, but through perceived success this belief is then reinforced and
further rened. It is only through careful examination of a variety of data sources, that we are able to observe the nature
of Kimikos belief trajectory, showing the complex interplay between belief and action.
4.2. The role of interaction in belief development
When applying a contextual approach to belief investigation, which foregrounds learners interactions with people
and their environment, examination of these interactions, and learners own perceptions of these experiences becomes
an integral part of the research (Barcelos, 2000). In this study, this interaction took place predominantly between the
students and learning advisors. We were interested in investigating how these interactions inuenced the development
of the students beliefs.
295 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
4.2.1. The role of interaction in renement of existing belief
Having developed and rened her belief about planning topics in the rst cycle, interaction with her advisor, in the
form of written questioning (Kelly, 1996), prompted Kimiko to further rene this belief, to include a perception that
she should choose topics directly related to her own needs:
Advisor:
What kind of speaking do you want to improve ewhat topics do you want/need to talk about? Where can you
nd the vocabulary to help you talk about those topics?
Kimiko:
I want to talk about JAPAN, especially culture. Also I need to know how foreigners feel about Japan.
(Reective journal: Learning cycle 2, Week 1). (original emphasis)
Planning according to ones own needs was a key element of self-directed learning that we encouraged students to
incorporate into their learning. Although Kimiko was in fact already choosing topics related to her interests, the
advisors comments moved her to consider interests related to her future needs (her desire to work with foreigners),
and guided her to nd vocabulary related to these needs. Evidence of incorporation of this belief can be seen in her
action, the use of a vocabulary book to prepare her topic the following week, and the use of this terminology about
future needs in her nal self-report:
I noticed I had to think what my needs are when I started Learning Cycle 2.
While Kimiko had made some previous renements to her topic belief and behaviour based on her own
reections, in this case written interaction with her advisor directly inuenced her subsequent learning behaviour.
The perceived success of this action led Kimiko to incorporate this belief about her needs into her topic belief
structure.
4.2.2. Interaction and belief appropriation
If one acknowledges the important inuence of others on ones own interpretations of events and actions, such
beliefs, rather than being seen as emerging organically, may be more accurately conceptualised as being
appropriated from others (Alanen, 2003; Dufva, 2003). This process, however, is rarely straightforward. The
following case, Risa, illustrates the problems encountered when new information, meant to challenge existing
belief structures, was introduced to students, and the role interaction with learning advisors and peers played in
this process.
Risa is a third year English major, who has followed a traditional Japanese education, with a focus on memorisation
of vocabulary and grammar. In her learning cycles, she chose to work on her reading skills for the TOEIC test.
Through the two cycles, Risas belief about how to study for this exam evolved from a focus on pure vocabulary study
to one which incorporated a focus on developing specic reading strategies.
Before the cycles started, the advisors introduced all students to the idea of balancing their learning activities using
a framework of Study, Use and Review (SUR). Risas plan and documentation for the rst two weeks of the rst cycle
focused solely on vocabulary study, reecting a common belief about the importance of vocabulary input among
Japanese students who have to cram for university entrance examinations (Gorsuch, 1998; Hino, 1988). As her actions
showed an apparent lack of SUR balance, her advisor, in written feedback in her reective journal, attempted to
prompt her into realising this:
Advisor:
You did a good job of studying and reviewing last week. How are you going to USE the new words you
studied? (Remember: balancing what you study (test, vocabulary) with review and USE is very important to
succeed in independent learning.)
Risa:
I will use new words through solving tests of vocab books /use. Before doing this, I will reconrm the
words /review. (Reective journal: Learning cycle 1, Week 1)
296 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
The Use and Review activities that Risa describes are regarded by the advisor as more suitable for the Study
element of her learning, so the following week the advisor again challenges Risa to redress this balance to incorporate
more Use and Review activities. Her response suggests she believes that she is already doing so and has not truly
grasped the SUR model as intended by the advisor.
