• 検索結果がありません。

Leaners' Beliefs and Learning Strategies Regarding Chinese as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language at Shanghai Japanese High School

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

シェア "Leaners' Beliefs and Learning Strategies Regarding Chinese as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language at Shanghai Japanese High School"

Copied!
22
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

52

Learners’ Beliefs and Learning Strategies Regarding Chinese as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language at Shanghai Japanese High School

SEKITANI Koki

Hiroshima Jogakuin University

要旨 上海日本人学校高等部の生徒にとって、中国語は第二言語、英語は外国語である。本研 究は、彼らが中国語と英語に対して持つ学習ビリーフ、及び中国語と英語に対して使用す る学習方略を比較し、英語に対する学習方略の使用に影響を与える要因を検討した。104 名の生徒に対して質問紙調査を行い、中国での滞在月数に加え、学習ビリーフの3因子、 「コミュニカティブな現代志向」「伝統志向」「外国語学習の適性と難しさ」と、学習方 略の5因子、「記憶・認知」「補償」「メタ認知」「情意」「社会」に関して、それぞれ 英語と中国語に対して尋ね、5件法によって測定した。多変量分散分析の結果、学習ビリ ーフにおいては「コミュニカティブな現代志向の英語学習」が、学習方略においては5つ のすべての因子において得点は英語のほうが高かった。また、中国での滞在期間によって 結果の傾向は変わらなかった。続いて、2つの重回帰分析の結果、英語の学習方略の使用 は、英語に対する「コミュニカティブな現代志向」が直接影響を与えるほか、中国語に対 する「コミュニカティブな現代志向」が中国語の学習方略を媒介して影響を与えることが 明らかになった。このことから、日本語を母語とする高校生が中国語を第二言語環境の中 で使用・学習することによって形成される学習ビリーフが、中国語に対する学習方略の使 用を通して英語に対する学習方略の使用に転移することが示唆された。

Keywords: Learners’ Beliefs, Learning Strategies, Chinese as a Second Language, English as a Foreign Language, Transfer

キーワード:学習ビリーフ、学習方略、第二言語としての中国語、外国語としての英語、 転移

1. Introduction

(2)

53

school opened in Shanghai, China. Since then, more Japanese high schools have been expected to be established in other parts of the world, especially in Asian countries, where the number of Japanese is expected to grow. Although this trend has implied the need for specific guidelines for English language teaching in these schools, there is still little relevant research on their high school students. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of these students and their surrounding environments is an urgent task to suggest effective educational approaches. This study aims to compare Shanghai Japanese High School students’ beliefs about Chinese as a second language (CSL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) learning and compare their use of learning strategies regarding learning both languages, as well as identify the factors that determine their use of strategies for EFL learning.

1.1. Shanghai Japanese High School

Nihonjin gakko, or “Japanese school,” refers to full-day schools located outside Japan for Japanese citizens. It is an expatriate school designed for children whose parents are working overseas and have plans to return to Japan. They use Japanese as the language of instruction and their curriculum is approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), so that students can adjust easily when they are repatriated. As for foreign (second) language teaching, in addition to English, these schools usually offer the primary local language when in non-English-speaking countries. By 2015, there were 89 Japanese schools in 50 countries and one area with approximately 21,000 students (MEXT, 2015).

These Japanese schools comprised only the primary and junior high school levels until 2011, when a high school division of a Japanese school, Shanghai Japanese High School (SJHS), opened in Shanghai, China (MEXT, 2015). This was the first occurrence of such an event in a global context.

In Shanghai, which is one of the largest cities in China, Chinese (Mandarin) and Shanghainese are used for everyday life and English is learned in schools as a foreign language. As most Japanese schools in other parts of the world, the SJHS curriculum

(3)

54

is based on the MEXT guidelines and includes local language (Chinese) subjects (Table 1).

Table 1

Numbers of Credits of English and Chinese Courses at SJHS

First year

Required Required Elective Required Elective English English Communication Ⅰ 3 English Communication Ⅱ 4 English Communication Ⅲ 4 English ExpressionⅠ 2 English ExpressionⅡ 2 2

Other English subjects 0-5 0-4

Chinese

Chinese Ⅰ 1

Chinese Ⅱ 1 0-2 1

Other Chinese subjects 0-1

Second year Third year

*Created by the author based on SJHS (2016).

