Future Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Learning. A Study on Selected Subjective Theories

  • Anna Michońska-StadnikEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


This paper focuses on students—future teachers of English. It is believed that their motivation to learn how to teach can also be influenced by subjective theories. The survey study, which aimed at collecting quantitative data, concentrated on a group of 114 student-teachers, from two different training institutions, at different stages of their education. Most of the trainees were women, and it might be interesting to point out that they came from very different communities: villages, little towns, medium towns and cities. The participants were asked to give their opinions on specific variables of the foreign language learning process, such as the role of age and gender, intelligence, learner autonomy, and the learning context. Some questions also referred to the importance of specific skills and subsystems in language education. Many subjective beliefs and theories were revealed, some of which might strongly influence students’ professional development, regardless of their training stage. Afterwards, another group of graduate students took part in an open interview, where they were asked to state what specific personal opinions had been modified in the course of their professional training. Interesting data were collected and categorized, which constituted the qualitative part of the research. I believe that novice teachers, regardless of their training, resort to their safe subjective theories whenever a crisis occurs in the lesson and when an immediate reaction is required. My opinion is that teacher education programs should make use of students’ subjective theories as points of departure for discussion and reflection on their attitudes to the teaching and learning process.


  1. Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 133–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14, 318–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 108–130). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching. From research to practice. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning, 26, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ingvarsdóttir, H. (2014). Reflection and work context in teacher learning: Two case studies from Iceland. In L. Orland-Barak & C. Craig (Eds.), International teacher education: Promising pedagogies (Part A) (pp. 91–112). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  9. Ioup, G., Boustangui, E., Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jedynak, M. (2009). Critical period hypothesis revisited. The impact of age on ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Komorowska, H. (2011). Paradigms in language teacher education. In H. Komorowska (Ed.), Issues in promoting multilingualism. Teaching—learning—assessment (pp. 13–38). Warszawa: Foundation for the Development of the Education System.Google Scholar
  12. Kubota, R. (2011). New approach to gender, class, and race in second language writing. In L. Wei (Ed.), The Routledge applied linguistics reader (pp. 262–274). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Michońska-Stadnik, A. (2000). Attitudes to learner autonomy. IATEFL Research SIG and Teacher Development SIG. Special joint issue, June 2000, pp. 67–71.Google Scholar
  14. Michońska-Stadnik, A. (2013). Teoretyczne i praktyczne podstawy weryfikacji wybranych teorii subiektywnych w kształceniu nauczycieli języków obcych [Theoretical and practical bases for the verification of subjective theories in foreign language teacher training]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
  15. Ottó, I., & Nikolov, M. (2009). Extra input biased learning: A connectionist account of the adult language learning paradox. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 65–85). Poznań/Kalisz: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
  16. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Piasecka, L. (2009). Postawy i osiągnięcia w czytaniu a płeć [Attitudes and achievement in reading and gender]. In J. Nijakowska (Ed.), Język, poznanie, zachowanie: Perspektywy i wyzwania w studiach nad przyswajaniem języka obcego [Language—cognition—behavior: Perspectives and challenges in studies on foreign language learning] (pp. 202–215). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
  18. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). A study of gender-related levels of processing anxieties over three years of secondary grammar school instruction. In J. Arabski & J. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Individual learner differences in SLA (pp. 129–145). Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  19. Rumianowska, A. (2011). O różnicach między płciami w kontekście uczenia się i nauczania języków obcych [On gender differences in foreign language learning and teaching]. Neofilolog, 36, 49–56.Google Scholar
  20. Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2011). Natural talent, natural acquisition and abroad: Learner attributions of agency in language learning. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation, and autonomy in language learning (pp. 160–176). Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  21. Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (2012). Preface. In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in FL contexts. Research and implementation (pp. xi–xiv). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sokolik, M. E. (1990). Learning without rules: PDP as a resolution of the adult language learning paradox. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Pre-service teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uylings, H. B. M. (2006). Development of the human cortex and the concept of “critical” or “sensitive” periods. In M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition (pp. 59–90). Malden-Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Wieszczeczyńska, E. (2000). Dlaczego warto rozpoczynać naukę języka obcego w okresie wczesnoszkolnym? [Why is it worth staring foreign language learning in early school education?]. Języki Obce w Szkole [Foreign Languages in School], 6, 6–11.Google Scholar
  26. Wolski, P. (2000). Rola teorii subiektywnych w badaniach autonomii uczenia się języków obcych [The role of subjective theories in reasearch on autonomy in foreign language learning]. Neofilolog, 19, 51–59.Google Scholar
  27. Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WrocławWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations