Abstract
This paper reports on a study of beliefs held by 262 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) language learners at an Australian University. The Horwitz' (1987) BALLI was used to collect data, which was later compared with an American study of 156 EAP learners (Siebert, 2003). Data analysis using frequency statistics shows that beliefs about language learning reported by both study groups were similar in all categories. It was concluded that despite a small number of inter-group differences, it seems premature to conclude that beliefs about language learning vary by contextual setting. Rather, they are due to the effects of individuals' complex metacognitive structure (as affected by a number of social, cultural, contextual, cognitive, affective, and personal factors) that is responsible for the nature and strength of these beliefs.

Key Words: learner beliefs, language learning, context

Introduction
In recent decades, research interest in second or foreign language learning has shifted from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered learning. Consequently, numerous studies have been conducted from the learners' perspective, and these perspectives have come to inform the field of language teaching pedagogy. Among these perspectives, are learners' beliefs about language learning, which are a result of a number of factors that shape one's thinking and belief formation, including past experiences, culture, context, and numerous personal factors (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). Beliefs are defined as "psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true" (Richardson, 1996, p.102), and said to act as strong filters of reality (Arnold, 1999).

In the context of second or foreign language learning, beliefs held by students can relate to, inter alia, the nature of the language under study, its relative difficulty, the usefulness of various learning strategies, the length of time it takes to acquire a foreign language, the existence of language aptitude, the effects of age and gender on second/foreign language acquisition, among others. Current literature suggests that these beliefs have the potential to influence the learners' attitudes to language and to learning, their motivation, and shape their experiences and actions in the classroom (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). Consequently, they have the potential to either hinder or promote the learners' ultimate success in the acquisition of a new language and reduce the length of time committed to language learning.

Since learner beliefs have been found to bear significant influence on language learning and outcomes, one of the areas of current research interest lies in the factors that affect beliefs (e.g., individual learner differences [Siebert, 2003; Bernat, 2006] and contextual diversity [Rifkin, 2000; Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003]). The current study is in response to calls from researchers (Rifkin, 2000; Tumposky, 1991; Benson & Lor, 1999; White, 1999; and Tanaka, 2000) to study beliefs across various contexts in order to establish their context specificity, among other factors likely to impact learner beliefs. Investigating the relationship of beliefs to other factors sheds light on their stability and malleability and thus bears consequences for possible instructional intervention methods in the classroom attempting to change those beliefs, which may hinder the learning process.

Background
The design of the Beliefs About Language Learning Instrument or BALLI (Horwitz, 1987) marked the inception of research on learner beliefs in various international contexts. The instrument is a 34-item Likert-type scale on which respondents mark the degree of agreement or disagreement to each of the 34 statements. Questions of enquiry include learner's beliefs about the existence of aptitude, effective learning and communication strategies, the role of age and gender in language learning, the importance of vocabulary, grammar, and practice among others.

To gain a better understanding of learner beliefs and their role in language acquisition, researchers have investigated a number of variables in relation to these beliefs. Recent studies have examined learners' beliefs about language learning for their relationship to factors such as strategy use (Yang, 1999); anxiety (Tsai, 2004; Kunt, 1998; Banya & Chen, 1997); motivation (Kim-Yoon, 2000; Banya & Chen, 1997); learner autonomy (Cotterall, 1995; Wenden, 1991); attitude (Banya & Chen, 1997); achievement (Banya & Chen, 1997); gender (Bacon & Finnemann, 1992; Siebert, 2003; Banya & Chen, 1997), personality traits (Bernat, 2006); and language proficiency (Huang & Tsai, 2003; Peacock, 1998, 1999; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). These studies have produced important insights. For example, they found that learners who held unrealistic beliefs or misconceptions about language learning were more anxious than those who held more positive and realistic beliefs. Moreover, these beliefs have links to proficiency - the more proficient learners were, the more realistic and/or positive were the reported beliefs. Finally, statistically significant differences were found among some beliefs with respect to gender (Siebert, 2003).

