特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦［招待論文］

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian
Language Learning
BALLI in Japan

インドネシア語学習に関する日本人学生の見方
日本における BALLI

Petrus Ari Santoso

Visiting Lecturer, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University

ペトルス アリ サントーソ
慶應義塾大学総合政策学部訪問講師（招聘）

Yo Nonaka

Associate Professor, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University

野中 葉
慶應義塾大学総合政策学部准教授

Abstract:

Most studies about learning beliefs and learning strategies, which affect learnersʼ
target language achievement, are concerned with English as a foreign language.
Only a few studies have been conducted to examine studentsʼ beliefs about learning
Indonesian as a foreign language. Using Horwitzʼs Beliefs About Language Learning
Inventory (BALLI), this study explored the learning beliefs of Japanese students who
are learning the Indonesian language as a foreign language in Japan. A total of 268
students from universities across Japan who have Indonesian as a major or elective
course have participated in the study. The statistical analysis of the collected data
combines descriptive and multivariate techniques like factor analysis. The findingsof the study are relevant to improve the practice of Indonesian language teaching andlearning for Japanese students.
外国語習得の成果に影響を与える学習者のビリーフと学習ストラテジーに関する研究は、これまで主に、外国語としての英語教育を対象に実施されてきており、外国語としてのインドネシア語学習における学生たちのビリーフに関する研究は、ほとんど行われてこなかった。本研究では、Horwitz が開発した
BALLI を用いて、日本の大学でインドネシア語を学ぶ大学生 268 人を対象に、彼らの学習ビリーフを検証した。データの分析には、記述分析の他、因子分析などの多変量解析の手法を用いた。本研究の結果は、インドネシア語を学ぶ日
本人学生の特徴を明らかにし、日本のおけるインドネシア語教育や学習の向上に寄与するものとなった。

154

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

Keywords: Indonesian language learning, students’ beliefs, BALLI

インドネシア語学、インドネシア語学習に関する学生の見方、BALLI

1Introduction

1.1

Indonesian language learning in JapanThe history of Indonesian language teaching in Japan started in 1908. According

to Kudo (2006), the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS) was the first higheducation institution that opened the Indonesian language as a foreign language
course. Following TUFS, in 1922, Osaka University of Foreign studies also opened
Malaysian language education which aimed to train people engaged in overseas trade.
In 1925, Tenri University also started to offer similar training. Now there are morethan 20 universities across Japan that offer the Indonesian language as a major or anelective course.
The Indonesian language uses the Roman alphabet in its writing system. The
spelling in Indonesian is quite regular with some exceptions to its rules. Indonesian
has no tones, and also no tone markers as well as accents. Although Indonesian has
no relationship with the Japanese language, it is considered easier to read when it iscompared to English. In the Indonesian sentence, it is common to find the subject firstand followed by the predicate. The non-existence of tenses makes the Indonesianlanguage even more attractive to learn.
Although the Indonesian language is one of the less taught languages in Japan,
the number of learners appears to be increased. The number of students who took theIndonesian language proficiency test is also increasing year by year. According to
HIPUBI (Himpunan Penyelenggara Ujian Bahasa Indonesia), an institution that holds
an Indonesian proficiency test in Japan, in 2015 there were 2,715 test participants andincreased by 7 % (2,908) in 2016 then by 11.2 % (3,236) in 2017. These numbers arequite significant.

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019155

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

1.2

Indonesian language learning in Shonan Fujisawa Campus
The Indonesian language is one of the foreign languages that are offered in the

Shonan Fujisawa Campus (SFC). Indonesian classes are Basic, Intensive and Skill.
Basic is divided into Basic one and Basic two (each has two credits) while intensiveclass also has Intensive one and two with four credits. Basic and Intensive classes areoffered as an elective course. Students have to pass Basic one in order to enroll Basic
two. It is also the same with intensive classes. In addition, students are also
encouraged to take the immersion program in Indonesia during summer and spring
break. For those who have passed Basic one and Intensive one can take 海外研修 B(Overseas Language Training) which is worth two credits while for those who havepassed Intensive two are eligible to take Intensive three. Intensive three is four credits
immersion program in Indonesia.
Every semester, many students take the Indonesian language for their foreign
language. In the spring semester, approximately more than 100 students took
Indonesian classes from basic to skill classes while in the fall semester, there werefewer. This fact caught our attention as an Indonesian language teacher in Japan. We
would like to know how students see the Indonesian language as a foreign language
in Japan. The studentsʼ belief about Indonesian language learning can be very
beneficial for Indonesian language teachers and curriculum developers in creating asuitable curriculum that fulfills their needs.
1.3

