Teaching and Learning Forum 2009 Home Page

Category: Research
Teaching and Learning Forum 2009 [ Refereed papers ]
Language teaching and learning: Student perceptions of language acquisition in advanced language classes

Tracy Dunne and Alexandra Ludewig
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
The University of Western Australia

Relatively lower than average student satisfaction in advanced language classes has been a concern for institutions keen to shine in university rankings. A decline in enthusiasm evident from student unit feedback administered Australia-wide in 2006 saw the initiation of a research project aiming to "Improve Student Satisfaction in Advanced Languages" at The University of Western Australia (UWA). The focus of the research project was on students enrolled in advanced Chinese, Indonesian, Italian, German, French and Japanese, and in particular on their perceptions, expectations, motivations and changing levels of engagement.

To obtain rich data, the project was divided into three stages. Stage one involved the analysis of student responses to a standard university questionnaire administered in each unit at the end of semester, as well as literature reviews, analysis and comparison of advanced language units course outlines, and outcomes statements at UWA and of other Australian universities. Stage two was based on findings from this research and further qualitative data was collected through an online student survey, student/ staff discussion forums and focus groups. While the initial quantitative analysis did not identify any major anomalies in student satisfaction toward language learning, the qualitative data analysis did establish a disquiet over certain skill sets and expectations of progression and achievement. These findings led to stage three and a final set of surveys and discussion forums with students about the origins of these personal expectations and perceptions. The findings uncovered certain beliefs - and even 'myths' - about language acquisition that will need to be addressed by language teachers in order to increase satisfaction among advanced language learners.


Background

The global citizen, culturally aware and ideally bilingual if not multilingual, is the "poster-graduate" of universities the world over. Repeatedly, Barack Obama stressed in his election speeches the need for people to speak two or more languages fluently in order to capitalize on the opportunities at hand in the 21st century (2008). Australian politicians, not least with the advent of Kevin Rudd and his well-documented fluency in Chinese, have raised awareness of the need to have "global graduates". As a result, recent months have seen an increased push for universities to incorporate inter-cultural elements into their curricula and for students to increase their exchange experiences. In practical terms, many Australian universities have finally encouraged the study of foreign languages as part of degree pathways. In addition, incentives for language students - whether as a bonus upon graduation or in the form of generous scholarships for study abroad programs - have led to an increase in students studying languages at many institutions world-wide. However, the initial euphoria for language learning seems to wane for many students after years of study (Zammit, 1993; Özek and Williams, 2000). This is particularly the case at third-year level in advanced language classes at UWA, where student satisfaction seems to decrease noticeably as complex interactions take place (Pachler, 1999). With student course experience questionnaires used in establishing an institution's international ranking, research into reasons behind student disappointment needs to be implemented with high priority.

Research into six languages taught at The University of Western Australia (UWA) has uncovered evidence of misconceptions about proficiency levels and "the long road ahead" which is of importance not only to language teachers and students, but the community at large.

When compared to other faculties at UWA, the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (FAHSS) consistently scores highly in student satisfaction ratings produced via Students' Unit Reflective Feedback (SURF) surveys.[i] However, an analysis of SURF data for the years 2004 to 2007 has revealed upper-level language classes scoring consistently below the - admittedly very high - Faculty average. This dip in satisfaction is worrying and throws up many questions, especially when compared to student feedback from first-year language classes, which score extremely high in SURF surveys. That said, the SURF survey is limited in its ability to gain further qualitative feedback, such as whether students are really dissatisfied with the unit or with their level of achievement. The real answers may lie within the students' own expectations of the unit and of themselves. Clearly, the fact that this pattern occurs in advanced language classes in both European and Asian languages, and in classes taught by distinguished and recognised language staff, points towards a systemic problem.

Hypothesis

Low student satisfaction could be linked to a number of issues, not all of which have to be related to unsatisfactory teaching. One explanation for the results could correlate with structural issues, as advanced language units at UWA bring together students from up to three very different backgrounds.

Advanced language classes constitute:

Another explanation may be linked less to students' prior learning and more to their individual expectations and ideals about their own achievements. It is this hypothesis that will be explored further. The nomenclature of language units entitled "advanced" and the fact that they are taught at the highest level, may invite expectations of near-native proficiency that will prove elusive for most students.