1.2. Learners’ Beliefs and Learning Strategies

Defined as learners’ ideas about what is important in language learning, learners’ beliefs are generally considered to contribute to individual differences in the learning of second and foreign languages (Dornyei, 2005; Ellis, 2008b; Ogawa & Izumi, 2015). Therefore, learners’ beliefs consist an important construct to be investigated in relation to its impact on learning strategies (learners’ ways of learning) (Ogawa & Izumi, 2015). Many researchers have studied learners’ beliefs and their relationship with the use of learning strategies (e.g., Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Ellis, 2008a; Hong, 2006; Horwitz, 1999; Izumi, Shiwaku & Okuda, 2011; Mori, Ogawa & Izumi, 2015; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Sekitani, 2018; Wenden, 1999; Yang, 1999). Horwitz (1999) found a positive relationship between beliefs about language learning and experience. Yang (1999) conducted a questionnaire survey with 555 university EFL students in Taiwan and suggested that beliefs about formal structural studies (e.g., learning vocabulary

(4)

55

and grammar, translating, and memorizing) tend to discourage the use of functional practice strategies (e.g., watching TV shows or movies, reading, and having conversations in English). Izumi, Shiwaku, and Okuda (2011) examined the effects of living abroad on Japanese EFL learners and their beliefs about L2 learning approaches, their use of learning strategies, and their confidence in L2 use. Their findings indicated that learners who had no living-abroad experience had stronger beliefs in analytic learning, used analytic learning strategies more frequently, were more nervous and afraid of using English, and had less confidence in their English abilities than learners who had lived abroad. To address the limitation on generalizability of this study, Ogawa and Izumi (2015) collected data from another sample population, which had levels of English proficiency more representative of Japanese college-age learners. According to their findings, higher-level students hold stronger beliefs in experiential learning approaches, while those of lower ability believe more strongly in analytic approaches; higher-level students use experiential strategies more than lower-level students; and there are weak correlations between beliefs and strategies.

In summary, the abovementioned research has indicated that: a) Learners’ beliefs and learning strategies are correlated.

b) Learners with living-abroad experience believe more in experiential learning and less in analytic learning.

c) Learners with higher proficiency in second/ foreign languages hold stronger beliefs in experiential learning approaches and use experiential strategies more.

On the other hand, by comparing the beliefs of Korean monolinguals, Hong (2006) concluded that Korean-Chinese bilinguals have stronger beliefs about the importance of formal EFL learning. This implies that the experience of using and learning an additional language can strengthen belief in the importance of formal learning of the target language (English).

However, Sekitani (2018) reported an opposite conclusion. He compared the beliefs of SJHS students about English with those of regular high school students in Japan.

(5)

56

The students in both schools shared the same first language (Japanese) and setting (where English was learned as a foreign language), and had similar academic achievement levels in English. The results showed that the students at the prefectural high school in Japan held stronger beliefs about the importance of grammar than those at SJHS, which means that the exposure to Chinese as a second language might have caused the difference in learners’ beliefs between the two groups. Sekitani pointed to a possible transfer effect from the experience of using Chinese for daily life necessities (which could lead to a lower belief in analytic learning) to the learning of English as a foreign language. However, it is possible that other factors such as family rearing attitude and extracurricular educational experience might have caused these results, since children whose parents work overseas, generally belong to richer families.

For further research, Sekitani (2018) suggested that, to detect more clearly the transfer effect of factors such as learners’ beliefs and learning strategies from a second language to EFL, a within-subjects comparison should be made. A good example would be to examine the relationship between learners’ beliefs and learning strategies regarding both Chinese and English that SJHS students have or use, because they use Chinese as their second language and learn English as their foreign language.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

The two purposes of this study were: (1) to compare SJHS students’ beliefs about Chinese as a second language (CSL) learning with their beliefs about English as a foreign language (EFL) learning, as well as to compare their use of learning strategies for both languages, and (2) identify the factors that determined the learning strategies used in foreign language learning.

Six research questions were posed:

RQ1. How do SJHS students’ beliefs about CSL and EFL learning differ?

RQ2. What effects does the length of stay in China have on SJHS students’ beliefs about CSL and EFL learning?

(6)

57 differ?

RQ4: What effects does the length of stay in China have on SJHS students’ use of learning strategies for CSL and EFL learning?

RQ5: Is the use of learning strategies for CSL learning influenced by learners’ beliefs about CSL and EFL learning?

RQ6: Is the use of learning strategies for EFL learning influenced by learners’ beliefs about CSL and EFL learning, and the use of learning strategies for CSL learning?

2. Method 2.1. Participants

Participants were 104 SJHS students, including 38 first-year students (17 boys and 21 girls), 39 second-year students (14 boys and 25 girls), and 27 third-year students (14 boys and 13 girls).

2.2. Time of Investigation

The questionnaire survey of this study was conducted and completed in September 2017. Since the number of questionnaire items was relatively large, and there was a possibility that the participants might lose their concentration, the survey was conducted on two separate days.

2.3. Instruments

The questionnaire was written in Japanese and was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of questions about basic demographics and included school year, gender, and length of stay in China. The second part (the main part) was divided into the following four sections: learners’ beliefs about CSL learning, learning strategies for CSL learning, learners’ beliefs about EFL learning, and learning strategies for EFL learning.