Language learning beliefs
Learner beliefs about second language acquisition (SLA) have been consideredan essential factor inﬂuencing the learning process and outcomes (Ellis, 2008).
According to Victori and Lockhart (1995, p. 224), beliefs about language
learning refer to:‘general assumptions that students hold about themselves as learners, about
factors influencing language learning, and about the nature of language
learning and teaching.’

156

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

Horwitz (1988) mentioned that previous language learning experiences
influencing studentsʼ beliefs on language learning. She also added that studentsʼ
beliefs also have essential inﬂuence to language learningʼs commitment, motivation,and goal. While Wenden (1987) assured that student has personal understanding of
language learning which relates to value and commitment, Cotteral (1999), in her
study on key variables in language learning and how students believe about them,
distributed 90 items of questionnaire that emphasized on learner autonomy to 131
learners of English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand. She found that the roleof teacher, the role of feedback, sense of self-eﬃcacy, essential strategies, dimensionsof strategies-related behavior, and the nature of language learning inﬂuence learnerautonomy significantly.
As mentioned earlier, the pioneering work of Horwitz (1988) has started
extensive research on language learnersʼ and language teachersʼ beliefs. She
developed a 34-statement questionnaire based on teacher-generated list of beliefs thatstudents might have or experience in foreign language learning.
She inspired other researchers to devote their time to defining and assessing
beliefs in almost three decades in different contexts and settings. Inspired by Horwitz,
Bacon and Finnemann (1990) researched beliefs of Spanish language learners. Using
studentsʼ self-report data and factor analysis, they identified studentsʼ beliefs about
language learning and their relationship to authentic learning material. Theysuggested that the teacher should take studentsʼ affective needs and general language
learning strategies into high considerations when using authentic input in teaching.
Kern (1995) surveyed students of learning French and their teachers to compare
their view of language learning. He underlined that teachersʼ beliefs were one of thecritical factors that affect studentsʼ beliefs about language learning.
Mori (1999) concentrated on Japanese learners in the United States; Sakui andGaies (1999) reported on a study of the beliefs about language learning of almost
1300 Japanese university learners of English; Diab (2006) compared the learning
beliefs of English and French students in Lebanon; Nikitina and Furuoka (2006)
looked at the nature of studentsʼ beliefs who learned Russian language in Malaysia.
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019157

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

Epstein (1990) claims that learning beliefs cannot be separated from self-concept
and identity, self-efficacy, personality, and other individual differences. Therefore,
learning beliefs are something that is not absolute or dynamic. Learning beliefs canchange throughout the process of learning itself as Tanaka and Ellis (2003) reported
in their research. They examined changes in the Japanese studentsʼ beliefs on learning
English during the study abroad. Ellis (2008) also claimed that beliefs can changeover time and how their beliefs relate to learnersʼ developing proficiency. The
research on the changes in learnersʼ beliefs continues to invite more researchers. Peng(2011) investigated the changes of one first-year college studentʼs beliefs about
English teaching and learning since his enrollment.
1.4

BALLI--Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory
Horwitz (1988) developed BALLI – Beliefs About Language Learning

Inventory which consists of a 34-item questionnaire to explore studentsʼ, teachersʼ,and pre-service teachersʼ beliefs. BALLI is also used to assess studentsʼ opinions on avariety of issues and concerns related to language learning. BALLI was developed
based on free-recall protocols of foreign language and ESL teachers with different
cultural backgrounds, students (both foreign language and ESL) focus groups, andnew beliefs supplied by teacher educators from a variety of culture groups. BALLI
employed a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ʻstrongly disagreeʼ to ʻstrongly
agreeʼ.
BALLI has five categories. The first one is the Difficulty of language learning.
This category addresses both the general diﬃculty of learning a second language andperceptions of the diﬃculty of specific target languages. BALLI items number 3, 4, 6,
14, 24, and 28 concern about this first category. The next group of items concern
about Foreign Language Aptitude. Items number 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, and 34
address the issue of foreign language aptitude or individual achievement in language
learning. The third one is about The Nature of Language Learning is embedded in
items number 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 25, 26, and 28. This group discusses the role of social
contact and language immersion in language achievement, learnersʼ view on the158