Study aim

Research to date indicates that the level of student satisfaction in mixed-level language classrooms decreases, while students' expectations of themselves and of the learning experience increase at advanced level. But what exactly are those expectations? This study aims to identify what kind of perceptions language students have about the level of achievement after three years of study at university level, and whether or not those beliefs and expectations are grounded in theory or experience.

Methodology

This project provided teachers and learners of six languages (Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, French, German and Italian) with an opportunity to examine and address the issue of below than average student satisfaction as indicated by consistently low SURF results.

Students' Unit Reflective Feedback Survey (SURF) surveys were developed in 2004 to evaluate the overall study experience of a particular unit and are uniform across the University. The data obtained through SURF surveys is based on a four-point scale which "asks students to express disagreement / agreement"[ii] in response to the following six questions which students answer online:

Q1.It was clear what I was expected to learn in this unit.
Q2.The assessment requirements were clearly stated.
Q3.The assessment tasks were closely linked to the unit objectives.
Q4.The unit was well organised.
Q5.The learning resources (handouts, text, web resources, etc) were adequate for my study in the unit.
Q6.Overall, this unit was a good educational experience.

SURF results were the initial indicator of an underlying issue with student satisfaction in advanced languages. In moving forward an attempt was made to develop a fairly generic method of investigating and addressing student dissatisfaction which consisted of data collection, diagnosis of the problem, and development of strategies for improvement. Both staff and students were involved in all stages of the research project.

The project's methodology has been couched in the philosophy of action research, whereby insights into potential improvements have been put to the test immediately and in turn evaluated critically. As a result the project structured itself into three distinct phases. Stage one involved the analysis of student responses to a standard university questionnaire (SURF) administered in each unit at the end of every semester, as well as literature reviews, analysis and comparison of advanced language units course outlines, and outcomes statements at UWA and of other Australian universities. Based on these findings stage two was designed to obtain qualitative data through an online student survey, student/ staff discussion forums and focus groups.

Due to the limited nature of SURF, a unique online survey was created and emailed to all 2007 advanced language students and current (2008) advanced language students in order to gather further information on the student perspective. A ten dollar book voucher was offered to all those who returned a completed questionnaire. The survey consisted of 37 questions relating to demographics, course feedback, styles of delivery and support systems available to students. As part of this qualitative data collection current students were asked to volunteer for two sets of focus group interviews to obtain additional information on their perspectives of the teaching and learning in advanced language classes and an understanding of their attitudes to their own language acquisition.

While the initial quantitative analysis of data from 2004-2007 did not identify any major anomalies in student satisfaction toward language learning, the qualitative data collected throughout 2008 did establish a disquiet over certain skill sets and expectations of progression and achievement. The results provided startling insights into students' perceptions of their own teaching and learning experience. These insights confirmed recent research findings on "attributions of success and failure" by Tse (2000) as well as Dupuy and Krashen (1998) and informed stage three of the project. A set of surveys and discussion forums with students about the origins of these personal expectations and perceptions was put forward. The survey consisted of four statements to which students had to agree or disagree.

Statement 1.The best way to learn a language is to spend time in the respective country.
Statement 2.Native-speakers make for ideal teachers.
Statement 3.Children learn languages more easily than adults.
Statement 4.The earlier one starts to learn a new language the better.

Participants

Students enrolled in advanced language classes at UWA between 2007 and 2008 were contacted to participate in this research (n=529). An even spread of responses (n = 90) was received from all language groups: Italian = 17, French = 25, German = 17, Indonesian = 5, Japanese = 18, Chinese = 8. In addition, focus group interviews were conducted with 13 current language students and 10 staff from all language groups. 30 German students took part in the final set of surveys and discussion forums. Moreover, an independent expert was brought in for a joint staff and student workshop session over two days in early 2008. Discussions with interstate and overseas colleagues have also informed the research at all stages.