Solving the tests at the end of the vocab book can be use. Remembering the words to solve tests, I guess it
can be review. (Reective journal: Learning cycle 1, Week 2)
Risa has appropriated the SUR terminology from the advisor, but the modality of her discourse suggests that she is
unsure about these terms and, at this stage, is using them to justify existing learning behaviour, a phenomenon about
which Kalaja warns (2003). As such her comments should not be regarded as evidence that these concepts have been
understood as the advisors intended. Alanen distinguishes between content items of knowledge, which may be
acquired from others but are not appropriated to the level that they become psychological tools which mediate
behaviour, and fully-appropriated beliefs (2003, p. 62). Risas discourse suggests that the idea of balancing SUR
activities was, at this stage, only a content item of knowledge that she was mapping onto a well-established existing
belief structure about the importance of vocabulary study for reading. This serves as further evidence that beliefs that
have been established early on in ones learning experiences are not only difcult to alter but also affect the processing
of new information (Pajares, 1992).
In marked contrast to her rst cycle, Risa successfully incorporated all aspects of SUR into her work during the
second learning cycle. This is evidenced in her initial learning plan for this cycle, in which she organised her activities
into Study, Use and Review, the increase in reading (Use) activities, supported by documentation, and her reections.
At the end of the second cycle she describes howshe actively planned Study, Use and Reviewactivities with a focus on
developing reading strategies:
In cycle two I decided how to study use and review when I make my plan at the beginning of every week and
I could carry them out. I monitored my study at the end of each week and checked that my study, use, review
balance is always good. (Self-report: Learning cycle 1)
These comments and documentation of her action from the second cycle suggest she had now fully-appropriated
the belief of activity balance, and was using it to mediate her actions.
The catalyst for this change seems to have come from several events which took place between the two cycles. The
rst was her relatively low grade and written advisor assessment of her performance in the rst cycle. It is perhaps
unsurprising that input from an advisor on a grade sheet was more salient than comments made in the journal, given
the power of graded assessment (Kern, 1995).
The second event was the face-to-face session with the advisor after the rst cycle, in which she was
encouraged to engage in more reading activities (Use) and introduced to some of the strategies to do this
(skimming, scanning). This was an explicit challenge to her existing beliefs about how to improve her exam
reading skills. These two events may have been all the more inuential given the authority of Risas interlocutor,
her advisor (Dufva, 2003). Her interaction with the advisors, both written and face-to-face, was instrumental in
initiating this appropriation of belief, which was then reinforced by the perceived success of her learning actions
throughout the second cycle.
In both these cases, interaction with the learning advisor encouraged the students to reinterpret their original
actions, leading to a change in belief. Woods (2003) situates this interpretation and evaluation of actions as a central
tenet in understanding belief development. Through both written and spoken interaction with a learning advisor, this
process is made explicit. The learners are able to see aspects of their learning from new perspectives, re-interpreting
their actions in a way which impacts their learning beliefs and hence their future behaviour. In this way, the interaction
between learner and advisor acts as a scaffold, facilitating the reection process essential to successful monitoring of
learning behaviour (Mynard and Navarro, 2010).
Although it is beyond the scope of this study to determine whether their actions have resulted in the development of
beliefs which will continue to mediate behaviour after the course, data from both students nal self-reports suggests
that they believe this to be the case:
297 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
Risa:
In order to be a professional English user, I must be a good English learner. That is why I will continue to
study, use and review which is balanced well.
Kimiko:
The best thing I could know was about topic. When I went to the Practice Centre rst, my topic was music.
This topic was common and easy to talk with, but I did not concern my needs.[.] I understood how important
to have obvious topic when we have conversation, and topic should be our needs.
5. Discussion: Belief, action and the development of SDLL skills
The variety of instruments used in this study, in particular the triangulation of the reective journals with the actual
documentation of learning behaviour, has allowed us to gain an understanding of belief development that learners
statements or journal entries alone would not have provided. Although previous studies (Borg, 2003) have pointed out
that contextual constraints may prevent learners from acting according to their beliefs, these constraints are, to
a certain extent, absent from a self-directed learning context where learners have more control over their choice of
learning actions. In such contexts behaviour may be regarded as the most reliable indicator of belief, especially if it
can be understood in light of the learners previous experiences and current context. In fact this triangulation of
statement with action and context has provided further evidence for the stance taken by many who adopt contextual
approaches to beliefs research, namely that statement alone is not only insufcient, but may be misleading (Kalaja,
2003; Kane et al., 2002).
