Reading Cards: Chinese Students’ Rationales for Their Language-related Epistemic Beliefs

Abstract

Studies on epistemic beliefs in L2 research are in a nascent stage. Acknowledging deeply rooted and complex intersections between prevalent cultural norms within a society, individually held beliefs, and mutually shared opinions among members of a social group, this Q methodological study explored Chinese university students’ rationales for holding particular language-related epistemic beliefs. Twenty students learning English as a foreign language participated in post Q-sorting interviews, where they explained the rationales for holding certain sets of beliefs about knowing and learning the English language. We analyzed the data using Card Content Analysis (CCA), a particularly suitable approach for the Q methodology. The findings revealed that the students held fairly sophisticated epistemic beliefs, and these beliefs were culturally rooted. The students placed a high premium on making a conscientious effort to learn English; they prioritized commitment and perseverance over having a special talent for learning languages. The respondents also believed that English, as any language, is evolving over time. Notably, while respecting their language instructors, the students realized that teachers, or even people for whom English is the mother tongue, might occasionally make linguistic errors. Several students stated that there are many sources from which one can learn English, and they also asserted the importance of being able to gage the veracity of the linguistic information one receives. The article concludes by drawing some pedagogical implications.

Plain language summary

Chinese students’ beliefs about knowing and learning the English language

People who have learned a foreign language have their own opinions about what it means to know a foreign language and about good ways to learn it. However, these opinions are rarely explored. This study investigated Chinese university students’ perspectives on the nature of knowledge, the nature of knowing, and the process of learning the English language. We asked the students to arrange 42 cards, each containing statements about learning and knowing the English language, in a grid and provide an explanation for the cards’ placement. After analyzing the information received from the students, it became clear that the language learners valued diligence and commitment in their studies, and they considered effort more important than talent for learning languages. They also thought that the English language was changing with time, just like any other language. While fully respecting the authority and expertise of their English language instructors, they asserted that their teachers, as well as people for whom English is the mother tongue, might occasionally make grammatical mistakes. Many of the students mentioned that there are many resources that can help people learn English. Importantly, they were aware that one must be able to distinguish reliable sources of linguistic information from unreliable ones when learning English. This study gives some worthwhile insights into the opinions that students in China have about learning and knowing the English language.

Introduction

People who learn a new language hold their own subjective opinions and beliefs about what good knowledge of the target language involves. In recent years, language learners’ epistemic beliefs, or beliefs about the process of learning, the nature of knowledge and the validity of knowledge, have attracted the interest of L2 researchers. A number of studies have been done on this topic, but for the most part, these studies were quantitative (Kahsay, 2019; Mori, 1999; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2018). There is a scarcity of qualitative explorations, which prevents researchers from having a deeper understanding and gaining valuable insights into the nature of such beliefs and the rationales for holding them. Particularly, Q methodology, an approach that allows for delving deeper into L2 learners’ subjectivity, has been rarely employed to investigate epistemic beliefs. Only a handful of such explorations are available (Rock, 2013; Wang & Nikitina, 2023). This study addresses this gap. It explored Mainland Chinese language learners’ rationales for holding their language-related epistemic beliefs.

Q methodology (or simply Q) was invented by British physicist and psychologist William Stephenson almost 100 years ago. In his brief letter to Nature, Stephenson proposed a novel approach to factor analysis that allowed moving away from a variable-centered focus to a person-centered paradigm of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data (Stephenson, 1935). By shifting the focus from a study’s variables to its participants, Q has brought many affordances to research on individual differences and enriched the methodological arsenal of researchers interested in exploring human subjectivity in a systematic way. Q methodology is gaining increasing recognition in applied linguistics and second language (L2) research (Morea & Ghanbar, 2024). Available studies have explored such topics as communication strategies in a multilingual professional setting (Alkhateeb et al., 2024), language learners’ motivation (Zheng et al., 2020) and willingness to communicate (Solhi & Thumvichit, 2024), anxiety in the language classroom (Fraschini, 2023), academic boredom (Kruk et al., 2022), language educators’ motivational drivers (Lu & Geng, 2022), and burnout, moral distress, and resilience among EFL (Ding et al., 2023; Thumvichit, 2023).

Despite its growing popularity, Q remains a relatively lesser-known methodology. For this reason, the published Q studies usually describe their methodological procedure in great detail, including the steps in instrument (Q-set) development, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Notably, the data analytic stage in Q incorporates both quantitative and qualitative analyses. This prompted some researchers to describe Q as “qualiquantology” (Stenner & Stainton Rogers, 2004). While considerable attention in empirical Q methodological studies has been given to executing the quantitative analysis, fewer considerations have been given to the analysis and presentation of the qualitative data. The current study addresses this gap. It adopted an analytical procedure called Card Content Analysis (CCA) proposed by Gallagher and Porock (2010). CCA enabled us to gain deeper insights into the Mainland Chinese English language learners’ rationales for holding their opinions about knowing and learning the English language. Recognizing that beliefs about education and learning are deeply embedded in a cultural context where teaching and learning take place, the next section discusses the origins and features of perspectives on education in China.

Cultural Influences on Epistemic Beliefs

Epistemic beliefs are people’s subjective opinions about the nature of knowledge, the nature of knowing, and the process of acquiring knowledge. These beliefs are shaped by cultural contexts and by cultures of learning. According to Cortazzi and Jin (2013), the concept “cultures of learning” proposes that members of a certain cultural group or community would have their own “preferences, expectations, interpretations, values, and beliefs about how to learn or how to teach” (p. 1). Moreover, as researchers have pointed out, many of these expectations and beliefs have been absorbed since early childhood and during formative years at school. Furthermore, there are dozens of idioms about education in the Chinese language. These colloquial expressions are frequently used in every day interactions by parents and teachers and they form folk beliefs about the essence of learning, teaching, and knowing (S. Chan, 1999; Liu & Zhang, 2024).