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

difference of language learning and other types of learning, learnersʼ conception of
the focus of the language learning task. This group also addresses the learnersʼ
perceptions of structural differences between English and the target language. The
fourth group is about Learning and communication strategies that are embedded in
items 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 21. The last group is about Motivations andExpectations. These items are 23, 27, 30, and 31, which concern the desires andopportunities the students associate with the learning of their target language.
1.5

BALLI + (plus)
Although Horwitzʼs 34-item questionnaire is considered appropriate to address

language learning beliefs, quite a few studies have also added additional questions orused different methods to analyze the data. One of the early studies in the 90s wasdone by Yang (1992), who added one open-ended question to the 34-statement of
BALLI. In this study, she used four categories for the group. They are the Existenceof self-efficacy and positive expectation of learning outcome, High value of learning
English, Endorsement of foreign language aptitude, Priority to formal and structured
study. Different from Yang, Park (1995) only used 27-statement of BALLI with ten
additional statements to 338 Korean students learning English as a foreign language
in Korean universities. He identified four categories from the study. They are
Motivation and formal English, Self-efficacy and social interaction, Learning spoken
English, and Foreign language aptitude. In a similar context, Truitt (1995) employed
34-statement of BALLI with an open-ended question to 204 learning English at
Korean university. Five categories appeared from factor analysis such as (1) value
and nature of learning English, (2) self-efficacy/confidence in speaking, (3) the
importance of correctness/formal learning, (4) ease of learning English, (5)motivation.
In recent years, BALLI was also used to study language learner beliefs ofdifferent languages in Japan (Riley, 2006), in Malaysia (Nikitina and Furuoka, 2006),
in the Philippines (Sioson, 2011), in Thailand (Fujiwara, 2011), and Malaysia (Pengand Hui, 2012). Of all the mentioned studies, Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) was the
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019159

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

most interesting. They employed BALLI to find the nature of language learnersʼ
beliefs in Malaysia which is a multilingual setting. The participants were 107 students
learning the Russian language. In addition, this study also proved that BALLI is asuitable tool. They used statistical analysis and employed factor analysis for thispurpose.
Most studies related to both learning beliefs and learning strategies affecting
learnersʼ target language achievement, were related to English as foreign language.
However, none (or only a few) attempts have been made to examine Japanese
university studentsʼ beliefs about Indonesian language learning. Therefore, in order togive more insights into this field, we explored Japanese studentsʼ beliefs on learning
Indonesian as a foreign language. Using Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) as acomparison, this study employed Horwitzʼs BALLI (1988) intending to investigate
beliefs about Indonesian language learning held by Japanese higher institutions.
The research questions are as follows:
RQ 1: What are the common factors or categories that appear from the finding on
studentsʼ Indonesian language learning beliefs?
RQ 2: How Japanese students see the Indonesian language?
RQ 3: What are Japanese studentsʼ beliefs about learning Indonesian language?

2

Research Method

2.1

Participants
The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) was administered at

8 private universities that have an Indonesian language course as a major or elective
course. A total of 268 students responded to the survey. 136 (50.75%) of the
respondents were male, and 132 (49.25%) were female. 166 (61.94%) of them are in
the first year, 82 (30.60%) are in the second year, and 19 (7.09%) are in the third year,
and one is in the fourth year. The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 28 years, withthe average age is 20 years old. Regarding their linguistic background, 264 students
or almost all of them listed the Japanese language as their mother tongue.