While Risas initial use of SUR terminology may have suggested that she had appropriated these beliefs about
organising her learning actions, her behaviour and documentation showed that she was actually focussing purely on
vocabulary study activities, suggesting a belief about the primary importance of Study over Use.
In Kimikos case, despite her apparent enthusiastic adoption of the belief about planning topics according to her
needs, her actions reveal that the actual implementation of this belief was problematic. Although declaring her
needs to be vocabulary related to Japanese culture and tourism, her documentation shows that she spent time
learning collocations related to public transport.
Although these learners appropriate the terminology of self-direction, their actions reveal the limits of their
understanding of these concepts. In this way, it can be seen that although beliefs related to what Wenden (1998) calls
strategic knowledge, organising learning according to needs or balancing activities, have emerged from and been
rened through action and interaction, these learners personal understanding of the task itself, i.e. what kind of
vocabulary relates to specic needs, or what constitutes effective Study, Use and Review activities for reading tests,
(task knowledge), still requires further development. This supports Wendens (1995, p. 192) assertion about the
actualisation of autonomy in learners, which, she asserts, greatly depends on their ability to acquire the software i.e.
the practical skills, for individualised learning.
6. Conclusion
This study, through its examination of different belief trajectories experienced by two Japanese learners, illus-
trates how the relationship between belief and action can affect belief development and the acquisition of SDLL
skills. Furthermore, by highlighting the way in which interaction with instructors, in this case written and spoken
interaction with learning advisors, can facilitate this process, this study reveals the complexity of this relationship
and the learning context. Both Kimiko and Risas decision-making suggests that they are applying beliefs developed
over the course to mediate new learning behaviour. While this investigation has focused on learners in a self-
directed learning context, we suggest that examining this relationship is integral to the understanding of any
language learning behaviour.
Although the fact that we, the researchers, were also teaching the course will have affected our objectivity in
approaching the data, the subjectivity we brought to the study provided us with an important entry into the data
298 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
(Bogdan and Bilken, 1982), creating a close relationship with the students which offers an advantage for a study in
which personal context plays a pivotal role.
While this study was longitudinal, observing participants over four months, we were unable to determine whether
newly developed beliefs continued to govern learning actions after the course. As we have shown statement alone to be
problematic in understanding beliefs, further research into the relationship between belief and action should attempt to
clarify this question through follow-up observations.
Another limitation was that all data collection was conducted in the learners L2, English. This is likely to have
affected students interpretations of the questionnaire items, and their ability to express themselves in journals and
advising sessions. However, thanks to the rigorous documentation process, we were able to interpret learners
statements in light of their actual behaviour, resulting in a more nuanced understanding than statement alone could
provide. In light of these ndings, we suggest that researchers conducting future investigations into beliefs should
attempt to triangulate data from statements with detailed observation of behaviour.
Appendix A. Data enrichment instruments.
Closed-item questionnaire, adapted from Sakui and Gaies (1999).
Item Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
4 3 2 1
1. I study English because it is useful to communicate
with English-speaking people
2. Listening to CDs and watching English TV or
DVDs are very important in learning English
3. It is necessary to know about English-speaking
countries in order to speak English
4. If I learn to speak English very well, it will
help me get a good job
5. Its O.K. to guess if you dont know a word
in English
6. Learning English is mostly a matter of translating
from Japanese to English
7. Learning English is mostly a matter of learning
grammar rules
8. In English classes, I prefer to have my teacher
provide explanations in Japanese
9. In learning English it is important to repeat a lot
10. Girls are better than boys at learning English
11. It is easier to learn a language when you are young
12. Learning English is different from learning
other subjects
13. Some people are born with a special ability which
is useful for learning English
14. You shouldnt say anything in English until you
can say it correctly
15. I avoid difcult things when I am studying
16. I make mistakes because I do not study enough
17. I can check my own progress
18. To learn successfully you need good teacher
19. I want my teacher to correct my mistakes
20. I am good at setting my own goals
21. I like to ask the teacher for help
22. I like studying alone
23. I am satised with the English education
I am receiving at KUIS
299 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
References
Alanen, R., 2003. A sociocultural approach to young language learners beliefs about language learning. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.),
Beliefs About SLA: New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 55e85.