Data, analysis and discussion

FAHSS encompasses three Asian languages (Chinese, Indonesian and Japanese) as well as three European languages (French, German and Italian). At advanced levels, all of these units are taught over 13 weeks with very comparable contact hours, but, as is to be expected, they encompass a wide range of pedagogical practices and assessment methods. Despite their language-specific idiosyncrasies, students in all advanced classes tended to rate their course experience on average lower in the end-of-semester SURF surveys when compared with other scores in the Faculty. Within every language program, students also ranked units at the advanced level lower than units at other levels. Considering that approximately 20% of students continue from first-year beginners to upper-advanced levels, this is already an indication that, among other reasons, the "leap in difficulty between lower and upper level classes" is perceived as a real obstacle (Tse, 2000; 73).

Students' Unit Reflective Feedback Survey

Based on the data sets from 2004 to 2007, the SURF questions in advanced level language units on which the lowest overall average scores recorded were questions 1, 3, 5 and 6 (see Table 1). The languages lagged in specifying what students were expected to learn, in linking assessment with unit objectives, and in making adequate learning resources available, thus resulting overall in a below average satisfaction rating with the advanced language units.

Table 1: Average scores for individual SURF questions in all languages
compared with FAHSS averages based on data from 2004 to 2007.

QuestionAverage across
all languages
FAHSS
average
Q1.It was clear what I was expected to learn in this unit3.03.1
Q2.The assessment requirements were clearly stated3.23.3
Q3.The assessment tasks were closely linked to the unit objectives3.13.3
Q4.The unit was well organised3.13.2
Q5.The learning resources were adequate for my study in the unit3.03.1
Q6.Overall, this unit was a good educational experience3.13.3

Especially startling was the disjuncture between students' perception of, and staff's expectations regarding question 1. Students were evidently less than clear about what they were expected to learn, which surprised teaching staff considering that all units have clearly listed unit outcomes and refer to internationally recognised proficiency levels as indicators. Since 2001, every unit outline in each language has included outcomes statements. The SURF results indicate there is an obvious need to address the discrepancy between staff and student expectations.

Online survey

The online survey consisted of 37 questions relating to demographics, course feedback, styles of delivery and support systems available to students. The response rate was 17% (n = 90), which represented a split of 66% (n = 59) European languages and 34% (n = 31) Asian languages. 68% of all respondents formed part of the '16-20' age group, followed by 24% of '21-26 year olds', 6% of '36 and overs' and only 1% of '27-35' year olds. 85% of all respondents were female.

Students rated their level of satisfaction as one of the following: Highly Satisfied, Satisfied, Dissatisfied or Indifferent/ Undecided. 86% of all students who responded felt 'Satisfied' or 'Highly Satisfied', with only 14% feeling 'Dissatisfied' or 'Indifferent' (Figure 1). European and Asian languages scored relatively evenly, with 85% of European language and 87% of Asian language students declaring themselves either 'Satisfied' or 'Highly Satisfied'. Although these findings confirm a general feeling of satisfaction amongst students, when compared to their ratings of other units, misgivings about their advanced language courses remain obvious and require investigation.

Figure 1

Figure 1: How satisfied were you?

The only major discrepancy between European and Asian languages related to the 'entry' point for students in advanced language units (Figure 2). This noticeable division between cohorts could be helpful to unit coordinators when structuring course outlines to take into account a student's previous level of experience. A slightly lower number of Asian students felt comfortable with the "Pace and level expressed in their units". 39% of Asian respondents "struggled to comprehend" or "kept up but struggled at times" as opposed to 30% of European respondents (Figure 3). Surprisingly, there were no other notable differences between the two cohorts.

Figure 2

Figure 2: Commencing level.

Figure 3

Figure 3: Kept up with the level and pace?

Focus group interviews

When, as part of the qualitative data collection, students were asked about their own expectations and their expectations of their learning experience prior, during and after the unit, interesting insights were gained. Research on "Outcomes in European Languages and Studies majors" in 2007 found "some discrepancy in the emphasis between current outcomes and student opinions." (Pauk, 2007) The report concluded that the students considered a high level of language competency to be by far the most important outcome of their studies. However, a 'high level' of competency is a relative measure and can vary from student to student and teacher to teacher.

Based on analysis of the data collected from students (n=13) in two sets of focus groups (interviews conducted at the beginning and end of semester 1/2008), it became apparent that they felt a sense of disappointment at their level of language proficiency and mostly blamed a lack of facilitated 'conversational' opportunities in class. Nevertheless, when asked about what they were hoping to achieve from their advanced language units some interesting patterns emerged, for which the following sample of opinions is indicative.