160

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

2.2

Instruments
This study used the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)

developed by Horwitz (1988) to access the beliefs about learning a foreign language.
The BALLI contains 34 items and assesses studentsʼ beliefs in five major areas:
1. Difficulty of language learning; 2. Foreign language aptitude; 3. The nature oflanguage learning; 4. Learning and communication strategies; and 5. Motivations andexpectations.
The 34-statement BALLI uses a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from answers
indicating ʻstrongly disagreeʼ to ʻstrongly agree.ʼ
The 34-statement BALLI was translated into Japanese with the goal to find thebeliefs among the Japanese students. The structure of the instrument was carefully
retained, and no significant changes were made to the design of the original BALLI.
Only minor modifications were done in order to reflect the studyʼs context with afocus on Indonesian language students at Japanese universities. Therefore, the words“English language” in BALLI statements no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 27, 28, 31
were changed to “Indonesian language” and the word “Americans” in no. 30 and 33
was changed to “Japanese”.
2.3

ProcedureThe 34-statement BALLI (Horwitz, 1988) was distributed in classes in 7

universities in Japan. With the help of the Indonesian language program coordinatorfrom each university, the survey was done in the class for 10 to 15 minutes. All thesurvey was done manually by using print-outs. Due to time limitations and also someof the universitiesʼ policies, the class teacher administered the survey. Aftercompleting the questionnaires, they returned the forms to the researcher directly.
2.4

Data Analysis
Factor analysis was carried out in this study. It aims to examine how interrelated

several variables are to one another. In other words, factor analysis helps to justify
the classifications. Justification whether factor analysis is an appropriate tool to use
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019161

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

was also done using the data.
Table 1: KMO

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy is 0.673, which in KMO
score is considered mediocre. KMO considers 0 – 1 is a good idea to do factor
analysis. However, in this case the questions are not very much related.
Table 2: Bartlett’s test

Bartlettʼs test of sphericity also shows that factor analysis is an appropriate tool
to use. If p-value≤ 1%,≤ 5 %,≤ 10%, then H0 is rejected, which means analternative hypothesis is that variables are correlated.
To decide how many factors that are accountable for this study, we referred tothe suggested eigenvalue above 1 (Guttman-Kaiser rule). We also kept the factors
which in total, account for about 70-80% of the variant. Using the mentioned rules,
these are the following four factors (factor 1 – 4).
Table 3: Total variance
Factor

Eigenvalue

Difference

Proportion

Cumulative

Factor1

2.944070.259500.28740.28742.68458

1.19287

0.2621

0.5495

Factor3

1.49171

0.489190.1456

0.6951

Factor4

1.002520.15005

0.09790.7929

Factor2

162

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning
Factor5

0.852470.16835

0.08320.8761

0.06680.9429

Factor6

0.684120.05841

Factor7

0.62571

0.06280

0.06111.0040

Factor8

0.56291

0.099120.05491.0590

Factor9

0.46379

0.074170.0453

1.1042

Factor10

0.389630.030840.03801.14230.358780.088190.03501.1773

Factor12

0.27059

0.04195

0.02641.2037

Factor13

0.228640.050160.02231.2260

Factor140.178480.01674

0.01741.2434

Factor15

0.16174

0.02638

0.01581.25920.0132

1.2725

Factor11

Factor16

0.13536

0.03181

Factor17

0.10356

0.039250.01011.2826

0.06430

0.05725

0.0063

1.2888

Factor19

0.00706

0.026540.00071.2895

Factor20-0.01949

0.01913-0.00191.2876

Factor21-0.03862

0.03039-0.0038

1.2839

Factor22-0.06900

0.03896-0.0067

1.27711.2666

Factor18

Factor23-0.10797

0.03620-0.0105

Factor24-0.14417

0.01096-0.01411.2525

Factor25-0.15512

0.02910-0.0151

1.2374

Factor26-0.18423

0.00882-0.0180

1.2194

Factor27-0.19305

0.01565-0.0188

1.2005

Factor28-0.20870

0.03337-0.0204

1.1802

Factor29-0.24207

0.01255-0.0236

1.1565

Factor30-0.25462

0.03510-0.0249

1.1317

Factor31-0.28972

0.03328-0.0283

1.1034

Factor32-0.32300

0.02293-0.0315

1.0719

Factor33-0.34593

0.04432-0.0338

1.0381

Factor34-0.39025-0.03811.0000LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(561) = 1591.91 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000

In oder to have a clear interpretation of the results, we apply factor rotation.
Factor rotation helps to assign high loading variables to groups variables. In this
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019163