These folk beliefs and cultures of learning in China and other East Asian societies, such as Japan and Korea, are rooted in the Confucian heritage. They have deep influence on classroom procedures and dynamics at the micro-level and education policies at the macro-level (W.O. Lee, 1996; E. Li, 2017). The Confucian philosophy culminates in the teachings of three great philosophers: Confucius (551 BC–479 BC), Mencius (372 BC–289 BC) and Hsün-tzu (c. 300 BC–c. 230 BC). It emphasizes the importance and value of education and learning, where the emphasis is on students’ hard work, commitment to learning, concentration, and effort. It also places a high value on perseverance, which is considered more important for achieving academic success than a special talent or aptitude (S. Chan, 1999; Heine et al., 2001, cited in J. Li and Fischer, 2004; Jin & Cortazzi, 2019; Lee, 1996). It also should be noted that over the years of education, students become socialized to respect their teachers and all those who deliver knowledge and not to criticize people in authority (S. Chan, 1999). However, the great respect accorded to the teacher does not preclude the importance of exercising one’s own critical thinking and having one’s own judgment. (Lee, 1996; E. Li, 2017).

There is a wealth of research studies that compare cultures of learning in Confucian-heritage societies, such as China, Korea, and Japan, and other cultural and educational settings (Biggs, 1996; C. K. K. Chan & Rao, 2009; Lee, 1996; E. Li, 2017; J. Li & Fischer, 2004; Ryan, 2013). Based on their own and earlier studies’ empirical findings, J. Li and Fischer (2004) argued that, in contrast to the sensibilities prevalent in Western educational contexts where aptitude and talent are considered the determinants of academic success, “Chinese adults and children are more inclined to view ability as something that they achieve through personal effort” (p. 388). A notable character of a “Chinese style” of learning”—and the main point of criticism—is the predisposition of Chinese students to rote learning. Researchers point out that there is an objective reason for this. As S. Chan (1999) noted, the Chinese script is ideographic, and on average, a person needs to memorize between 3,500 and 6,000 characters to be literate. In other words, learning to read requires memorizing the characters. However, and this recognition is often missing in the criticisms of Chinese students being “rote learners,” it also requires employing sophisticated learning strategies, a deep level of questioning (S. Chan, 1999; Jin & Cortazzi, 2019).

While recognizing the presence of unique features in a particular culture of learning, scholars (Cortazzi & Jin, 2013; Jin & Cortazzi, 2019; Liu & Zhang, 2024) caution against simplifying the issue and stereotyping Chinese and Western cultures. It should be noted that some predominant in Confucian cultures approaches to learning, such as diligence and hard work, are highly valued in other cultures. As Liu and Zhang (2024) observed, notions that are commonly associated with Western pedagogical traditions, such as student-centeredness and experiential approaches to teaching, are part of Chinese traditional perspectives on teaching. These sensibilities are reflected in such idiomatic expressions as “Conduct teaching in accordance with talents” (student-centeredness) and “Transmit knowledge through language and demonstrate it through action” (experiential learning) (p. 6).

Besides the inherent complexities of any culture and of shared cultural sensibilities, individual members of a cultural group have their own opinions and ideas about how learning and teaching should be done. These beliefs may be idiosyncratic to an individual member of a cultural group and vastly different from those commonly endorsed by his or her peers. Recognizing numerous and complex intersections among the prevalent cultural mores, individually held beliefs, and shared subjective opinions, this study explores epistemic beliefs held by Chinese university students learning the English language in China. The Q methodology adopted in this study offers abundant affordances for such an exploration. The next section explains the general steps and stages involved in Q.

Implementing a Q Study: Quantitative and Qualitative Strands

A Q methodological study follows a sequence of steps that are described in great detail in methodological literature (Brown, 1980, 1993; Watts & Stenner, 2012). To give a brief overview of the proceedings in a Q study, first, the researcher develops a concourse, which is a wide variety of opinions and statements on the topic of interest. Then, a Q-set is drawn from this large concourse, and cards containing these statements are prepared for further Q-sorting. In the data collection stage that follows, the study participants perform Q-sorting of the cards. Usually, they placed the cards on a grid ranging from a negative point (e.g., −4 for “strongly disagree”) to a positive point (e.g., +4 for “strongly agree”). This procedure yields quantitative data. After the Q-sorting is done, the researcher may conduct post Q-sorting interviews, which provide qualitative data. These interviews can also be done while the participants perform the Q-sorting.

As can be seen from this sequence of steps, the quantitative and qualitative phases have been seamlessly linked in a Q study since its inception. In the data analytic stage, firstly, the quantitative data are subjected to the correlation analysis of the completed Q-sorts, and then the factor analysis is performed. This latter step produces the Q-factors that reflect the shared subjective viewpoints of study participants. Importantly, the analysis of the Q-factors structure allows for discerning the statements where the participants’ opinions tend to be very similar (i.e., the “consensus statements”) and where their opinions significantly diverge (i.e., the “distinguishing statements”). The consensus statements, or rather, the cards containing these statements, were placed by the Q-sorters in a statistically significantly similar position on the Q-sort grid. In contrast, the cards with the distinguishing statements on a factor have a statistically significantly different placement on this particular factor (Gallagher & Porock, 2010).

Upon completing the quantitative phase, the researcher proceeds to qualitatively interpret the structure of each Q-factor that was derived from the statistical tests. At this stage, the researcher seeks to capture the rationales or “whys” behind the participants’ opinions. This understanding can be further enabled by analyzing the post Q-sorting interview data. A content analysis is a suitable approach to analyzing these data because it involves an intensive scrutiny of textual, verbal, or visual data, the classification of the data into categories, and the creation of a narrative pertaining to the findings (Given, 2008). Gallagher and Porock (2010) proposed a special kind of content analysis for Q methodological studies. The next section explains this methodological approach.