One Japanese student hoped to "probably [...] achieve 'native' language status, to speak and understand the language like a native would." Similarly an Italian student felt that at this stage her grammar was "okay" and wanted to extend her vocabulary, colloquialisms, conversation and phrases that make one sound like a "local", but felt she had to "live in Italy" to achieve this.

A French student who did quite well in terms of his grades felt that, although he could read and listen to French, he has no idea how to speak it. He still wanted to learn the language, but felt that the only way to learn French conversation was to go on exchange. He thought that by completing the advanced units he was "supposed" to achieve "native/ near native" status, but considered himself not even close to that. Another German student still felt like a "beginner" in the advanced class. Her goal was to become fluent in German, however she felt that she would have to go to Germany to achieve this. She added that in second year German they learnt a great deal, but feels that her progress had reached a plateau. An Indonesian student was more realistic and felt that he had increased his overall knowledge of the language, although he is nowhere near fluent. He acknowledged that he did not expect to be fluent even after completing the advanced Indonesian units. However, he noted that he was going on exchange to Indonesia the following semester and was hoping to gain greater language proficiency there.

Indeed, the absolute majority of the surveyed sample of students taking advanced language classes at tertiary level had expected, upon commencing their studies, to achieve near-native fluency by their completion. However, by third year their hopes had diminished in view of their apparent shortfall and they had resigned themselves to only being able to achieve their goal by one day living in the target culture. The term 'fluency' among the advanced language students seems to focus mainly on oral skills, as this is the most obvious sign of language proficiency. However, students need to become aware that other skills, which are not as transparent, such as aural, translating and writing skills are also major indicators of proficiency.

Further survey and discussion forums

In second semester 2008 further research was conducted which built on these initial findings by trying to define exactly which affective and attitudinal factors were at play (cf. Arnold 1999 and Richard-Amato 1998). Over the course of one semester, qualitative data was analysed to isolate key areas of concern which related to several areas of teaching and learning: firstly, methods of language learning; secondly, the ideal teaching staff; thirdly, the ideal age to begin language learning; and lastly, the nature of language learning. Surprisingly, these areas of concern seemed to correlate to beliefs about language learning held by university students enrolled in a beginners' language course surveyed by Horwitz nearly 20 years ago. Horwitz assessed beliefs about language learning in five major areas relating to: the perceived difficulty of language learning, foreign language aptitude, the nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies relating to students' motivation and expectations (Horwitz, 1988). Her ultimate recommendation was for language teachers to respond to these "beliefs", to address them at beginners' language learning level and show "by example and instructional practice the holistic nature of language learning and reward students accordingly." (Horwitz, 1988; 292)

The underlying assumption was/is that unrealistic expectations or misconceptions are a matter of concern when dealing with "the uneducated public" and "beginners". It was assumed that trained language teachers, and students who have been in their care for many years, would surely not harbour similar beliefs about the teaching and learning of foreign languages, considering the quantity of literature on the topic (cf. Mufwene, 1999). However, our research found that prejudices, unrealistic expectations and possibly naive beliefs about language acquisition are rife, even at advanced levels -and alsoamong teaching staff.

To verify this hypothesis, preliminary findings from the focus group interviews were distilled and statements were formulated in a brief survey to capture the gist of students' responses and to allow for verification. These statements were put to thirty students studying advanced German who, in turn, were required to explain in a discussion forum why they would agreed or disagreed with them. Each of the four statements was affirmed by every student:

Statement 1.The best way to learn a language is to spend time in the respective country.
Statement 2.Native-speakers make for ideal teachers.
Statement 3.Children learn languages more easily than adults.
Statement 4.The earlier one starts to learn a new language the better.

The unanimous endorsement of these statements confirmed the hypothesis that students at advanced languages continue to believe pseudo-scientific hear-say about the learning and teaching of languages. Of course, while none of those statements put to them deserves a clear-cut right or wrong answer, as there exist many arguments for and against each of them, the students' spontaneous responses to them reveal the assumptions they have brought with them about the way languages are taught and acquired. The research has helped to uncover common beliefs - or even 'myths' - about language acquisition that will need to be addressed by language teachers in order to increase satisfaction among advanced language learners

Students were also asked whether they would be interested in the following product for a language of their choice: "Conversational Spanish [or insert language of choice] in 10 weeks." Amazingly, 100 per cent of the students surveyed voiced a keen interest in the product, indicating a rather naive belief that language acquisition can be achieved over a relatively small period of time (cf. Horwitz, 1988; 286). This was an unexpected response from students who have been studying languages for three years or more.