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

study, a loading of 0.3 and above was considered as higher loading. Table 4 shows
rotated factor loadings and unique variances.
Compared to previous studies, the categories created are different. Horwitz
created categories based on the teachersʼ recommendations, while Nikitina andFuruoka (2006) used statistical procedures and showed different variables. As
mentioned before, Horwitz grouped the 34-item statements into five themes. Thereare‘Diﬃculty of language learningʼ (item number 3, 4, 6, 14, 24, and 28), ʻForeign
language aptitudeʼ (item number 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, and 34), ʻThe nature oflanguage learningʼ (item number 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 25, 26, and 28) ʻLearning andcommunication strategiesʼ (item number 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 21), and the lastfactor is ʻMotivations and expectationsʼ (item number 23, 27, 30, and 31). Under eachtheme, items are grouped based on language teachersʼ and linguistsʼ discussions.
Nikitina and Furuoka (2006) identified different variables and grouped them asfollows. Factor 1 (Motivation) has items number 23, 27, 30, and 31. Factor 2(Aptitude) has items number 22 and 29. Factor 3 (Strategy) has items number 9 and13. Factor 4 (Ease of learning) has items number 28 and 33.
Although using a similar framework, the identified categories in this study are
different. It is because of the different contexts and target language. The identified
high loading variables are as follows.
Table 4: Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances
Variable

Factor1

Factor2

Factor3

Factor4

Uniqueness

q1

0.8900q2

0.9133q3
q4

0.3237q50.77020.7547
0.3357q6

0.83730.75020.40050.8877q7
q8
q9

0.4233-0.34480.68010.54070.58110.6064164

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning
q10

0.6876

0.46720.8795q11
q12

0.63550.5787q13

0.70510.45900.8818q14
q15

0.3160q16

0.3306q17-0.30430.84100.63640.54410.8135

q18
q19
q20

0.75350.4725q210.30540.80190.41630.59580.63220.57550.8168q22
q23

0.77250.3628q24

0.9234q25

0.9669q26

0.58850.6344q27

0.3365q28
q29

0.78000.3236
0.36260.84470.70710.50190.8701q30
q31

0.5112

0.6621q32

0.4856

0.6862q33

0.44850.7752q34

0.46230.7062(blanks represent abs (loading) <.3)

3Interpretation of factors

3.1

Factor 1
General view about language learning
Table 5 shows items that are identified (item 26, 9, 29, 32, 20, 33, 16, 4, and 15).

The highest loading factor is item 26 (0.6344), which says that learning a foreign
language is mostly a matter of translating from the foreign language itself. The
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019165

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

dominant items after number 26 are number 9 (0.6064), 29 (0.5019), 32 (0.4856), 20(0.4725), and 33 (0.4485).
Table 5: Factor 1
General view about language learning
26. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from the foreign
language itself
9. You should not say anything in Indonesian until you can say it properly
29. People who are good at math and science are not good at learning a foreign
language
32. People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent
20. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar
rules
33. Japanese are good at learning foreign languages
16. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new
vocabulary words
4. Indonesian language: 1) a very diﬃcult language, 2) a diﬃcult language, 3) alanguage of medium diﬃculty, 4) an easy language, 5) a very easy language
15. I have foreign language aptitude

According to tabulation, here are an explanation of how the participants believein the above items. 44% of the participants, which composition of 37% disagree and7% strongly believe that learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translatingfrom the foreign language itself. In addition, 80% or the majority of the participantsdisagree that one should not say anything in Indonesian until he or she can say itcorrectly.
They also think that it is not necessary for people who are good at math andscience are not good at learning a foreign language. Moreover, 32% of theparticipants believe that people who speak more than one language well are very
intelligent while 39% neither agree nor disagree. 32% of the total participant believes
that learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning many grammar rules.
Almost 50% of the respondents also believe that the Japanese are good at learning
foreign languages with the idea of learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of

166

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learninglearning a lot of new vocabulary words. For item number 4, 44% of them believe thatIndonesian is a medium-difficult language, and 15.4% believe that the Indonesianlanguage is difficult while only 2.6% believe that it is a very difficult language.
However, 66% of the respondents are not confident in their potential to learn foreign
language.
3.2