Card Content Analysis

Noting that relatively little attention is paid to the role of post Q-sorting interviews and observing a lack of appropriate methods of their analysis, Gallagher and Porock (2010) proposed a systematic procedure they called “Card Content Analysis” (CCA). In other words, CCA is a type of content analysis particularly suitable for the Q methodology, where the term “card” refers to each card in the Q-set. This analytical procedure follows a qualitative tradition of content analysis, which has been defined as “an approach of empirical, methodological controlled analysis of texts within their context of communication, following content analytic rules and step-by-step models, without rash quantification” (Mayring, 2000). The unit of analysis in CCA is the range of opinions pertaining to each particular statement or each particular card that contains this statement (Gallagher & Porock, 2010).

Gallagher and Porock (2010) advised analyzing the consensus and the distinguishing statements in separate phases. To be more specific, a free node is created for each consensus statement in the Q-set. Then the researcher combines the interview excerpts concerning each particular consensus statement. All interview transcripts are examined simultaneously. However, during the analysis of the distinguishing statements, a free node is created for each factor derived during the prior statistical tests. This is done because each factor’s constellation of distinguishing statements reflects the opinions of the participants who have a statistically significant association with that factor. Then, a subcategory is created for each distinguishing statement in each factor.

After organizing the data and placing the interview excerpts in appropriate nodes and subcategories, the researcher begins analyzing the interview data. The interview excerpts are searched for common themes, similarities, and differences in opinions. Following this, the most representative statements for each theme are selected and cited in a narrative created by the researcher about the study’s findings. The interview data in this current study reflected Mainland China students’ rationales for holding particular epistemic beliefs about learning and knowing the English language. The next section gives further details about the study’s participants and describes the analytical procedure.

Method

Participants

Prior to conducting this study, we sought and received approval from the University Research Ethics Committee (UMREC; UM.TNC2/UMREC_1677). The invitation to take part in this study was sent to students. As the main aim of a Q methodological study is to deeply and systematically explore human subjectivity on the topic of interest, a large number of participants is not required. We collected data from 20 (N = 20) students studying English as a foreign language at a large university in Mainland China who volunteered to participate. The students were between 19 and 20 years old. They majored in urban planning and engineering, and English was a compulsory subject.

We asked the participants to sort 42 statements about language-related epistemic beliefs (see Supplemental File). The Q-sort grid used for this purpose ranged from −5 (where the students placed the “most disagree” statements) to +5 (for the “most agree” statements). Immediately upon completing this task, a semi-structured interview was conducted with each student. The students were asked to explain why they had placed a particular statement in its respective position on the Q-sorting grid. One of the interview questions was “Can you explain why you have agreed with these statements?”

The interviews were conducted in Mandarin, which is the students’ mother tongue. The interview transcripts were translated into English by the researchers using the “Google Translate” web-based translation service that uses a neural translation method (https://translate.google.com/). The machine translated texts were checked by the first author of this article and amended for better accuracy and clarity.

Research Instrument and Data Organisation

Each statement about language-related epistemic beliefs belonged to one of seven domains identified in earlier studies (K. W. Chan & Elliott, 2002, 2004; Hofer, 2004, 2006; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2018; Pritchard, 2006; Schommer, 1990). These domains were “Simplicity of Knowledge,”“Certainty of Knowledge,”“Authority of Knowledge,”“Source of Knowledge,”“Quick Learning,”‘Innate Ability’, and “Learning Effort.” We typed each statement in Chinese and printed it on a small card for further Q-sorting. Each student had a separate session to sort out the cards on the Q-sort grid and have an interview with the researcher. The data were stored in Microsoft Excel files.

Following the sequence of analytical steps in Q methodology, firstly, we performed the statistical analysis of the data using KenQ Analysis Desktop Edition (KADE) software (Banasick, 2019). This software is specifically designed to explore and analyze the data in Q methodology studies. It has a user-friendly graphic interface that guides researchers through a sequence of steps. We retained three Q-factors for further statistical interpretation. However, the findings from the statistical analysis are not reported in this article, as they were published earlier ( Wang & Nikitina,2023 ). These findings provided vital information for the qualitative analysis in this study. Thus, the quantitative findings indicated that there were 22 consensus statements pertaining to language-related epistemic beliefs; there were also several distinguishing statements in each of the three factors. These findings guided the analytical steps in the current qualitative study that adapted CCA (see Figure 1) proposed by Gallagher and Porock (2010).

Figure 1.

Strands and sequence in CCA analysis.

As can be seen from Figure 1, in the first step, we searched the interview data for excerpts where each participant explained his or her rationale behind placing the Q-set cards in their respective positions in the Q-sorting grid. To facilitate this process, an Excel file was created where Sheet 1 contained all 42 Q-set statements arranged in the left column. The respective responses to these statements by the participants were arranged in rows. To facilitate the analysis, all interview excerpts were highlighted in yellow in order to differentiate these statements from other responses. Next, Sheet 2 was created in the same Excel file, where all distinguishing statements about epistemic beliefs in Factor 1 were arranged in the left column. The explanations for holding these beliefs given by the participants who were strongly associated with this factor were placed in rows. In a similar way, Sheet 3 and Sheet 4 were created in the same Excel file to enable the analysis of the students’ rationales for holding the distinguishing epistemic beliefs in Factor 2 and Factor 3.

Data Analysis: Coding and Grouping the Data

After classifying the interview data, we proceeded to establish the coding frame. A coding frame helps to streamline the process of classifying, organizing, labeling, and summarizing the raw interview data (Given, 2008, p. 88). Researchers can either develop the frame inductively from the data or prepare it prior to the analysis (Given, 2008). The coding frame in the current study was developed prior to the analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the coding frame was based on the seven domains of epistemic beliefs identified in the earlier studies, namely, Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Authority of Knowledge, Source of Knowledge, Innate Ability, Quick Learning and Learning Effort (K. W. Chan & Elliott, 2002, 2004; Hofer, 2004, 2006; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2018; Pritchard, 2006; Schommer, 1990).