The findings of Siebert's (2003) study are relevant to this study since student-BALLI responses are later used to compare data with the current study. The beliefs about language learning held by ESL students and teachers in an intensive English setting at institutions of higher education in the Northwest region of the US were investigated to explore similarities and differences, as well as the influence of national origin/ethnicity and gender on these beliefs. The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (Horwitz, 1985; 1987; 1988) and demographic questionnaires were administered to 181 participants: 156 students (91 males and 64 females) and 25 teachers. Students had an approximate TOEFL score of 425, and came from a variety of nationality backgrounds including Angola, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. BALLI findings obtained in a US context reveal that students generally recognize the existence of foreign language aptitude, place strong emphasis on pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary acquisition, and report being highly motivated (for a detailed discussion see Results section). Siebert also noted that a number of student beliefs, such as those related to language learning methods, differed from those held by their teachers', and that this had significant pedagogical implications (Siebert, 2003).

With respect to gender, Siebert found a number of significant belief differences among males and females in relation to language learning and strategy use. For example, findings revealed that male students were more likely than female students to rate their abilities highly and more likely to respond that they have a special ability for learning languages, and were much more optimistic about the length of time it takes to learn a language. There were also other significant differences between males and females with respect to the importance of grammar, and practicing with cassettes, videotapes or computers.

In addition, Siebert noted that national origin or ethnicity does have an affect on students' beliefs about language learning, with some of the most striking difference found in the areas of ability, length of time it takes to learn a language, and the difficulty of the English language. For example, Middle Eastern students tended to underestimate the length of time it takes to learn a language and were more likely to believe that they have special language abilities. The opposite was found in Japanese students, for example. Siebert also reported a number of statistically significant differences among teachers' and learners' beliefs on 16 BALLI items.

Extending on previous BALLI research, Banya & Chen (1997) have conducted one of the more extensive studies on the relationship of beliefs about language learning and factors such as motivation, attitude, motivational intensity, strategy use, anxiety, and English achievement. Data from 224 Taiwanese EFL learners was collected for statistical analysis, based on subjects' responses to i) Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) (Horwitz, 1987); Motivation/Attitude Inventory for English Learning (MAIEL) (Cheng, 1995); Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990); and, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986). Findings show that all abovementioned variables were influenced by students' beliefs, with attitude being the variable most greatly influenced by beliefs, while anxiety was negatively related to beliefs. In other words, students with positive beliefs about foreign language learning tend to have stronger motivation, hold favourable attitude and higher motivational intensity, use more strategies, are less anxious, and have better language achievement.

Other studies have focused on belief differences among and within various nationality groups. For example, Prudie, Hattie and Douglas (1996) found "clear differences" between Australian and Japanese High School students' conceptions of learning (p.25), while Tumposky (1991) compared the beliefs of Soviet and American students and found that "culture does contribute to the belief system… in ways which may relate to motivation and strategy selection, but may not be as potent as a force as other factors, such as previous experience or preferred [learning] style" (p.62). Truitt (1995) found that Korean university students studying English as a Foreign Language held different beliefs than those in Horwitz' (1987, 1988) original study of both Americans studying foreign languages and international students studying English in the U.S. The beliefs reported by Truitt's study were also different than those of other research (Park, 1995; Yang, 1992, 1999). Truitt interpreted these differences as possibly culturally based; though Horwitz (1999) concluded that it is premature to seek to explain inter-group belief differences in terms of culture, and that the differences likely reflect the relative status of language learning in the various countries and indicate that social, political, and economic forces can also influence learner beliefs. Further, she notes that if significant intra-group differences in beliefs exist, these could also be explained in terms of learning setting and individual characteristics.

Of particular interest to this paper are studies reporting context and setting specificity in relation to beliefs. Using the contextual approach, studies undertaken by Yang (1992), Cotterall (1995), Chawhan and Oliver (2000), and Kim-Yoon (2000) extended BALLI research into different contexts. Yang (1992) explored the beliefs of over 500 students in Taiwan; Cotterall (1995) examined almost 140 respondents in New Zealand; Chawhan and Oliver (2000) investigated the beliefs of 54 overseas learners in Australia, while Kim-Yoon (2000) identified the beliefs of 664 EFL learners in Korea. The findings of these studies suggested that learner beliefs about language learning are context-specific.