Factor 2
Language learning motivation
The second group of items is shown in table 6. Item number 31 has the highest

loading factor, which is 0.6621. The next are number 12 (0.5787), number 21(0.5755), number 17 (0.5441), number 8 (0.5407), number 6 (0.4005) and number 27(0.3365).
Table 6: Factor 2
Language learning motivation
31. I would like to learn this language so that I can get to know its speakers better
12. If I heard someone speaking in the language I am trying to learn, I would go up
to them so that I could practice speaking
21. It is important to practice in the language laboratory
17. It is important to repeat and practice a lot
8. It is necessary to know a foreign culture in order to speak a foreign language
6. I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak this language very well
27. If I learn to speak this language very well, it will help me get a good job

In this group, 70 % of the respondents would like to learn this language so thatthey can get to know its speakers better. Also, almost 80 % convey their interest inmeeting and practicing to speak the Indonesian language when they heard someone
speaking in the Indonesian language. Besides that, almost 70% also believe that it isessential to practice in the language laboratory. Moreover, 94% think that it isimportant to repeat and practice a lot. In addition, they also think that it is necessary
to know a foreign culture in order to speak a foreign language. 59% of them believe
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019167

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

that they will ultimately learn to speak the Indonesian language very well. Half of thetotal number of respondents believe that if they learn to speak the Indonesianlanguage very well, it will help them to get a good job.
3.3

Factor 3
Idiosyncrasy in language learning
In this group, item number 10 with loading factor 0.4672 is the highest. It saysthat it is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn anotherone. The next number consecutively as follows: number 34 (0.4623), number 13(0.4590), number 3 (0.4233), number 23 (0.3628), and number 27 (0.3236).
Table 7: Factor 3
Idiosyncrasy in language learning

10. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language tolearn another one
34. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language
13. It is o.k. to guess if you donʼt know a word in a foreign language
3. Some languages are easier to learn than others
23. If I get to speak this language very well, I will have many
opportunities to use it
27. If I learn to speak this language very well, it will help me get a goodjob

40% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with the statement about howeasy for someone who already speaks foreign language to learn another one. Half ofthe total respondents also agree that everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
Moreover, more than 50% agree that it is all right to guess if one does not know aword in a foreign language. However, more than 75% agree that some languages areeasier to learn than others. Besides, 57% agree that if one gets to speak the language
very well, one will have many opportunities to use it. Moreover, 69% also believethat the language that they speak well will help them to get a good job.

168

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

3.4

Factor 4
Strategy of language learning
The last factor identified has only 4 item numbers. The following are the item

numbers in consecutive order. Number 20 (0.4163), item number 28 (0.3626), item
number 5 (0.3357) and item number 19 (0.3054).
Table 8: Factor 4
Strategy of language learning
20. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar
rules
28. It is easier to read and write in Indonesian than to speak and understand it
5. In order to speak Indonesian well, it is important for me to learn grammar
19. If you are allowed to make mistakes, in the beginning, it will be hard to get ridof them later on

41% of the participants neither agree nor disagree that learning a foreign
language is mostly a matter of learning many grammar rules. 48% agree that it iseasier to read and write in Indonesian than to speak and understand it. 73% agree thatin order to speak Indonesian well, it is essential for them to learn grammar. They also
believe in accuracy since 54% agree that it will be hard to get rid of mistakes if they
are allowed to make them in the beginning.

4

Discussion and conclusion
According to the statistically result, each factor consists of mixed items. The

grouping of items in each factor does not resemble or correspond to Horwitzʼs study.
The table below gives an illustration on the finding of Horwitz (1988), Nikitina
and Furuoka (2006) and the current study.

