This finding in itself is significant, above all, because it gives foundation to
anecdotal evidence on the matter. However, for the particular purposes of this study, I would
like to see it from a different perspective.
The six studies differ in many ways, such as the number of subjects or the method
used to gather the data. Some of the researchers opted for quantitative instruments like
questionnaires of the Likert scale type. Others chose a qualitative approach of the
ethnographic type (interviews, self-reports and learner diaries). Their approach also
determined the categories analysed. In some of the studies, the categories were
predetermined before the collection of data, in others, the analysis of the data resulted in the
categories the author mentions. Another point in which they are not alike is the fact that they
refer to different levels and label their categories in different ways. However, as I see it,
these studies are not incompatible. A closer look at them allows the reader to establish some
links and highlight the constants that underlie all the categories mentioned in Fig. 4.4. To
begin with, it is a fact that there are some categories some of the studies have in common.
For instance, both Horwitz and Piper mention 'motivation' as one of the areas of beliefs. In
the same way, CotteralΓs role of the teacher and Broady's teacher explanation and
supervision are very similar. Of course, there are other categories that are not so obvious.
Riley's headings, as he says, have the advantage of being simple, and hence, easy to use
although they are very general. Nevertheless, the examples that he provides clarify his four
different concepts very well. According to me, all the different categories of the six studies
can be synthesised as follows: there are three different major underlying concepts. These are:
target language and culture (1), learning (2) and self (3) (see Fig. 4.5). The points where
these three concepts intersect constitute specific fields that are also causes of beliefs. Thus,
there are seven fields, four of them being the result of intersections between two or three of
the main concepts: language and self (4), language and learning (5), and learning and self
(6). The intersection of the three, that is, the relationship between language, learning and
self, results in field (7).
98