(7)

58

scale invented by Sakui and Gaies (1999) comprising three factors: “communicative contemporary view” with 11 items (e.g., “I study Chinese/ English because it is useful to communicate with Chinese/ English-speaking people”), “traditional view,” with six items (e.g., “To understand Chinese/ English, it must be translated into Japanese”), and “language aptitude and difficulty” with three items (e.g., “Some people are born with a special ability which is useful for learning Chinese/ English”). Participants were asked to respond to the prompt “I will ask you how you feel about Chinese/ English.” Responses were selected from a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“not true at all”) to 5 (“absolutely true”).

The questions regarding the use of learning strategies for both CSL and EFL learning adopted a scale suggested by Ozaki (2017) comprising five factors: “memory-related and cognitive” with five items (e.g., “I use new Chinese/ English words in a sentence so I can remember them”), “compensatory” with three items (e.g., “If I can’t think of a Chinese/ English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing”), “metacognitive” with five items (e.g., “I try to find out how to be a better learner of Chinese/ English”), “affective” with three items (e.g., “I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using Chinese/ English”), and “social” with four items (e.g., “I practice Chinese/ English with other students”). Participants were asked to respond to the question: “How often do you do each of the following when you use or learn Chinese/ English?” Responses were selected from a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“almost never”) to 5 (“very often”). The questionnaire items are provided in Appendices 1 and 2.

2.4. Analysis

For RQs 1 to 4, participants were divided into three groups based on their length of stay in China. Thirty-five participants whose length of stay in China was shorter than 26 months were labeled as “short,” 34 participants whose length of stay in China was between 26 and 84 months were labeled as “long,” and 35 participants whose length of stay in China was longer than 84 months were labeled as “very long.” Then, a two-way mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to

(8)

59

examine the effect of target language (Chinese and English) and length of stay in China (short, long, and very long) on nine dependent variables: three factors related to learners' beliefs, five factors related to learning strategies, and the mean of the five factors related to learning strategies. In addition, two-way mixed-design univariate tests were conducted for each variable. The alpha level for these tests was set at .005 to take into account multiple comparisons in non-independent scores (Bonferroni’s method: .05 divided by nine comparisons).

For RQs 5 and 6, first, correlations among each factor of learners’ beliefs and learning strategy and length of stay in China were analyzed. The alpha level for this test was set at .05. Then, two multiple regression analyses were performed: one to find predictors of the use of learning strategies for CSL learning and the other to find predictors of the use of learning strategies for EFL learning. The alpha level for these tests was set at .025 to take into account multiple comparisons (.05 divided by two comparisons).

3. Results

3.1. Differences Between Chinese and English Regarding Beliefs and Strategies Table 2 and Figure 1 illustrate the means of each factor related to learners’ beliefs and learning strategies regarding both CSL and EFL learning for each group of participants. Table 3 shows the results for the two-way mixed-design MANOVA. A significant main effect of target language on the dependent variables (Pillai's Trace = 0.410, F = 7.172, p < .001, ηp2 = .410) was obtained. Neither a significant main effect of length of stay in China nor a significant interaction between target language and length of stay in China was observed (Pillai's Trace = 0.247, F = 1.471, p = .104, ηp2 = 0.124; Pillai's Trace = 0.151, F = 0.855, p = .634, ηp2 = .076).

Given the significance of the overall multivariate test, univariate main effects of target language were examined. As shown in Table 4, significant main effects of target language were obtained for “communicative contemporary view” (F (1, 101) = 32.217, p

(9)

60

= .272), “compensatory” (F (1, 101) = 25.485, p < .001, ηp2 = .201), “metacognitive” (F (1, 101) = 49.864, p < .001, ηp2 = .331), “affective” (F (1, 101) = 12.653, p < .001, ηp2 = .111), “social” (F (1, 101) = 19.674, p < .001, ηp2 = .163), and “all strategies” (F (1, 101) = 48.297, p < .001, ηp2 = .323). Table 5 shows the results of univariate between-subjects effects on each factor of beliefs and strategies.

