IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i4p21582440241297443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Yanyan Wang
  • Larisa Nikitina

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanyan Wang & Larisa Nikitina, 2024. "Reading Cards: Chinese Students’ Rationales for Their Language-related Epistemic Beliefs," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:21582440241297443
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241297443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241297443
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241297443?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:21582440241297443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.