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019169

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦
Table 9: BALLI themes and factors across studies
AuthorHorwitz(1988)

Languagedifficulty(theme 1)
3 4 6
14 24 28

Nikitina and Ease of
Furuokalearning(2006)(factor 4)
28 33
Current
study

Idiosyncrasy
in language
learning(factor 3)
10, 34, 13, 3,
23, and 27

FL aptitude(theme 2)1 2 10 15
22 29 32 33
34
Aptitude(factor 2)

Nature ofLearning
learning
strategy(theme 3)(theme 4)
5 8 11 16 20 7 9 12 13
25 26 28
17 18 19 21---------------

22 29
Strategy oflanguagelearning(factor 4)
20, 28, 5,
and 19Generalview about
languagelearning(factor 1)
26, 9, 29, 32,
20, 33,16, 4,
and 15

Motivation(theme 5)
23 27 30 31

Strategy(factor 3)

Motivation(factor 1)

9 13

23 27 30 31

Languagelearning---------------motivation(factor 2)
31, 12, 21, 17,8, 6, and 27

Similar to Nikitina and Furuoka (2006), this study aﬃrms that the validity of
Horwitzʼs choice of themes is supported by the tenacity of particular studentsʼ beliefs
as reported in different studies. The difference between the current findings andprevious research is that ʻmotivationʼ did not appear to be a significant factor. BALLI
items that represent studentsʼ motivations and expectations on the Indonesianlanguage are 23, 27, and 31. Although 39% of the participants agreed that if they got
to speak the Indonesian language well, they would have many opportunities to use it,they neither agreed nor disagreed with the Indonesian language would help them toget a good job. The motivation to get to know the speaker of the Indonesian language
better was not significantly appeared. A low score on motivation might be caused by
the fact that the Indonesian language is a minor foreign language taught inuniversities where the survey was done.
RQ 1: What are the common factors or categories that appear from the finding on

170

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning

studentsʼ Indonesian language learning beliefs?
The first factor is described as a general view about language learning with item
number 26 as the highest loading variable. It says that learning a foreign language ismostly a matter of translating from the foreign language itself. It represents how
students come to have beliefs of proper and expected learning tasks in foreign
language learning. Most of the class activities are a matter of learning many grammar
rules. Therefore, the target language is rarely seen as a communication tool but as alanguage that is needed to be understood grammatically. Less opportunity to use thetarget language is communication context also inﬂuenced studentsʼ belief in language
learning practices. Students are accustomed to a heavily guided learning environment
when mistakes are less expected. Vocabulary learning is done by memorizing themeaning and how it is pronounced in katakana. One is expected to say the wordcorrectly before using it in the sentence. Item number 9 describes this belief.
It is also believed that everyone has a different ability to learning a foreign
language. Someone who is good at math and science is considered a less goodlanguage learner compared to the student who studies social science. Besides,
societyʼs view of bilingual or multilingual is considered knowledgeable people.
Therefore, a student who is not bilingual or multilingual might not succeed inlearning a foreign language. However, it is surprising to find item number 33, whichsays that ʻJapanese are good at learning foreign languagesʼ also has a quite highvariable loading number in this factor. The belief about having foreign language
aptitude is also refreshing to find after listing quite pessimistic beliefs.
Items that are grouped in the second factor tell us about studentsʼ language
learning motivations. The first item that appears in this group is the aim to learn thelanguage. Students would like to get to know the speakers of Indonesian better. It also
represents a positive attitude towards Indonesian native speakers or people who speakIndonesian. Students have social aims in learning a foreign language.
The next group of items is idiosyncrasy in language learning. This third factor
describes studentsʼ tendency in language learning. It is believed that it is easier forsomeone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one. However,
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019171

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦

students also believe that everyone is able to learn to speak a foreign language. It is
fascinating to find there is confidence in using the target language, although one has
not mastered it. This confidence motivates them to learn more, and they also believethat being able to speak a foreign language will benefit them when they look for ajob.
The last factor is about strategy for language learning. Students believe thatlearning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning many grammar rules.
Studentsʼ previous foreign language learning styles might also influence studentsʼ
learning strategies. They believe that in order to speak a foreign language, mastering
grammar is necessary. Therefore, it is easier to read and write in Indonesian than to
speak and understand it. It is because they might have few opportunities to use thetarget language orally. It seems that they also believe that mistakes should not beallowed in learning.
RQ 2: How Japanese students see the Indonesian language?
43.9% of the students consider the Indonesian language as a language withmedium difficulty; 15.4 % of the students choose the Indonesian language is adifficult language while only 5.6% refer the Indonesian language is a very easy
language. Indonesia language uses the Roman alphabet, which makes Indonesianlanguage learners easier to learn. The Indonesian language also has regular spellingwhich few exceptions, has no tones, and therefore no tone makers and no accents.
Comparing to English, Indonesian is considered easy since it does not have tenses
and inﬂectional forms.
RQ 3: What are Japanese studentsʼ beliefs about learning the Indonesian language?
The present study is unique from previous studies since it was done in Japan andabout how Japanese students view the Indonesian language as their second foreign
language. The identified factors also can represent how Japanese students see foreign
language learning.