When the same questions were put to teaching staff the responses varied, but the majority still endorsed the above statements and some even confessed, in preparation for a trip to a foreign country, to resorting to products which promise conversational competence in a matter of weeks. Is this a misconception or just a naive perspective? People may be able to achieve 'some' knowledge of a foreign language in a short period of time, and (depending on the original purpose of language acquisition) this might affect their level of satisfaction with their degree of proficiency.

The experiences of migrant communities in Germany and Australia clearly indicate that even decades of living in a country do not ensure that the respective local language is learned properly (cf. Oswald and Schelter 2004). So while Statement 1 (the best way to learn a language is to spend time in the respective country) holds some truth for keen students who engage in structured learning activities and seek professional help and feedback, (i.e. engage in learning practices of a pedagogically sound manner), it cannot be denied that languages are not learnt by osmosis.

Statement 2 (native-speakers make for ideal teachers) may be true if that native speaker has been trained as a teacher, but he or she may not have any advantage over a professionally-trained teacher with a near-native proficiency in the target language. As such, the underlying assumption that native proficiency in a language suffices as a teaching credential ignores the pedagogy behind any teaching and learning activity.

Much research has been undertaken in recent decades to verify whether the assumptions underlying Statement 3 (children learn languages more easily than adults) hold true. While differing views have been put forward by researchers (cf. Geneses, 1981; Hartley, 1989; Newport, 1990), one should consider the many"ifs" and "buts" about this statement in order to make it more accurate. Harvard Professor Barry McLaughlin (1992) rejects this notion outright and calls it a "myth". He points out that the

requirements to communicate as a child are quite different from the requirements to communicate as an adult. The child's constructions are shorter and simpler, and vocabulary is relatively small when compared with what is necessary for adults to speak at the same level of competence as they do in their first language. [...] Hence there is the illusion that the child learns more quickly than the adult, whereas when controlled research is conducted, in both formal and informal learning situations, results typically indicate that adults (and adolescent) learners perform better than children. (McLaughlin, 1992, Children Learn Second Languages Quickly and Easily section, para. 5)
McLaughlin also claims that Statement 4 (the earlier one starts to learn a new language the better) is a naive notion, by pointing out that aside from pronunciation this belief "does not have strong empirical support in school contexts." (1992) His research findings confirm the opposite, that "older children are better second language learners", as they possess the intellectual capability to not only acquire proficiency in the language but also to understand the knowledge about the language, (i.e. appreciate grammar and inter-cultural intricacies). He suggests "that younger children do not necessarily have an advantage over older children and, because of their cognitive and experiential limitations when compared to younger children, are actually at a disadvantage in how quickly they learn a second language - other things being equal." (McLaughlin, 1992, The Younger the Child, The More Skilled in Acquiring a Second Language section, para. 5)

Language learning takes time and effort at all levels and ages. While progress is easily measured at lower levels, it becomes harder and harder to quantify at advanced levels. Also worth stressing to students is the fact that "learning outcomes are not all achieved at the end of the learning experience". (Coleman, 2005)

As student beliefs about language learning can be based on limited knowledge and/or experience, the teacher's most effective course may be to confront erroneous beliefs with new information. In some cases, students may never have had their views about language learning challenged. (Horwitz, 1988; 292)
Our research has not only confirmed Horwitz's findings that "students hold a range of beliefs with varying degrees of validity" (1988; 293), but has found that those belief and misconceptions are held not only by beginners, but also by advanced language students and their teachers. Considering the enormous importance of the motivational signals transmitted by the teacher (cf. Dörnyei, 2003; 26), this aspect should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

Interestingly, the research findings identify issues of perception as the main culprit. Indeed, low student satisfaction is due in part to exaggerated student expectations of their own abilities and of the course outcomes. After a three year university degree a student may expect to have very high levels of language proficiency in all areas of language acquisition. However, most soon-to-be global graduates who have not achieved 'native' proficiency experience a sense of disappointment and failure. These expectations of proficiency come not only from themselves, but also from their extended social community - if you have "majored" in a language, you have surely "mastered" that language. True, false or neither?