To be more specific, we divided the students’ opinions referring to the consensus statements, or the beliefs that were strongly endorsed by this cohort of language learners, into seven pre-determined domains of epistemic beliefs. For example, four of the 22 consensus statements belonged in the Simplicity of Knowledge domain; these statements were grouped together for the analysis. We then examined the students’ explanations for holding certain epistemic beliefs in each domain. We searched for recurring themes, differences, and similarities in the opinions. The same approach was adopted for the analysis of the distinguishing statements (see Figure 1). However, in the latter part, we analyzed only the rationales provided by the “exemplar” students, or students who were statistically associated with each particular statistically identified factor.

To enhance the trustworthiness of the data interpretation, we adopted an iterative approach to data analysis in which the data were revisited and reanalyzed. Unavoidably, some interview excerpts in our study were relevant to more than one larger theme. For example, similar themes were deduced from the statements regarding the beliefs about the Nature of Knowledge and the Source of knowledge domains. It should also be acknowledged that the findings in a qualitative study are context-dependent (Given, 2008) and that people’s social and cultural environments shape their epistemic beliefs (Buehl, 2007; Hammer & Elby, 2002). The current study was conducted in Mainland China. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that some of the subjective viewpoints shared by the respondents could be affected by the unique “cultural features” in which the teaching and learning took place and that shaped “specific values, beliefs, and behaviors about learning and teaching” (Jin & Cortazzi, 2019, p.131). The next section presents the findings from the CCA.

Findings

Findings From the Analysis of Consensus Statements

The categories or domains of epistemic beliefs with which the 22 consensus statements aligned were: Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Authority of Knowledge, Source of Knowledge, Quick Learning and Learning Effort. Interestingly, none of the consensual statements belonged in the Innate Ability domain. Next, we report the students’ rationales for holding these beliefs.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Simplicity of Knowledge Domain

The four consensus statements in the Simplicity of Knowledge domain received either a strong endorsement or a neutral opinion from the participants. The students strongly supported the viewpoint that learning English requires combining textbook explanations with one’s own prior knowledge and understanding (Statement 3, hereafter referred to as “S” followed by a number). When probed further, they offered a range of explanations. Some students (e.g., Participant 16, henceforth “Participant” is designated as “P” followed by a number) recognized the limitations of the textbook’s information, while others (P6 and P12) emphasized the significance of recalling one’s own grammatical knowledge. The respondents also supported the notion that connecting newly received knowledge with prior knowledge is a good way to learn English (S4). In their own words,

“Knowing and learning English from a textbook has certain limitations.” (P16)

“You can’t be content with the knowledge you learned from textbooks; you also need to combine it with your own understanding. This is certainly a more thorough way to learn than relying on a single approach.” (P12)

“For example, you can learn grammar by listening to some English songs and reading the song lyrics or subtitles in the movies. Additionally, combining new knowledge with your knowledge is more efficient.” (P5)

At the same time, the students disagreed that there is only one correct answer to any problem one encounters while learning English (S7). As they explained,

“I disagree with this saying. For example, when filling in the blanks, you may find that there is more than just one correct answer. Besides, you can use different sentence structures to express the same thing.” (P10)

“There are multiple grammatical structures to express the same meaning.” (P20)

The consensus statement that asserts that the English language is not as complex as many people might think (S1) tended to be placed in a neutral position by the participants. One student opined that English is, in fact, an easy language (P1), and another student considered English not a too complex tool to communicate with other people (P17). As they elucidated,

“In fact, I feel English is very simple, but I just do not try hard enough to learn it.” (P1)

“It is a tool of communication, and it is not so complicated.” (P17)

Overall, these opinions indicate that the study participants held sophisticated views regarding the Simplicity of Knowledge domain. As to the rationales for holding these opinions, the students realized the need to integrate textbook explanations with one’s own prior knowledge. They asserted that it was important to develop one’s own understanding of how the language “works.” The students disputed the idea of there being a single answer to a linguistic problem and opined that several answers could be valid because English has diverse sentence patterns. Some students considered English a practical means of communication, despite its perceived complexity.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Certainty of Knowledge Domain

Five consensus statements concerned the Certainty of Knowledge domain. Here, the participants expressed a strong opposition to the statement that the English language teacher’s explanations must be exactly the same in the textbook (S8). The students thus explained their rationales for objecting to this opinion.

“I think that the English language teacher’s explanation doesn’t have to be exactly the same as in the textbook, since each person’s understanding and way of gaining knowledge is different.” (P8)

“My understanding is that the explanation method does not need to follow the textbook.”But the final answer should be identical to the textbook.” (P20)

“Saying this is rather inappropriate.” (P14)

“When imparting new knowledge, the teachers should use their professional judgement and take into account their students’ proficiency level. In certain situations, teachers may need to modify their approach from what the textbook suggests. (P4)

“I think the English teacher’s explanations can integrate his or her own understanding of what is easier for the students to understand.” (P19)

As these excerpts demonstrate, the students’ opinions ranged from relatively neutral (P20) to emotionally charged (P14). Some students held the pragmatic view that the English language teacher needs to consider the students’ language proficiency level and adapt their explanations accordingly (P4 and P19). Besides, the students recognized that each person’s cognitive processes and understanding—including their teachers’—are unique and idiosyncratic, and that this fact would be reflected in the way the teachers explain the new material (P19).