In a large-scale study, Rifkin (2000) investigated 1000 learners of 10 different languages at different levels of instruction in three different institutions, which has produced some significant findings. One of his three null hypotheses was that there is no relationship between beliefs about language learning and the nature of the institution. Among other variables, he had compared the learners' beliefs across three different institutions to see whether beliefs differed depending on the context of the institution (eg. large research institution and a small private college). Rifkin's study reported that, while there were numerous instances in which learners at research institutions held beliefs similar to those held by learners at the small private colleges, the statistical analysis found 21 instances in which learners of these different kinds of institutions held beliefs that were significantly different. This represents 66% of all the items in Horwitz' five categories. Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Aims
The aim of the study was twofold. Firstly, to identify overall trends in beliefs about language learning held by 262 multi-ethnic background English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students at an Australian university, filling a gap in research on learner beliefs in the local context. Secondly, to establish whether beliefs are context-specific (at least to the extent where other variables are not considered), by comparing findings of the current study to a comparable US study conducted on 156 learners of multi-ethnic background in similar academic English programs in a tertiary context (study by Siebert, 2003). Therefore, this study aims to test a hypothesis that 'the beliefs held by students in the Australian and American studies are context-specific'.

Methodology
Participants
For this study, participants were recruited on voluntary basis and introduced to it by being given a brief, informative oral overview of the nature and purpose of the study. The 262 participants represented both genders and were aged between 18 and 32 years of age. At the time of data collection, they were enrolled in various academic English courses for both undergraduate and postgraduate university entry. They represented nineteen different countries, Chinese (N=153) being the predominant nationality group. The study group also included 25 learners from Korea; 11 each from Japan, Thailand and Taiwan; 8 from Indonesia; 7 each from France and Hong Kong; 6 from Vietnam; 5 from Turkey; 4 from Columbia; 3 each from Mexico and Germany; 2 from Peru; and 1 each from Bangladesh, Chile, Iran, Burma, and Bosnia. The participants' overall TOEFL score was 570 or higher (equivalent to an overall IELTS score of 6.0 or higher).

Instrument
The survey instrument used in this study is the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987). It is a 34-item questionnaire, containing statements related to the following five areas: i) foreign language aptitude; ii) the difficulty of language learning; iii) the nature of language learning; iv) learning and communication strategies; and, v) motivation and expectations. Respondents are required to rate their agreement to each statement on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The statements on a Likert scale should be either expressing a positive/favorable or a negative/unfavorable attitude towards the object of interest. Although the Likert-scale was originally developed to measure attitudes, its scope has been extended to wider cognitive and affective variables, including beliefs.

While the BALLI is a widely used and recognized questionnaire in research on learner beliefs, it contains a prescriptive set of statements to which respondents mark their degree of agreement. In addition, as with any survey instrument, there is a chance that respondents may misunderstand certain questionnaire items due to either their own limited language proficiency or the subjective nature of a questionnaire item (e.g., Item 15).

Procedure
As part of the procedure, data gathered from the anonymous participant surveys was entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 11.5). Descriptive analysis in the form of percentages was computed. Results were later compared with those obtained by Siebert (2003) in a US study.

Limitations
One of the limitations of this study is the ethnicity bias represented by the proportion of Chinese respondents (58%). Another is the imbalance of gender among respondents - there were 155 females and 107 males. It should also be noted, that data was obtained from learners at only one particular language school, at one particular university in Australia; and thus it may be possible that different outcomes may be produced by different population samples.

Finally, it is important to remember that, while a quantitative approach in research design is useful when large quantities of data are present, a construct as cognitively and affectively rich as one's belief system is difficult to capture by a set of responses to normative statements. Thus the beliefs about language learning held by the respondents are only those specified in the BALLI instrument.

Results
The results of the BALLI have produced some interesting findings, which give insight into the learners' beliefs about the nature of the English language including its difficulty, the existence of language aptitude, learning and communication strategies, and motivation to succeed. The findings are represented by frequency of responses in the tables below. For the purposes of reporting the BALLI findings, student responses have been categorized into 5 areas based on Horwitz' (1987) taxonomy. Scales have been collapsed for ease of reporting (eg. Tumposky, 1991; Peacock, 1999; Tercanlioglu, 2005). Numerical data represented by frequencies has been rounded to the nearest whole.

Foreign Language Aptitude
BALLI items 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 16, 19, 30, 33 relate to the effects of age on FLA, general existence of specialized abilities for language learning, and beliefs about the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful language learners. Thus, these items address the issue of individual potential for achievement in language learning. With reference to age in BALLI Item 1, 92% of respondents in this study either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language", reflecting a popular belief that children are better language learners than adults. This finding closely compares with 82% reported in Siebert's study. Thus students hold beliefs consistent with research studies showing a positive effect of young age on - for example, phonological development (Patkowski, 1980; 1982; 1990); and fluency (Donato, Antonek & Tucker, 1996).