Table 2

Means (SDs) of Learners' Beliefs and Learning Strategies in Each Group

CSL 3.87 (0.55) 3.82 (0.85) 4.03 (0.51) 3.90 (0.65) EFL 4.08 (0.58) 4.21 (0.70) 4.24 (0.50) 4.18 (0.60) CSL 3.74 (0.70) 3.47 (0.93) 3.24 (1.12) 3.48 (0.94) EFL 3.78 (0.91) 3.87 (0.97) 3.52 (0.98) 3.72 (0.96) CSL 2.60 (0.79) 2.61 (0.93) 2.76 (0.87) 2.67 (0.86) EFL 2.74 (0.69) 2.78 (0.98) 3.01 (0.97) 2.84 (0.89) CSL 3.46 (0.80) 3.35 (1.10) 3.52 (0.85) 3.43 (0.92) EFL 3.68 (0.70) 3.88 (0.89) 4.02 (0.54) 3.86 (0.73) CSL 3.92 (0.79) 3.72 (1.03) 3.78 (0.83) 3.80 (0.89) EFL 4.15 (0.51) 4.23 (0.82) 4.25 (0.64) 4.21 (0.66) CSL 3.03 (0.93) 3.05 (1.10) 2.83 (0.97) 2.97 (1.00) EFL 3.45 (0.87) 3.69 (0.93) 3.45 (0.84) 3.53 (0.88) CSL 2.62 (0.95) 2.55 (1.05) 2.58 (1.12) 2.58 (1.02) EFL 2.87 (0.97) 2.79 (1.03) 3.05 (1.06) 2.91 (1.02) CSL 3.48 (0.92) 3.33 (1.13) 3.22 (0.94) 3.33 (1.00) EFL 3.59 (0.77) 3.85 (0.91) 3.65 (0.66) 3.70 (0.78) CSL 3.30 (0.63) 3.20 (0.94) 3.19 (0.73) 3.22 (0.77) EFL 3.55 (0.61) 3.69 (0.74) 3.68 (0.53) 3.64 (0.63)

Length of stay in China

Language aptitude and difficulty

Memory-related and cognitive

Compensatory Metacognitive Affective Social Long (n=34) Very long (n=35) Total (N=104) Communicative contemporary view

All strategies L ea rn er s' b eli efs Le ar n in g st ra te gi es Traditional view Short (n=35)

(10)

61

Figure 1. Comparison Between Learner's Beliefs and Strategies Regarding CSL and EFL Learning

Table 3

Summary of the MANOVA Results With Length of Stay in China and Target Language as Independent Variables and Three Factors of Learners' Beliefs and Five Factors of Learning Strategies as Dependent Variables

Value of Pillai's

Trace

F Hypothesisdf Error df ηp2

Intercept 0.985 677.298 9.000 93.000 .000 .985

Length of stay in China 0.247 1.472 18.000 188.000 .104 .124

Target language 0.410 7.172 9.000 93.000 .000 * .410 Target language*Length of stay in China 0.151 0.855 18.000 188.000 .634 .076 p Effect Between Subjects Within Subjects 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En. Ch. En.

Short Long Very long

C om mu n ica tiv e Tradi tio nal Lan gu age ap t. M em or y-re la te d C omp en sa to ry M et ac ogn it iv e A ffe ct iv e S ocia l A ll st ra te gi es

CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL CSL EFL

(11)

62 Table 4

Results of Within-Subjects Contrasts (Chinese and English) on Each Factor of Learners’ Beliefs and Learning Strategies

Source df SS MS F ηp2 Belief Communicative 1 3.787 3.787 32.217 .000 * .242 Traditional 1 3.031 3.031 7.700 .007 .071 Language apt. 1 1.825 1.825 7.220 .008 .067 Strategy Memory-related 1 9.039 9.039 37.684 .000 * .272 Compensatory 1 8.388 8.388 25.485 .000 * .201 Metacognitive 1 16.161 16.161 49.864 .000 * .331 Affective 1 5.370 5.370 12.653 .001 * .111 Social 1 6.580 6.580 19.674 .000 * .163 All strategies 1 8.776 8.776 48.297 .000 * .323 Belief Communicative 2 0.384 0.192 1.635 .200 .031 Traditional 2 1.163 0.582 1.478 .233 .028 Language apt. 2 0.102 0.051 0.203 .817 .004 Strategy Memory-related 2 0.992 0.496 2.069 .132 .039 Compensatory 2 0.797 0.399 1.211 .302 .023 Metacognitive 2 0.501 0.250 0.773 .465 .015 Affective 2 0.588 0.294 0.693 .502 .014 Social 2 1.563 0.782 2.337 .102 .044 All strategies 2 0.703 0.352 1.935 .150 .037 Belief Communicative 101 11.871 0.118 Traditional 101 39.753 0.394 Language apt. 101 25.528 0.253 Strategy Memory-related 101 24.226 0.240 Compensatory 101 33.245 0.329 Metacognitive 101 32.734 0.324 Affective 101 42.864 0.424 Social 101 33.782 0.334 All strategies 101 18.353 0.182 Error (Target language) Target language Target language* Length of stay in China p

(12)

63 Table 5

Between-Subjects Effects of the Two-Way Mixed ANOVA Results on Each Factor of Beliefs and Strategies