Furthermore, the participants maintained a sophisticated belief that there is still much to discover about the English language (S9). As their explanations attest, the students situated the process of gaining knowledge of English in a wider realm of knowledge acquisition, which is “endless” and is as wide as an ocean. Some of the opinions the students imparted during the interviews were,

“Learning is endless.” (P11)

“The ocean of knowledge is infinite.” (P13)

“Language learning is endless and uncertain.” (P15)

“Even though I have learned the English language for many years, there are still many unknowns left to be explored. This is also because the English language is constantly evolving and changing.” (P8)

Another statement where the students’ opinions tended to converge concerned the absence of “puzzling” problems in English grammar (S11). Most of the students tended to be less certain regarding this statement, which is exemplified in an answer,

“I am not proficient enough to be sure whether there are puzzling problems in English grammar or not.” (P18)

In a similar way, the participants held neutral views as to whether having a good knowledge of English means knowing lots of grammar rules (S13). However, despite being less certain, some students acknowledged the role of grammar. One opinion was,

“Grammar indeed matters a lot in language learning.” (P15)

Additionally, they tended to remain neutral about whether linguists and language experts agree that knowledge about the English language is certain (S14). As one student said,

“It is a bit hard to answer.” (P8).

In summary, the students held sophisticated beliefs in the Certainty of Knowledge domain regarding statements related to the process of teaching and learning English. They showed their awareness of the vastness of linguistic knowledge and of unique individual approaches to gaining and imparting knowledge.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Authority of Knowledge Domain

Among the 22 consensus statements, five pertained to the Authority of Knowledge domain. When asked whom they would turn to when they needed to verify information about English, many of the participants identified their English language teachers as the primary source of knowledge. The rationales for this opinion were,

“When I was in high school, I did not have any hesitation to ask my teacher whenever I had any questions. My teacher was very helpful.” (P14)

“I believe students in China rely heavily on their teachers. We need the teacher’s guidance.” (P10)

At the same time, the students endorsed the opinion that not every English language teacher might have a perfect knowledge of the language (S18). As one student explained,

“Not every English teacher is highly proficient in the language they teach. I think it is enough for the teacher to pass on the knowledge to the students and then help them to develop it a bit further.” (P1)

The language learners acknowledged that there are various sources from which knowledge comes and stated the importance of being able to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones (S19). As some students explained,

“The network today is highly developed. Accordingly, knowledge comes from a variety of sources. Not distinguishing the reliability of knowledge that comes from these sources is a poor way to acquire knowledge.” (P8)

“To learn a language well requires the ability to distinguish correct knowledge from wrong.” (P12)

“Distinguishing what is unreliable from what is reliable is actually a rather important ability.” (P16)

Interestingly, the majority of the students disagreed that the most authoritative knowledge of English comes from linguists and language experts (S21). In their own words,

“I believe the textbook could provide the most authoritative knowledge of English.” (P1)

“For us, the textbook is the authority. Except for talking to our English teachers, we have few opportunities to meet linguists and language experts." (P15)

“Language knowledge, in my opinion, does not come from experts or scientists. What is recognised by everyone is authority.” (P5)

Some students believed that native English speakers were the authority on English language knowledge. As they explained,

“I trust [the opinion of] native speakers. I treat them as authoritative sources of knowledge, and I am unwilling to challenge their authority.” (P2)

“We are not proficient enough to question native speakers.” (P3)

“I think native speakers use English more correctly than we do, but they are not always right. They also might make some mistakes.” (P6)

Some participants were less certain about this matter. As one student explained,

“I have no idea about what the authority is, so I do not have much to say about this.” (P20)

To recap, the students tended to offer quite similar rationales for their beliefs regarding the Authority of Knowledge domain. A number of participants considered their English language teachers to be the main source of knowledge and attributed this opinion to the cultural sensibilities in China. At the same time, the students recognized that not every teacher possesses impeccable knowledge of English. Furthermore, the participants were aware of the importance of being able to differentiate trustworthy sources of knowledge from those that were less reliable. They explained that lacking such an ability would result in poor learning and questionable knowledge. Several students agreed that native speakers of English were the ultimate source of knowledge. Some students simply trusted the opinions of people for whom English was their mother tongue, while others explained that, lacking good language proficiency, they would not dispute any opinions coming from native English speakers.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Source of Knowledge Domain

Two consensus statements came from the Source of Knowledge domain. They pertained to using one’s own prior language learning experience (S27) and the need to discover how to learn (S28). During the interviews, the students emphasized the importance of combining their own learning experiences with various other sources of knowledge. Many students shared their rationales for this belief. As they put it,

“Personally, teachers, textbooks, the Internet, and my own experience are the four major sources of knowledge when learning a new language.” (P20)

“In my view, experience is important, and so are the books you read. In other words, theory is as important as practice.” (P11)

Several respondents agreed that developing their own effective methods for acquiring knowledge will help them learn English and other subjects. In their own words,

“To acquire knowledge of a language, one needs to find learning methods that are suitable and efficient.” (P10)

“No matter what you learn, you need to find a way. Without methods, your learning is less effective.” (P16)

“If you can find a suitable method, you can get twice the result with half the effort, and learning will become smoother.” (P17)

“Everyone is a unique individual; therefore, students should find a suitable method to learn and master the language.” (P20)

“I think a good study method will yield twice the result with half the effort. If you find methods that work for you, you’ll be very productive; otherwise, you’ll just waste time.” (P8)

In sum, the students asserted that combining one’s own learning experience with external sources of knowledge helps to link theory and practice. Furthermore, as they explained, developing one’s own methods of knowledge acquisition would make the learning process more effective, efficient, and productive. These viewpoints are encouraging, particularly considering the widespread belief that Chinese students heavily depend on their teachers’ guidance.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Quick Learning Domain

The consensus statements from the Quick Learning domain drew many comments from the students. While some of the statements received a solid endorsement, others attracted strong opposition. For example, the students unanimously supported the belief that language learning is a slow and gradual process (S34). As they put it,

“I think language learning is a slow process, so you should keep learning no matter how long it takes.” (P5)