The respondents in this study also endorsed the concept of the existence of special abilities for foreign language learning. In Item 2, 88% indicated that some people have a special ability for learning foreign languages, though, in Item 16, only 22% agreed that they have this special ability. This is comparatively similar to Siebert's findings with 71% and 19% respectively. However, in the current study 32% of learners believed that they did not possess a special aptitude for foreign language learning, compared with only 6% in Siebert's study; and 83% (Item 33) believed that everyone can learn to speak a foreign language, with only 56% reported by Siebert. Whether language aptitude is culture or gender specific was addressed by Items 6 and 19 respectively. Here, 29% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that people from their country were good at learning foreign languages (Siebert's study reported 19%), though unlike in Siebert's study, the majority (55%) of respondents were uncertain. In terms of gender, 42% of learners believed that women are better than men at learning foreign languages, compared with only 28% in Siebert's study. This might be explained by the almost reversed proportion of males to females in each study, with females representing a majority in this study and a minority in Siebert's (ie. the current study included 59% females and 41% males; Siebert study included 58% males and 42% females). It is therefore likely that respondents favored their own gender with respect to ability in language learning.

Further, with reference to the effects of intelligence on language learning (Item 30), the respondents were divided. Here, 45% of respondents believed that "people who speak more than one language are very intelligent", however 27% were uncertain of the effects of one's IQ on acquiring additional languages. While intelligence may be a strong factor when it comes to learning which involves language analysis and rule deducting, it may play a less important role in the classroom where the instruction focuses more on communication and interaction (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). On this issue Siebert's study reported similar findings with 50% and 31% respectively. In Item 10, 34% were also uncertain if it is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one.

Finally, 60% of respondents did not believe that being good at mathematics or science meant that one would not be good at learning foreign languages, suggesting that the majority of respondents do not make a distinction between an aptitude for the sciences versus an aptitude for the humanities-type subjects - a distinction put forward by Gardner (1983) in his Multiple Intelligence theory distinguishing linguistic intelligence from logical/mathematical intelligence. This finding is substantially different to Siebert's of only 16%.

Difficulty of Language Learning
BALLI items 3, 4, 15, 25, and 34 concern the general difficulty of learning a foreign language and the specific difficulty of the students' particular target language. Item 25 and 34 assesses the relative difficulty of different language skills, and Item 15 surveys student expectations of the length of time it takes to learn a foreign language. In Item 3, 67% of respondents believed that some languages are easier than others, though 15% did not make such a distinction. In terms of the difficulty of the English language in Item 4, 55% regarded English as a language of medium difficulty, though 33% believed it was either difficult or very difficult. Only 11% of respondents regarded English as an easy or very easy language to learn. This finding is similar to Siebert's with 49% regarding English as "medium difficult", 37% as either difficult or very difficult, and 13% as easy or very easy.

In Item 15, the issue of the length of time it would take to learn a foreign language well was a contentious one, with most respondents almost equally divided on the issue. Therefore, if someone spent 1 hour per day learning a language, 25% believed it would take one to two years to learn it, 29% believed it would take 3-5 years to learn it, and 21% believed it would take 4-10 years to learn it, while 19% believed that one cannot learn a new language by studying it for one hour a day. The disparity of responses could likely be explained by the subjective nature of the question, namely, that the question gives no other clues as to the learners' exposure to the language outside the '1-hour block', which could likely affect the rate of acquisition. Siebert's study reported an almost equal distribution of responses with respect to the length of time between 'less than a year' to '3-5 years' as the current study, however, more than twice as many students in the US than in Australia believed that it would take 5-10 years to learn L2, and twice as many believed that one cannot learn a foreign language by studying it for 1 hour a day. In other words, the learners studying English in Australia were much more optimistic about the length of time it takes to acquire a new language.

With respect to the difficulty of oral productive and aural receptive skills (Item 25), 30% of respondents believed that it is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language, however, 47% disagreed. A further 22% were uncertain whether speaking or listening for comprehension was easier. Siebert's study reported comparable findings, with a slightly greater number of respondents (31%) remaining uncertain. Similarly, in Item 34, 33% of respondents agreed that it is easier to read than write in a foreign language, however, 42% disagreed. A further 24% neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. Responses to this question were also similar to those reported by Siebert.