Source df SS MS F ηp2 Belief Communicative 1 3399.751 3399.751 5088.501 .000 .981 Traditional 1 2697.222 2697.222 1940.754 .000 .951 Language apt. 1 1573.000 1573.000 1230.051 .000 .924 Strategy Memory-related 1 2772.615 2772.615 2444.143 .000 .960 Compensatory 1 3340.129 3340.129 3702.981 .000 .973 Metacognitive 1 2200.113 2200.113 1505.542 .000 .937 Affective 1 1565.506 1565.506 921.197 .000 .901 Social 1 2577.771 2577.771 2007.813 .000 .952 All strategies 1 2453.977 2453.977 2987.717 .000 .967 Belief Communicative 2 0.959 0.480 0.718 .490 .014 Traditional 2 5.441 2.720 1.957 .147 .037 Language apt. 2 1.937 0.969 0.757 .471 .015 Strategy Memory-related 2 1.522 0.761 0.671 .514 .013 Compensatory 2 0.161 0.081 0.089 .915 .002 Metacognitive 2 1.887 0.943 0.645 .527 .013 Affective 2 0.726 0.363 0.214 .808 .004 Social 2 0.864 0.432 0.336 .715 .007 All strategies 2 0.012 0.006 0.007 .993 .000 Belief Communicative 101 67.481 0.668 Traditional 101 140.368 1.390 Language apt. 101 129.160 1.279 Strategy Memory-related 101 114.574 1.134 Compensatory 101 91.103 0.902 Metacognitive 101 147.596 1.461 Affective 101 171.642 1.699 Social 101 129.671 1.284 All strategies 101 82.957 0.821 p Intercept Length of stay in China Error

3.2. Predictors of the Use of Learning Strategies for EFL Learning

The following analyses used the three factors of learners’ beliefs about CSL and EFL learning, “all strategies” (means of the five factors of learning strategies) for CSL

(13)

64

and EFL learning, and months of stay in China. Table 6 illustrates the correlations among these variables.

Table 6

Correlations Between Learners’ Beliefs and Learning Strategies Regarding CSL and EFL Learning, and Months of Stay in China

CSL Communicative CSL Traditional CSL Aptitude EFL Communicative EFL Traditional EFL Aptitude CSL All strategies EFL All strategies Months of stay in China CSL Communicative .40* .25* .70* .13 .22* .70* .60* .21* CSL Traditional .34* .27* .56* .25* .51* .42* -.13 CSL Language apt. .10 .22* .67* .29* .10 .16 EFL Communicative .20* .11 .43* .63* .13 EFL Traditional .20* .32* .27* -.02

EFL Language apt. - .20* .13 .22*

CSL All strategies .64* .03

EFL All strategies .13

Months of stay in

China -

A multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the predicting factors for the use of learning strategies for CSL learning with six independent variables: “communicative contemporary view,” “traditional view,” and “language aptitude and difficulty” for both CSL and EFL learning. As shown in Table 7, a significant partial regression coefficient was obtained for “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning (βˆ1 = 0.832 (95% CI: 0.593 - 1.071), βˆ1* = 0.705, t = 6.918, p < .001). No significant partial regression coefficients were observed for other variables.

Another multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the predicting factors for the use of learning strategies for EFL learning with the seven independent variables: “communicative contemporary view,” “traditional view,” and “language aptitude and difficulty” for both CSL and EFL learning, and “all strategies” only for CSL learning. As Table 8 illustrates, significant partial regression coefficients were obtained for “communicative contemporary view” regarding EFL learning (βˆ4 = 0.479

(14)

65

(95% CI: 0.277 - 1.681), βˆ4* = 0.454, t = 4.712, p < .001) and for “all strategies” regarding CSL learning (βˆ7 = 0.387 (95% CI: 0.221 - 0.553), βˆ7* = 0.481, t = 4.632, p < .001). No significant partial regression coefficients were observed for other variables.

Table 7

Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting All Learning Strategies Regarding CSL Learning Lower Upper CSL Communicative 0.832* 0.120 0.593 1.071 .705 CSL Traditional 0.136* 0.073 -0.009 0.280 .167 CSL Language apt. 0.081* 0.083 -0.084 0.245 .090 EFL Communicative -0.187 * 0.122 -0.429 0.055 -.145 EFL Traditional 0.128* 0.066 -0.003 0.259 .159

EFL Language apt. 0.065 * 0.078 -0.219 0.089 -.075   R2 = .580

  Adj R2 = .554

β SE 95%CI βˆ

Table 8

Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting All Learning Strategies Regarding EFL Learning Lower Upper CSL Communicative -0.073 * 0.121 -0.313 0.167 -.075 CSL Traditional 0.086* 0.061 -0.035 0.207 .128 CSL Language apt. -0.121 * 0.069 -0.257 0.015 -.164 EFL Communicative 0.479* 0.102 0.277 0.681 .454 EFL Traditional -0.013 * 0.055 -0.123 0.097 -.020

EFL Language apt. 0.061* 0.064 -0.066 0.188 .086

CSL All strategies 0.387* 0.084 0.221 0.553 .471

  R2 = .583   Adj R2 = .552

SE 95%CI βˆ

(15)

66 4. Discussion

4.1. Learners’ Beliefs and Learning Strategies Regarding Second and Foreign Languages

Results for RQ 1 revealed that SJHS students had stronger learners’ beliefs about EFL learning than about CSL learning. More specifically, they had a more communicative and contemporary view of EFL learning than of CSL learning. Results for RQ 2 suggested that length of stay in China had no effect on the formation or loss of learners’ beliefs about either CSL or EFL learning. Results for RQ 3 revealed that SJHS students used all learning strategies more frequently for EFL than for CSL learning. Results for RQ 4 revealed that length of stay in China had no effect on increasing or decreasing their use of learning strategies for both CSL and EFL learning.