Allen, L., 1996. The evolution of a learners beliefs about language learning. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies 13, 67e80.
Bakhtin, M.M., 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, Austin.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2000. Understanding Teachers and Students Language Learning Beliefs in Experience: A Deweyan Approach. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2003a. Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New
Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7e33.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2003b. Teachers and Students beliefs within a Deweyan framework: conict and inuence. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F.
(Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 171e199.
Barcelos, A.M.F., Kalaja, P., 2003. Conclusion: Exploring possibilities for future research on beliefs about SLA. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F.
(Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 231e240.
Open-ended questionnaire, adapted from Wenden (1986).
300 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301
Block, D., 1998. Exploring interpretations of questionnaire items. System 26, 403e425.
Bogdan, R., Bilken, S., 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Borg, S., 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language
Teaching 36, 81e109.
Dufva, H., 2003. Beliefs in dialogue: a Bakhtinian view. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New Research Approaches.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 131e152.
Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34,
906e911.
Gorsuch, G.J., 1998. Yakudoko EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms. JALT Journal 20 (1), 6e32.
Guskey, T.R., 1986. Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher 75 (5), 5e12.
Hiemstra, R., 1994. Selfedirected learning. In: Husen, T., Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education. Pergamon,
Oxford, pp. 1e11.
Hino, N., 1988. Yakudoku: Japans dominant tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal 10, 45e55.
Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon, Oxford.
Horowitz, E.K., 1988. The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign students. The Modern Language Journal 72 (3),
283e294.
Hosenfeld, C., 2003. Evidence of emergent beliefs of a second language learners beliefs about language learning. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F.
(Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 37e54.
Kalaja, P., 2003. Research on students beliefs about SLAwithin a discursive approach. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs About SLA:
New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 37e54.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., Heath, C., 2002. Telling half the story: a critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university
academics. Review of Educational Research 72 (2), 177e228.
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. The Japan Association of College English Teachers 27, 87e106.
Kelly, R., 1996. Language counselling for learner autonomy. In: Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L., Or, W.W.F., Pierson, H.D. (Eds.), Taking Control:
Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 93e113.
Kern, R.G., 1995. Students and teachers beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals 28 (1), 71e92.
Lantolf, J., Appel, G., 1994. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Ablex, Norwood.
Littlewood, W., 1999. Dening and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 71e94.
Mantle-Bromley, C., 1995. Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: links to prociency. The Modern Language Journal 79 (3), 372e386.
Mozzon-McPherson, M., 2001. Language advising: towards a new discursive world. In: Mozzon-McPherson, M., Vismans, R., Vismans (Eds.),
Beyond Language Teaching Towards Language Advising. CILT, London, pp. 7e22.
Mynard, J., Navarro, D., 2010. Dialogue in selfeaccess learning. In: Stoke, A.M. (Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings Tokyo.
Murphey, T., Falout, J., Elwood, J., Hood, M., 2009. Inviting student voice. Asian EFL Journal 36, 1e25.
Ning, Z., 2008. Metaphorical analysis of two Chinese students learner beliefs on English learning. USeChina Foreign Language 6 (11), 41e51.
Pajares, M.F., 1992. Teachers beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62 (3), 307e332.
Patton, Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Rifkin, B., 2000. Revisiting beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals 33 (4), 394e408.
Sakui, K., Gaies, S., 1999. Investigating Japanese learners beliefs about language learning. System 27, 473e492.
Thornton, K., 2010. Supporting self-directed learning: a framework for teachers in. Language Education in Asia 1, 158e170.
Victori, M., Lockhart, W., 1995. Enhancing metacognition in selfedirected language learning. System 23, 223e234.
Wenden, A., 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied
Linguistics 7, 186e205.
Wenden, A., 1995. Learner training in context: a knowledgeebased approach. System 23, 183e194.
Wenden, A., 1998. Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19, 515e537.
Wenden, A., 1999. An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: beyond the basics. System 27, 435e441.
White, C., 1999. Expectations and emergent beliefs of selfeinstructed language learners. System 27, 443e457.
Woods, D., 2003. The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs About SLA: New
Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 201e229.
301 D. Navarro, K. Thornton /
System 39 (2011) 290e301