The Nature of Language Learning
BALLI items 8, 12, 17, 23, 27, and 28 include a broad range of issues related to the nature of the language learning process. BALLI items 8 and 12 referred to the role of cultural contact in language learning. Here 79%, compared with Siebert's 65% of respondents, believed that it is necessary to know the culture of the foreign language under study in order to speak the language, reflecting an understanding of the importance of gaining a linguistic pragmatic awareness for effective communication; and, in vain with Siebert's findings of 83%, 89% of respondents agreed with the statement that "It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country", recognizing the inherent value of learning language in an immersion-type setting, where there is a greater exposure to the foreign language, its culture and its people.

Next, Item 17 related to the importance of vocabulary learning when acquiring a new language. Forty-six percent of respondents in this study, and 57% in Siebert's, believed that learning new words is the most important part of language learning, while 31% (and Siebert, 29%) neither agreed nor disagreed on this issue, and 22% (and Siebert, 13%) disagreed with the statement. The results among respondents in both studies seem to indicate a discrepancy in the learners' beliefs about the importance of vocabulary acquisition in relation to other factors in language learning. An even greater disagreement was noted in Item 23, where respondents were asked to rate the importance of learning grammar. Similarly to Siebert's finding of 39%, 31% agreed that the most important part of learning a foreign language was learning grammar, though a similar proportion of students (34%) disagreed (significantly less in Siebert's study, 15%). A further 36% and 35% were undecided respectively in both studies. These findings, which reflect an almost even distribution, may likely be due to a recent (more so for some regions of the world, less so for others) shift in language teaching methodologies worldwide. Some learners may be of the belief that the more traditional grammar based approach to foreign language learning is still more fruitful than the more contemporary communicative approaches, while others may have already embraced approaches with a lesser focus on form and rule learning, such as CLT.

Item 27 determines if the learner views language learning as different from other types of learning. Again, quite similar findings are reported in both studies. 60% of respondents here, and 54% in Siebert's study, disagreed that people who are good at academic subjects are not good at foreign languages; and, 27% and 20% respectively, neither agreed nor disagreed on the matter.

Finally, Item 28 asks learners whether they believe the most important part of learning English is learning to translate from the learners' own mother tongue. Responses indicate that 70% of learners do not believe translating to be a highly valued learning strategy, thus reflecting a departure from the grammar-translation methods in foreign language learning. This differs considerably from Siebert's findings with 52% reported. Further, a small minority in this study (11%), but almost a quarter of respondents in Siebert's (23%) had in fact emphasized translation as a very important part of language learning.

Learning and Communication Strategies
BALLI items 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, and 26 address learning and communication strategies and are probably the most directly related to a student's actual language learning practices. Items 18 and 26 refer to learning strategies, and items 7, 9, 13, and 14 concern communication strategies. First, with reference to 'traditional' learning strategies (Item 26), the majority of students, 60% (55% in Siebert's study), endorsed repetition and practice with cassettes/tapes or CD Roms, though 31% (30% respectively) neither agreed nor disagreed about their relative importance. This finding highlights the learners' perception of the importance of 'self-access learning' and the belief about autonomous learning - themes which have emerged in recent years in FLA and TESOL methodology literature (Benson & Voller, 1997). However, in Item 18, 91% (89% in Siebert's) of respondents agreed that it is "important to repeat and practice a lot". Interestingly, although 91% strongly endorsed the importance of oral practice, only 68% of respondents admitted that they enjoyed practicing English with the Australians they meet, while 27% were neutral. In comparison, a greater portion of learners enjoyed practicing English with native speakers in Siebert's US study (86%), and significantly less (7%) were neutral about it. Apart from contextual factors (such as the degree of willingness of native speakers to engage in conversation with practicing foreign language learners, and/or their social openness to casual conversations with strangers in general) learners' inhibition to speak a foreign language may be explained by the learners' feeling of shyness (Item 21) in such situations. In fact, 30% of respondents (26% in Siebert's study) reported feeling shy in this situation, though 43%, and 19% respectively, did not. It is interesting to note, that although more than twice as many respondents in the Australian study reported not feeling shy about speaking with native speakers as did respondents in the American study, substantially less admitted that they actually enjoyed the experience.