Interestingly, these results do not agree with the commonly shared findings of most previous studies. For example, as mentioned earlier, Horwitz (1999) suggested that learners with longer experience of using or learning a language tend to have stronger beliefs about language learning. In addition, Izumi, Shiwaku, and Okuda (2011) revealed that leaners who had no living-abroad experience had stronger beliefs in analytical learning and used analytical learning strategies more frequently. Possible explanations for this discrepancy would be: a) SJHS students’ perception of the importance of English is too strong to defeat the effects of life experience in China; b) some students spend their lives almost exclusively at school and at home, and their contact with local people is very limited; and c) since the level of Chinese proficiency of some students is already native or near-native, they do not perceive Chinese as something special to learn. The findings by Hong (2006) who suggested that bilinguals have stronger beliefs about the importance of formal learning, make possibilities a) and b) be more plausible than c). One solution to narrow down the possibilities would be to measure their perceptions on the importance of English and Chinese and use them as covariances in the analysis. In this way, the effects of perceptions on the importance of these languages could be controlled.

(16)

67

4.2. Predictors of the Use of Learning Strategies for Foreign Language Learning Results for RQ 5 revealed that, among the three factors of learners’ beliefs about both CSL and EFL learning, “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning was the most significant predictor of the use of all learning strategies for CSL learning. These results agree with previous studies (e.g., Horwitz, 1999; Ogawa & Izumi, 2015). For RQ 6, which attempted to specify predictors of the use of all learning strategies regarding EFL learning, “communicative contemporary view” regarding EFL learning and the use of all learning strategies for CSL learning were found to be the most significant predictors.

A hypothetical mediation model could be suggested from the combination between the results for these two RQs and those of the simple correlation analyses illustrated in Table 6. Barron and Kenny (1986) introduced a path diagram (Figure 2) to clarify the meaning of mediation. A variable functions as a mediator when it meets the following conditions: a) variations in the levels of the independent variable significantly account for variations in the presumed mediator (i.e., Path a); b) variations in the mediator significantly account for variations in the dependent variable (i.e., Path b); and c) when Paths a and b are controlled, a previously significant relation between the independent and dependent variables (i.e., Path c) is no longer significant.

Figure 2. A Path Diagram as a Model for Depicting a Causal Chain (Barron and Kenny, 1986)

(17)

68

confirm the relationship between “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning and “all strategies” regarding CSL learning (condition a). The results of the second multiple regression analysis (Table 8) confirm the relationship between “all strategies” regarding CSL learning and “all strategies” regarding EFL learning (condition b). At the same time, the relationship observed between “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning and “all strategies” regarding EFL learning in the simple correlation analysis (Table 4) is lost (condition c). With all these conditions met, therefore, it is worth emphasizing that “all strategies” regarding CSL learning functions as a mediator between “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning and “all strategies” regarding EFL learning. In addition, given that “communicative contemporary view” regarding EFL learning relates to “communicative contemporary view” regarding CSL learning, and “communicative contemporary view” regarding EFL learning relates to “all strategies” regarding EFL learning, even if other variables are controlled, a path diagram should be described as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. A Path Diagram Model for Use of Strategies for English Learning

It is not surprising that “communicative contemporary view,” or beliefs in experiential learning, leads to the use of strategies for learning the same languages, as previous research indicated (e.g. Horwitz, 1999). What is interesting is that the strategy use caused by beliefs in experiential learning regarding a second language leads to the strategy use regarding a foreign language. In other words, mediated by the use of strategies for second language learning, beliefs in experiential learning transfer

(18)

69

to the use of strategies for foreign language learning.

5. Conclusion

This study was an attempt to examine the within-subjects differences between second and foreign language learning in learners’ beliefs and use of learning strategies. Together, the results of this study suggest that, although the learning of high school students based on the Japanese curriculum in a non-English speaking country shows stronger beliefs and more frequent use of strategies for EFL learning, living experience in the country and formation of beliefs based on such experience would work as a transfer to the use of strategies for EFL learning. In an educational context, this implies that, even if a foreign language (e.g., EFL) is the target language to improve, a stay program in non-English speaking countries, such as many Asian countries, could be suggested as an option for language learning.