This research and its findings should open discussion and provoke debate in a field that has been ignored by contemporary scholarship - namely, how to manage rising student expectations at advanced language learning levels when progress is less noticeable and harder to measure.

Through this research, we have confirmed the effect of affective and attitudinal factors on student satisfaction in general and hope to increase our understanding of the specific teaching and learning challenges associated with advanced language classes. We will continue to examine the particular ways in which student expectations can be managed with greater consideration. Our goal is for advanced language classes to be taught more effectively with these expectations in mind.

Endnotes

  1. "The SURF survey is designed to be administered towards the end of a unit. It relates only to the unit and does not seek feedback on an individual's teaching. SURF is used to evaluate all units in the University, except those with special circumstances, e.g., research units, bridging units, units taught with other institutions, Exchange units, special units and any units which the Head of School feels are more appropriately evaluated by other means." The University of Western Australia Website, https://www.surf.uwa.edu.au/admin/help/About.aspx [viewed 21 Oct 2008]
  2. The University of Western Australia Website, https://www.surf.uwa.edu.au/admin/help/About.aspx [viewed 21 Oct 2008]

References

Arnold, Jane (Ed.) (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Coleman, Rod (2005). Learning outcomes based curricula in higher education. [viewed Oct 2008] http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/0407 0102Coleman.pdf

Dörnyei, Zoltán (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(s1), 3-32.

Dupuy, B. & Krashen, S. (1998). From lower-division to upper-division foreign language classes: Obstacles to reaching the promised land. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 119/120, 1-7.

Horwitz, Elaine K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

McLaughlin, B. (1992), Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacher needs to unlearn. [viewed Aug 2008] http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm

Mufwene, S. S. (1999). Native speaker, proficient speaker and norms. In: R. Singh (ed). The native speaker: Multilingual perspectives. London: Sage Publications, 111-123.

Obama, Barack (2008). Election Speech, 28 May 2008. In part reproduced in The Bulletin, 29 May 2008. [viewed Oct 2008] http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19842460&BRD=2737&PAG=461&de pt_id=576361&rfi=8

Oswald, G. & Schelter A. (2004). Grundlegendes zur Zweisprachigkeit. Oberfranken Ost: Tandem.

Özek, Y., Williams, M. (2000). The influence of various motivational factors on foreign language learning. In S. Cornwell & P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects, of aptitude, intelligence and motivation. Tokyo: Japanese Association of Language Teachers.

Pachler, N. (Ed.) (1999). Teaching modern foreign languages at advanced level. London: Routledge.

Pauk, Barbara (2007). Student participation in developing outcomes: A survey of students majoring in European Languages. In Student engagement. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2007. Perth: The University of Western Australia. http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2007/refereed/pauk.html

Tse, Lucy (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 69-84.

Richard-Amato, Patricia A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom: From theory to practice. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Zammit, S. A. (1993). Motivation, test results, gender differences, and foreign languages: How do they connect? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge.

Authors: Tracy Dunne is the Project Officer of the Teaching and Learning team in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at The University of Western Australia. She holds an MA in Communication and Media Studies.

Alexandra Ludewig is the Associate Dean (Education) in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at The University of Western Australia. Her academic background is in German and European Studies.

Please cite as: Dunne, T. & Ludewig, A. (2009). Language teaching and learning: Student perceptions of language acquisition in advanced language classes. In Teaching and learning for global graduates. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 29-30 January 2009. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2009/refereed/dunne.html

Copyright 2009 Tracy Dunne and Alexandra Ludewig. The authors assign to the TL Forum and not for profit educational institutions a non-exclusive licence to reproduce this article for personal use or for institutional teaching and learning purposes, in any format (including website mirrors), provided that the article is used and cited in accordance with the usual academic conventions.


[ Refereed papers ] [ Contents - All Presentations ] [ Home Page ]
This URL: http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2009/refereed/dunne.html
Created 28 Jan 2009. Last revision: 28 Jan 2009.