Communicative apprehension, whether in L1 or L2, can be a result of a number of factors, including one's personality traits and states, such as introversion and anxiety. However, it is encouraging to find that 77% (and 74% in Siebert's study) believed that "It is OK to guess if you don't know a word English". It likely means that learners feel confident that they can work out the meaning of unfamiliar words form the context of the utterance or written text, and not feel anxious about having to understand each individual word. This skill is important for these learners in particular, due to the large volumes of reading for gist and listening to lecturers they encounter in their current EAP course and later on at university. Guessing the meaning of new words without having to over-rely on dictionaries is a useful skill. Dictionaries can be no doubt very useful, however, over-reliance can lead to over-dependence, and thus become a 'crutch' for the learner. Another encouraging finding is that, in line with current language teaching approaches, the focus of oral discourse is on meaning making and intelligibility over immediate grammatical correctness, where learners feel confident to speak before speaking 'perfectly correctly'.

Thus, in Item 9, 82% (and slightly less in Siebert's study, 74%) disagreed with the notion that one should not say anything in English until one can say it grammatically correctly. Nonetheless, 69% (and slightly more in Siebert's study, 77%) of respondents believed it is important to speak English with an "excellent pronunciation" (Item 7). These findings seem to suggest that learners view it more important to speak with an excellent pronunciation rather than with grammatical correctness. With the emergence of English as an International Language (EIL), new developments in English language pedagogy have seen a shift from a focus on "excellent pronunciation" to intelligibility and communicative competence (or socio-pragmatic awareness). Finally, Item 22 assessed the learners' belief on whether one can 'unlearn' incorrectly acquired language forms. To the statement "If beginning students are allowed to make mistakes in English, it will be difficult for them to speak correctly later on", 59% responded in disagreement, however 22% believed that if their mistakes were not corrected immediately, they might become 'fossilized'. In the American study, the figures are similar, with 46% and 22% respectively.

Motivation and Expectations
BALLI items 5, 20, 24, 29, 31, and 32 concern desires and opportunities the students associate with the learning of their target language. In this category, the vast majority of responses seem to reflect the learners' desire for and optimism in achieving their language learning goals. For example, in Item 31, 97% of respondents (and 94% reported by Siebert) agreed that they want to learn to speak English very well, and in Item 5, 88% (but slightly less in Siebert's study, 75%) believed that they will eventually speak English very well. In both studies, a small percentage (3% and 7% respectively) of learners did not believe in their ultimate success in learning English. In addition, 93% (and 85% in US study) believed that if they learn to speak English very well, they will have better job opportunities, reflecting the existence of instrumental motivation in both groups. However, integrative motivation was also evident from responses to Items 24 and 32, where 70% (and 73% respectively) of learners agreed that they would like to learn English to get to know and understand the natives better. Furthermore, in the Australian study, 70% of the EFL learners expressed the desire to get to know Australians better (Item 24) and 89% indicated that they wanted to have Australian friends (Item32). It is important to note, that Siebert's Items 24 & 32 ought to be compared with caution, since they were worded in a way that indicated a lesser affective involvement, and thus had an impact on the way participants in each study responded. Generally, these findings do not support Dornyei's (1990) argument that in EFL contexts, students are more instrumentally motivated than integratively. This is perhaps due to circumstances of the learners' current situation. As international students living abroad, the need to integrate with peers and become part of the local community is a necessary survival strategy for the duration of their study abroad, while learning EFL in one's home country would not make this aspect of any relevant importance.

Finally, in Item 20, 91% of respondents believed that their countrymen valued the ability to speak English highly. This finding may reflect the elevated status of English as a lingua franca around the world. With increasing globalization in commerce, science and technology, increased movement of capital, labor, and tourism, and its widespread use in media and entertainment, English has become the vehicle for international communication. Hence, English is now an international language in much demand globally. With this in mind, it is worth noting, that Siebert did not ask her study participants about the English language in particular, but about foreign languages in general, which might explain the lower frequency score on agreement to this item (78%).

In summary, the analysis of findings in this study has revealed many similar trends in learner beliefs, with only few significant discrepancies between EAP learners in the Australian and American contexts, despite a number of differences among both studies. For example, in Siebert's (2003) study, data was obtained from more than one higher educational institution, but only from one in the current study. Furthermore, participants' English language proficiency score (TOEFL) was lower in Siebert's study than in the current study (ie. 425 and 570 respectively). Also, while there was a significant nationality bias in the current study (58% Chinese origin), it is uncertain whether there was such bias in Siebert's study.

Overall, student responses regarding foreign language aptitude (Table 1) were all either similar or very similar. Both groups believed in child supremacy with respect to the age factor, and both endorsed the concept of foreign language aptitude. However, they differed on the issue whether everyone can learn a foreign language.