“Knowledge of English is accumulated slowly.” (P4)

The students also noted that learning a new language is a progression where one’s knowledge of the language will grow over time. In their own words,

“Personally, I learn English very slowly, but when I learn it, I will remember it firmly. Therefore, my language learning is a slow, progressive, and incremental process.” (P11)

“For example, when learning English, we start our learning with ABCD, then we move to pronunciation, grammar, making longer sentences, and so on. I think we should persevere in learning a new language. If we don’t, we won’t achieve much success.” (P6)

“Our learning of English is a gradual process, from learning new words to grammar to making sentences.” (P20)

“No one can succeed in learning a language at once. You must acquire it in the prescribed order: from letters to words, to grammar, to sentences, and finally to fluency." (P13)

“Personally, no matter what you do, you must do it step by step. As the Chinese old saying goes, ‘nothing can be accomplished in one single effort.’” (P14)

“I have been studying English since the third grade. As far as sentence structure is concerned, I first learned how to make simple sentences and then proceeded to make compound sentences.” (P2)

“We learn English starting from the ABC and move on to mastering practical skills, such as writing and speaking. Language learning is a process of slowly accumulating knowledge and becoming better at it.” (P5)

Quite logically, the students disagreed that if a person cannot learn the English language at a fast pace, he or she will never learn it (S33). They also disputed the opinion that if one cannot learn fast, it is not worth trying (S36). These particular statements drew responses from many students, who explained their viewpoints as follows,

“If you can’t learn English at once, this doesn’t mean you’ll never learn it.” (P11)

“The first word that came to my eyes was fast. It is unreasonable to say that if I cannot memorise a new word in one minute, I will never learn it.” (P16)

“I totally disagree with this saying.” (P12)

“We cannot master new knowledge immediately. In fact, mastering new knowledge needs consolidation; it is a slow process of accumulation.” (P7)

“Practice makes perfect. Language learning is a slow process. Even if I can’t earn it right away, I’ll learn it at some point.” (P14)

Notably, the statements about the incremental process of gaining knowledge of the English language received the largest number of comments. The students shared the belief that learning cannot occur quickly. Their own educational experiences, in which English learning begins in primary schools and continues over many years, served as the foundation for this belief. The students also observed that the acquisition of linguistic knowledge follows a specific sequence, starting with the alphabet and vocabulary and advancing to the creation of complex sentences. Moreover, the students recognized that perseverance was important and that a slow but steady accumulation of knowledge would eventually bear fruit.

Rationales for Beliefs in the Learning Effort Domain

As to the Learning Effort domain, the students strongly endorsed the opinion that achieving high proficiency in English requires a lot of hard work. They considered effort and perseverance to be the essential ingredients for achieving academic success. In the students’ own words,

“If you don’t work hard, you probably won’t achieve much. But if you aim high, you must work hard.” (P11)

“For me, learning any subject, including learning English, requires a certain amount of effort.” (P20)

“To learn a new foreign language, one needs perseverance. Otherwise, we won’t achieve much.” (P6)

Moreover, the majority of participants in this study thought that no matter how talented and smart one is, learning English would still require one’s time and dedicated effort. As they explained,

“It takes a lot of effort to succeed at anything, no matter how talented a person is.” (P3)

“Even very smart people need to make continuous efforts to achieve mastery.” (P18)

At the same time, several students believed that having aptitude for learning languages might reduce the amount of effort one puts into learning. As one student explained,

“People without talent need to give 100 percent effort to reach a high level. Talented people who want to reach that level only need to put in 50 percent of their effort.” (P16)

These findings reveal that the students held sophisticated beliefs in the Learning Effort domain, as reflected in their strong belief in the value of effort.

To summarize, the CCA of consensus statements identified several recurring themes in the students’ shared subjective viewpoints. These themes were: the importance of effort and perseverance in learning English; the value of exercising one’s own agency in the process of learning; the awareness of a multitude of sources of knowledge; and the recognition of English language teachers and people for whom English is the mother tongue as the authority of knowledge.

Findings From the Analysis of Distinguishing Epistemic Beliefs

In the analysis of the distinguishing statements or beliefs, only the responses of the participants strongly associated with one of the three factors were analyzed. The following sections report on how the students explained their rationales for holding specific subjective opinions and beliefs.

Rationales for Distinguishing Epistemic Beliefs in Factor 1

There were five distinguishing statements in Factor 1 (see Supplemental File), which pertained to four domains of epistemic beliefs, namely, Certainty of Knowledge, Authority of Knowledge, Quick Learning, and Learning Effort. Thirteen participants had a statistically significant association with this factor. The interviews with these students helped to elucidate the reason for having this particular set of beliefs. As the findings indicate, the student gave unanimous approval to the statement that a language, whether it is English or Mandarin, is constantly evolving and changing (S12). As they explained,

“As society develops and science advances, language certainly changes. So it’s not static.” (P1)

“I have just looked up some information. The development of English has undergone three stages: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Old English’s grammar appears to be very similar to German’s. We can conclude that language is not immutable.” (P13)

“Times are progressing. Language also evolves. We still widely use Chinese idioms from ancient times today. However, the contemporary era has also led to the creation of some new words.” (P8)

The rest of the distinguishing statements in Factor 1 relate to the process of knowledge acquisition. The students supported the opinion that one should keep trying to understand difficult grammar rules and never give up (S35). Quite logically, they strongly disagreed that one needs a special talent for languages to learn English well (S40). For these students, effort was the key to success. As some of them said,

“Effort is most important.” (P3)

“There is no way to become very proficient in any subject just by talent without making any effort.” (P7)

However, the students also realized that one can study English for years and still not have a good knowledge of the language (S38). As one of the participants explained,

“I’ve been studying for more than 10 years, and I’ve learned some things, but I’m not sure if I’m entirely good at it.” (P2)