172

Students’ Beliefs about Indonesian Language Learning
Table 10: Summary of results
Factor 1. General view about language
learning
Factor 2. Language learning motivation
Factor 3. Idiosyncrasy in language learning
Factor 4. Strategy of language learning

General view

Individual view

In a wider scope, this study has identified General views about language
learning, Language learning motivation, Idiosyncrasy in language learning, andStrategy of language learning. The factors identified above have described theuniqueness of Japanese students in learning the Indonesian language. By using theresult of the study, I hope that teachers of Indonesian as a foreign language canovercome the challenges of integrating suitable teaching methods and materials tomatch learnersʼ needs.
References
Bacon, S.M. and Finnemann, M.D. (1990) “A study of attitudes, motives and strategies ofuniversity foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written
input”, Modern Language Journal. 74(4), pp. 459–473.
Cotterall, S. (1999) “Key variables in language learning: what do learners believe about them?”
System. 27(4), pp. 493-513.
Diab, R.L. (2006) “University studentsʼ beliefs about learning English and French in Lebanon”,
System. 34(1), pp. 80-96.
Ellis, R. (2008) “Learner beliefs dan language learning”, The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. 10(4), 7-25. http://asian-eﬂ-journal.com/December_2008_EBook.pdf#page=7
Epstein, S. (1990) Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 165-192). NY: Guilford.
Fujiwara, T. (2011) “Language learning beliefs of Thai EFL university students: dimensional
structure and cultural variations”, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 8(1),pp. 87-107.
Horwitz, E.K. (1988) “The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language studentsʼ, Modern Language Journal. 72(3), pp. 283–294.
Kern, R.G. (1995) “Studentsʼ and teachersʼ beliefs about language learning”, Foreign language
Annals. 28(1), pp. 71-92.
Kudo, N. (2006) “Indonesia and Japan viewed from the history of exchange”, Sunaoka, K., andIkeda, M., Language and Culture in Asia. Seibundo.
Mori, Y. (1999) “Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language
learners believe about their learning?” Language learning. 49(3), pp. 377-415.
Nikitina, L. and Furuoka, F. (2006) “Re-examining Horwitzʼs beliefs about language learning
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.19 No.2 2019173

特集 多言語多文化共生社会に向けた挑戦
inventory (BALLI) in the Malaysian context”, Electronic journal of foreign language
teaching. 3(2), pp. 209-219.
Park, G.P. (1995) “Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning ofuniversity students learning English in Korea”, Dissertation Abstracts International.
56(06).
Peng, C.F. and Hui, C.J. (2012) “Beliefs about ESL learning among secondary school students
in Terengganu, Malaysia”, International Journal of Research in Economics & Social
Sciences. 2(2), pp. 44-63.
Peng, J-E. (2011) “Changes in language learning beliefs during a transition to tertiary study: The
mediation of classroom affordances”, System. 39(3), pp. 314-324.
Riley, P.A. (2006) The beliefs of first year Japanese university students towards the learning ofEnglish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
Sakui, K. and Gaies, S.J. (1999) “Investigating Japanese learnersʼ beliefs about language
learning”, System. 27(4), pp. 473-492.
Sioson, I.C. (2011) “Language learning strategies, beliefs, and anxiety in the academic speakingtask”, Philippine ESL Journal. 7, pp. 3-27.
Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003) “Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about
language learning”, JALT Journal. 25(1), pp. 63-85.
Truitt, S. N. (1995) “Beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean university students
learning English”, Texas papers in Foreign language Education. 2(1), pp. 1-14.
Victori, M. and Lockhart, W. (1995) “Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning”, System. 23(2), pp. 223-234.
Wenden, A. L. (1987) Conceptual background and utility. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning, pp. 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yang, N. D. (1992) “Second language learnersʼ beliefs about language learning and their use oflearning strategies”, A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 53(08).
〔受付日 2019. 9. 30〕

174