Implications for further research should be addressed with the remaining tasks. First, as mentioned earlier, it would be necessary to specify reasons why learners’ beliefs about EFL learning are generally stronger than those about CSL learning, as well as why learning strategies are overall used more frequently for ESL than for CSL learning. Second, a longitudinal study is expected to understand the process through which the transfer could occur. Although this study succeeded in suggesting a mediation model, it would be necessary to examine how each individual learners’ beliefs and use of strategy regarding second and foreign language learning could change and interact with each other over time. This would examine the validity of this study’s results with stronger evidence. Finally, there would also be a need for evidence for generalizability: research should be conducted for other languages as a second language in other settings.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 17K18288. Part of this paper was presented at the 42nd JAFAE National Conference in Nagoya on June 30,

(19)

70

2018. I am grateful to all participating students at Shanghai Japanese High School. My thanks also go to Yayoi Ebisawa for obtaining the data and Saki Onchi for helping me with data entry work.

References

Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language learning beliefs as a result of study abroad. System, 37, 366-379.

Barron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Dornyei. Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mhwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2008a). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10, 7-25. Ellis, R. (2008b). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hong, K. (2006). Beliefs about language learning and language learning strategy use in an EFL context: A comparison of monolingual Korean (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Retrieved from

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5270/

Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557-576. Izumi, S., Shiwaku, R., & Okuda, T. (2011). Beliefs about language learning, learning

strategy use, and self-efficacy/ confidence of EFL learners with and without living-abroad experience. Sophia Linguistica, 59, 151-184.

MEXT. (2015). Zaigaikyoikushisetzu no gaiyo [Outline of overseas educational institution]. Retrieved on November 12, 2018 from . http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/002/002.htm

Mori., Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49 (3),

(20)

71 377-415.

Ogawa, E., & Izumi, S. (2015). Belief, strategy use, and confidence in L2 abilities of EFL learners at different levels of L2 proficiency. JACET Journal, 59, 1-18.

Ozaki, H. (2017). The process and results of revising SILL (ESL/EFL) Japanese Version. JACET 56th International Convention (2017, Tokyo) Book, 121.

Sakui, K., Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning. System, 27, 473-492.

Sekitani, K. (2018). Comparing the Beliefs and Motivations of Japanese High School Students for English Learning in China and Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Liberal Arts (Hiroshima Jogakuin University), 5.

SJHS. (2016). Curriculum for school year 2017 [2017 nendo 7 kisei kyouikukatei].

Retrieved on November 12, 2018 from . http://koutoubu.srx2.net.cn/data/attachment/article/katei.pdf

Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27, 435-441.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.

(21)

72

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Items Regarding Learners’ Beliefs Used in the Study

Learners' Beliefs

Communicative contemporary view

1 中国語(英語)は学べば学ぶほど楽しくなる

(The longer I study Chinese/ English the more enjoyable I find it)

2 中国語(英語)話者とのコミュニケーションをとるために中国語(英語)を勉強している (I study Chinese/ English because it is useful to communicate with Chinese/ English-speaking people) 6 CDを聞いたり、テレビの中国語(英語)番組を見たりすることは中国語(英語)学習にとって重要だ

(Listening to tapes and watching Chinese/ English programs on television are very important in learning Chinese/ English) 7 中国語(英語)がよく話せるように学べば、使う機会も多い

(If I learn to speak Chinese/ English very well, I will have many opportunities to use it) 9 同年代の中国語(英語)話者がいれば、その人のところへ行って会話練習をしたい

(If I heard a foreigner of my age speaking Chinese/ English I would go up to that person to practice speaking) 10 中国語(英語)が話されている国について知ることは中国語(英語)を話すために有益だ

(It is useful to know about Chinese/ English-speaking countries in order to speak Chinese/ English) 13 私はいつか中国語(英語)が上手に話せるようになる

(I believe that someday I will speak Chinese/ English very well) 14 中国語(英語)が上手に話せるようになれば、いい仕事が得られる

(If I learn to speak Chinese/ English very well it will help me to get a good job) 16 中国語(英語)会話クラスは楽しくあるべきだ

(Chinese/ English conversation class should be enjoyable)

17 中国語(英語)を学ぶ時には繰り返したくさん練習することが大切だ (In learning Chinese/ English it is important to repeat and practice a lot) 20 中国語(英語)の単語が分からない時、推測するのはいいことだ

(It is OK to guess if you do not know a word in Chinese/ English) Traditional view

3 中国語(英語)を理解するためには日本語へ翻訳しなければならない (To understand Chinese/ English it must be translated into Japanese)

4 中国語(英語)で何かを言うためにはまず日本語で考えてからそれを中国語(英語)に翻訳する (To say something in Chinese/ English, I think of how I would say it in Japanese and then translate it into Chinese/ English) 8 単語を学ぶことは日本語への翻訳を学ぶことである

(Learning a word means learning the Japanese translation)