The students associated with Factor 1 realized that their English language teachers can make mistakes. They also believed that it was okay to doubt their teachers’ authority of knowledge if the information they imparted was not correct. The students gave the following explanations for this opinion,

“Language knowledge is so extensive and profound that it cannot be mastered fully. If the English language teacher says something incorrect, it is ok to doubt.” (P20)

“What the teacher says is not always right, and they sometimes make mistakes. So it’s okay to doubt the teacher. But I am not habitually questioning my teachers.” (P7)

In sum, the group of students strongly associated with Factor 1 held sophisticated epistemic beliefs regarding the certainty of knowledge and the process of learning. They believed that language was constantly evolving. As the rationale to support this opinion, they stated that many new words come up as science and society develop; one student cited the trajectory of English language development over centuries. Furthermore, this group of students valued effort and perseverance in learning English and tended to rely on their own judgment regarding the veracity of knowledge coming from their English language teachers.

Rationales for Distinguishing Epistemic Beliefs in Factor 2

There were nine distinguishing statements in Factor 2 (see Supplemental File). They pertained to the following domains: Certainty of Knowledge, Authority of Knowledge, Source of Knowledge, Innate Ability, and Learning Effort. Four students were strongly associated with this factor. They showed awareness that the English language constantly evolves (S12) and that a language does not remain frozen in time (S10). In fact, the former statement received the strongest endorsement from this group of learners, while the latter opinion received the strongest opposition. The students offered the following rationales for their beliefs,

“Language is constantly changing, just as modern English is not the same as old English.” (P15)

“As time goes by, there will always be new words. Therefore, the English language is and will be changing.” (P11)

“Many new words like ‘AI’ pop out.” (P18)

“The English language definitely changes as time goes by.” (P12)

A distinctive feature of the students strongly associated with Factor 2 was their shared views on the sources of knowledge. They strongly disagreed that the main source of knowledge was their English language teachers and textbooks (S24 and S25). According to one student,

“As far as I am concerned, knowledge of English comes from various sources, such as cartoons, for example.” (P15)

The findings revealed that the students who significantly correlated with Factor 2 held rather sophisticated epistemic beliefs. They were keenly aware that the English language undergoes continuous evolution and pointed out that modern English differs from old English and that novel terms such as “AI” arise all the time. These students also challenged the idea that English language teachers and textbooks serve as the primary sources of knowledge, asserting that a variety of sources, including cartoons, contribute to knowledge. These opinions emphasize the distinct viewpoints of the students associated with this factor.

Rationales for Distinguishing Epistemic Beliefs in Factor 3

We identified ten statements in Factor 3 as distinguishing statements (see Supplemental File). They were from five domains of epistemic beliefs, namely, Simplicity of Knowledge, Certainty of Knowledge, Authority of Knowledge, Source of Knowledge, and Innate Ability. Three participants were significantly associated with this factor.

The most unique feature of this group of students was their strong endorsement of the belief that some people do in fact have a special talent for learning English while others lack it (S29). Furthermore, some students believed that this special talent determined whether the learning outcome was successful or not. As one student noted,

“I had a classmate who is particularly good at English. He seemed not to spend much time learning, but he still achieved excellent results.” (P6)

At the same time, these students strongly disagreed with the opinion that if someone cannot learn English well, then he or she will not be able to learn other languages (S32). According to one student,

“If you can’t learn English well, this doesn’t mean you can’t learn other languages well. I have no talent for learning English, but English and other languages are not the same. If I am more interested in another language, I might kind of have the talent for learning that language.” (P9)

Additionally, the students associated with Factor 3 shared a strong belief in the authority of knowledge. They disagreed that one can doubt knowledge coming from their English language teachers and native English speakers (S15 and S20). As one student said,

“I will not question what native speakers say about English.” (P9)

While fully recognizing their teachers as the authority of knowledge, these students disputed the opinion that the language teacher’s should give ready answers to the students and not encourage them to find the answers for themselves (S2). One explanation was,

“Instead of providing answers, teachers should encourage their students to learn and find answers for themselves. Teachers should not just pour and cram the answers into their students.” (P9)

The students associated with Factor 3 agreed that various sources, including the Internet and language learning apps, can provide knowledge of English, despite their full trust in more traditional sources such as English language teachers and native speakers (S26). As one student elucidated,

“The Internet is so advanced that students can learn some useful English from it.For example, I often look up the vocabulary using an electronic dictionary, and I also learn from watching short videos on the Internet.” (P9)

Furthermore, according to these students, knowing English requires more than just memorizing vocabulary and grammar (S5). While they recognized the importance of mastering English grammar, they also valued the practical application of knowledge. As one of the participants stated,

“Mastering knowledge of English grammar requires understanding and application.” (P6)

Another notable feature of this group of students’ shared subjectivities was a lack of a strong opinion about the certainty of knowledge. For example, they tended to place the statement about the evolving nature of English (S12) in a neutral position. As some students explained when questioned further,

“I am not sure about this saying." (P16)

“I care less about whether the English language evolves or not, so I put this statement in a neutral position.” (P9)

In sum, the students strongly associated with Factor 3 held some naïve and some more sophisticated epistemic beliefs. The former was the belief that having a special talent for learning English would determine the learning outcome’s success. However, notably, they contested the notion that a lack of talent for learning English would impede one’s ability to learn other languages. These students also professed belief in the authority of knowledge. At the same time, they disagreed that language educators should provide immediate solutions, advocating instead for teachers to foster an environment where pupils are motivated to search for answers to puzzling problems. Despite their belief in conventional knowledge sources, these students agreed that one could acquire English proficiency using alternative methods, such as the Internet and language learning applications.

Discussion of the Findings

Sensibilities regarding approaches to knowledge acquisition and learning in China are anchored in Confucian philosophy. Scholars agree that Confucianism is at the core of educational philosophies in China (S. Chan, 1999; Lee, 1996; Li & Cortazzi, 2019; Watkins & Biggs, 1996). The findings of this study indicate that the Chinese language learners shared the core cultural conceptions of learning that place a high premium on “memorization, continuous effort, learning from and respecting authorities, and independence of mind” (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006, p. 7).

A notable finding is that 22 out of the 42 items in the Q-set were consensus statements. These consensus statements, or the opinions that received strong endorsement from the majority of language learners, lend support to the notion that cultures of learning define how people interpret their learning experiences (Cortazzi & Jin, 2011; Jin & Cortazzi, 2006, 2019). Moreover, the findings align with Hu’s (2002) observation that the learning context in which people spend their formative years frames “a whole set of expectations, attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions, preferences, experiences, and behaviors that are characteristics of Chinese society with regard to teaching and learning” (p. 96). Clearly, “Chinese cultures of learning” (Jin & Cortazzi, 2013) have played a vital role in shaping the language learners’ personal epistemologies.

As the findings of the CCA revealed, the students placed a high premium on hard work, effort, and perseverance. Interestingly, one of the participants cited an old Chinese saying that “nothing can be accomplished in one single effort” (P14). In summary, the findings align with previous research that underscores the significance of the Confucian philosophy of learning and knowledge acquisition in China, which places emphasis on hard work and perseverance over special talent or aptitude (J. Li & Fischer, 2004). Furthermore, the findings support other prominent Chinese cultural sensibilities, such as the importance of exercising one’s own agency in the process of acquiring knowledge (Lee, 1996; E. Li, 2017). The students’ recognition of the need for proactive learning demonstrated the value they placed on exercising their own agency. The language learners in this study talked of their efforts to seek knowledge of English from multiple sources, such as the Internet and even cartoons (P15). At the same time, in accordance with another Confucian principle of respecting those who impart knowledge (S. Chan, 1999; Li & Cortazzi, 2019), the respondents in this study valued and recognized their English language teachers as a vital source of linguistic knowledge.

However, a more nuanced view has transpired regarding the authority of knowledge. Though the students respected and trusted the authority of their language educators, they also demonstrated awareness that teachers can make mistakes and that it’s acceptable to occasionally question the information they receive from their language instructors (P7). Interestingly, not everyone accorded native English speakers full authority over linguistic knowledge. One student even expressed the opinion that commonly accepted linguistic norms could be considered authoritative knowledge (P5). These findings encourage us not to adopt stereotypical perceptions of “Chinese learners.” Previous studies (e.g., E. Li, 2017) have made similar calls.

A notable finding was that some of the personal opinions shared by the students during the interviews echoed Confucian maxims and reflected Chinese folk beliefs about education and learning discussed by Liu and Zhang (2024). To give some examples, one student’s assertion that “the ocean of knowledge is infinite” (P13) reflects the Confucian maxim “There is no end to learning.” Another student’s statement “only after reading it over and over again and putting it into practice, one will learn and understand” (P10) reminds the Confucius’ counsel “The deeper meaning will become evident once you read the book a hundred times over” (Confucius, 1997). The students’ opinions that “even native speakers may make mistakes sometimes; therefore, critical thinking is of great necessity to learn language knowledge” (P7) and “to learn a language well requires the ability to distinguish right from wrong” (P12) are reminiscent of the maxim “Learning without thinking leads to confusion; thinking without learning ends in danger” (Confucius, 1997). This finding is interesting because none of the students had mentioned Confucius during the interviews. It lends support to a proposition that Confucian philosophy of education is deeply embedded in China and permeates “Chinese Thought of learning” even though students may not be consciously aware of being deeply influenced by Confucian views (S. Chan, 1999; E. Li, 2017, p. 2).

Conclusions

This article explored Mainland Chinese students’ epistemic beliefs about learning and knowing the English language. Besides exploring the students’ rationales for holding these beliefs, this study has highlighted the advantages of employing Card Content Analysis (Gallagher & Porock, 2010) for analysis of the post Q-sort interviews. University students learning English as a foreign language provided the data for this study. Overall, the participants held sophisticated epistemic beliefs about learning the English language, sources of linguistic knowledge, and authority of knowledge. Furthermore, the findings revealed that century-old traditional cultural sensibilities about knowing and learning were highly salient in the students’ personal epistemologies, and these subjective opinions were collectively shared by the respondents. The students in this study strongly endorsed traditional values such as hard work, perseverance, respect for authority, and high esteem for those who impart knowledge.

This study’s findings have some pedagogical implications. One of them is that foreign educators coming to teach in China as well as educators who teach Chinese international students coming to study in their countries would benefit from understanding Chinese cultural sensibilities, acceptable modes of behavior according to one’s social role, and the unique psychology of Chinese students. Language educators coming from foreign countries would need to find a good balance between classroom practices in their societies and acceptable cultural norms in Chinese classrooms. Knowing that the teacher is expected to assume a prominent role in the classroom proceedings as the provider of knowledge might eliminate some frictions between the educators’ teaching styles and agendas and the students’ expectations of the classroom dynamics. The teacher’s leading role does not preclude the need to create a favorable epistemic climate in the L2 classroom to boost the language learners’ intellectual curiosity, nurture their individual talents, and promote their agency as active seekers of knowledge. Chinese society expects all of this from a caring teacher and educator. The mission of language educators extends beyond imparting linguistic knowledge and enhancing students’ language proficiency. It also involves elevating the students’ understanding of the intricate complexities inherent in the language they are learning, and the abundance of discoveries that await an inquisitive mind.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241297443 – Supplemental material for Reading Cards: Chinese Students’ Rationales for Their Language-related Epistemic Beliefs

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241297443 for Reading Cards: Chinese Students’ Rationales for Their Language-related Epistemic Beliefs by Yanyan Wang and Larisa Nikitina in SAGE Open