11 中国語(英語)を学ぶことは日本語から中国語(英語)への翻訳をすることである (Learning Chinese/ English is mostly a matter of translating from Japanese)

15 中国語(英語)のクラスでは、教師が日本語で説明するのがいい

(In Chinese/ English classes, I prefer to have my teacher provide explanations in Japanese) 18 中国語(英語)を学ぶことは文法規則を学ぶことである

(Learning Chinese/ English is mostly a matter of learning grammar rules) Language aptitude and difficulty

5 女の子は男の子より中国語(英語)学習が得意である (Girls are better than boys at learning Chinese/ English)

12 中国語(英語)学習のための特別な能力を持って生まれた人がいる

(Some people are born with a special ability which is useful for learning Chinese/ English) 19 数学や理科が得意な人は外国語学習が得意ではない

(22)

73

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Items of Learning Strategies Used in the Study

Learning Strategies

Memory-related and cognitive

1 中国語(英語)の新しい単語は文の中で使って覚える

(I use new Chinese/ English words in a sentence so I can remember them) 6 中国語(英語)の新しい単語はイメージと結びつけて覚える

(I connect the sound of a ner Chinese/ English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word)

11 中国語(英語)を勉強する時、すでに持っている様々な背景知識を生かす

(I use various background knowledge that I already have when I study Chinese/ English) 16 中国語(英語)を聞く時は、要点をつかみながら聞く

(I make summaries of information that I hear in Chinese/ English)

19 難しい中国語(英語)の単語は、意味がわかる部分に分けて全体の意味を考える (I find the meaning of a Chinese/ English word by dividing it into parts that I understand) Compensatory

2 中国語(英語)で話すときは、自分が話せる話題を中心に話す (I try to talk about familiar topics when I speak Chinese/ English)

7 中国語(英語)での会話で、適切な語が思いつかない時、他の語で言いかえる

(If I can' t think of a Chinese/ English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.) 12 中国語(英語)でうまく言えない時は、単純な内容にして話す

(When I cannot speak well in Chinese/ English, I try to make it simple) Metacognitive

3 中国語(英語)を使うことのできる方法をできるだけたくさん見つける (I try to find as many ways as I can to use my Chinese/ English)

8 自分の中国語(英語)を上達させる方法を考える

(I try to find out how to be a better learner of Chinese/ English) 13 中国語(英語)の勉強の計画を立てる

(I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study Chinese/ English) 17 目標を持って中国語(英語)を勉強する

(I have clear goals for improving my Chinese/ English skills) 20 自分の中国語(英語)学習がどれくらい進んでいるか考える

(I think about my progress in learning Chinese/ English) Affective

4 中国語(英語)で話すことが恐い時は、気持ちを落ち着かせる (I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using Chinese/ English) 9 中国語(英語)で何かうまくできたときは、自分で自分をほめる

(I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in Chinese/ English) 14 中国語(英語)で話す時、緊張しているか意識する

(I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using Chinese/ English) Social

5 相手の中国語(英語)がわからない時、何と言ったか聞き返す

(If I do not understand something in Chinese/ English, I ask the other person to say it again) 10中国語(英語)で話している時、相手の中国語(英語)が上手であれば、間違いを直してもらうよう頼む

(I ask better Chinese/ English learners to correct me when I talk) 15 誰かといっしょに中国語(英語)の勉強をする

(I practice Chinese/ English with other students)

18 中国語(英語)の勉強で困った時、他の人から助けを求める (I ask for help from other people)

Figure 1 . Comparison Between Learner's Beliefs and Strategies Regarding CSL and  EFL Learning
Figure 2 . A Path Diagram as a Model for Depicting a Causal Chain    (Barron and Kenny, 1986)
Figure 3 . A Path Diagram Model for Use of Strategies for English Learning

参照

関連したドキュメント

Over the years, the effect of explicit instruction in a second language (L2) has been a topic of interest, and the acquisition of English verbs by Japanese learners is no

Comparing the present participants to the English native speakers advanced-level Japanese-language learners in Uzawa’s study 2000, the Chinese students’ knowledge of kanji was not

This paper presents a case of material and classroom guideline design to motivate autonomous learning of kanji and vocabulary in advanced Japanese language classes. The main goal

This paper aims to study the history of Chinese educational migration and state policies which influence overseas Chinese students, to explore the mobility tendency of

Compared to working adults, junior high school students, and high school students who have a 

In addition, under the above assumptions, we show, as in the uniform norm, that a function in L 1 (K, ν) has a strongly unique best approximant if and only if the best

knowledge and production of two types of Japanese VVCs, this paper examines the use of syntactic VVCs and lexical VVCs by English, Chinese, and Korean native speakers with

The ratio of total pause length to total speech length ( pause:speech ratio ) was also low compared to the ENSs.With the ENSs,this ratio was   23.4