With respect to the difficulty of language learning (Table 2), both Australian and American study participants held very similar views. Their estimates on the difficulty of the English language, as well as the length of time it takes to learn it, were very close, with the exception of the 5 -10 year period.

Next, the nature of language learning (Table 3) showed a number of close similarities. Both study groups agreed on the importance of vocabulary and grammar learning, with the exception of translation practice as a useful language learning strategy. Both believed that it is best to study a foreign language in the native country and become familiar with the native culture of that country.

Beliefs concerning learning and communication strategies (Table 4) in both studies were also similar. Both Australian and American study participants held very similar beliefs with respect to not speaking in a foreign language unless correctly, guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words, the importance of practice in FL; and were similar in the areas of pronunciation, correction of errors, and practicing with audio equipment. However, the respondents differed in their reported degree of enjoyment in practicing English with native speakers.

Finally, student responses regarding their motivations and expectation for success (Table 5) showed marked similarities to items relating to personal motivation for learning English and their expectation for ultimate success. However, they differed in their degree of desire to get to know FL speakers better, and on the degree of importance given to the English (or a foreign) language among their countrymen.

Conclusion
This paper has addressed the aims of the current study by firstly, identifying the overall trends of learner beliefs in the Australian context and discussing them in light of current literature, thus filling a gap in locally situated research. Analyses of learner beliefs are worthy of note for the light they shed on learners' thinking, expectations, and actions in the language-learning context. Secondly, the beliefs held by participants in the Australian and American studies have been assessed for their context specificity, and were found to be similar in all categories. Thus, the null hypothesis that 'the beliefs held by students in the Australian and American studies are context-specific' was rejected. Although there were a small number of items with a discrepancy rate on agreement above 10% between both study groups (Items 2, 5, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 28, 32), students differed markedly on only one item (Item 33), which had a discrepancy rate on agreement higher than 20%. Consequently, having rejected the null hypothesis, the paper remains cautious in claiming that any single factor is responsible for affecting learner beliefs, including context specificity (ie. contextual factors such as the nature and demographics of an institution). Beliefs about language learning are generally strongly held and difficult to change (Kern, 1995; Weinstein, 1994; Peacock, 2001) from context to context. It is argued, that it is rather the individuals' complex metacognitive structure, as affected by a number of social, cultural, contextual, cognitive, affective, and personal factors that is responsible for the shaping nature and strength of these beliefs.

Nonetheless, caution should be exercised in generalizing the current findings beyond this student population, or indeed to other wider populations. Accordingly, researchers could further investigate language learners' beliefs and their relationship to context and setting specificity, the impact of learner beliefs on learning practices; as well as other aspects such as malleability of beliefs, and their links to individual differences. There is also paucity in literature on the congruence of learner beliefs and their practices - an area of particular importance due to the possible effects 'cognitive dissonance' (dissonance between personal cognition, attitude or belief and behavior) can have on the individual's learning capacity.

On a pedagogical level, this paper supports the fundamental arguments raised by of previous researchers that understanding of learner beliefs can enhance the language learning process. Wenden (1986) suggested that classroom activities in which learners examine and evaluate their own beliefs may lead to increased awareness and modification of their expectations concerning language learning. Additionally, Horwitz (1987) reported on teachers' testimonies of how discussions at the beginning of an ESL course related to their beliefs and expectations helped to clear up some of their students' misconceptions about language learning, which - Horwitz notes - are often based on limited experience and knowledge. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that ESL teachers' consciousness of learners' beliefs and expectations "may contribute to a more conductive learning environment and to more effective learning" (Chawhan & Oliver, 2000:25). At the same time, Huang & Tsai (2003) point out that teachers might need to be very cautious about the use of teaching methods, which are crucial in affecting their students' language learning beliefs.

References
Arnold, J. (Ed). (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bacon, S. M. C. & Finnemann, M.D. (1992). Sex differences in self reported beliefs about language learning and their learning strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(4), 818-825.

Banya, K., & Chen, M. (1997). Beliefs about language learning A study of beliefs of teachers' and students' cultural setting. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages, Florida

Benson, P. & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of Language and Language Learning. System, 27(4), Special Issue, 459-472.

Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.) (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. Applied Linguistics and Language Study Series; General Editor, C. N. Candlin. London: Longman.

Bernat, E. (2006). Learners' contributions to language learning: Preconceived notions and psychological type. Paper presented at the XVIIIth International Conference on Second/Foreign Language Acquisition, Szczyrk, Poland.

Bernat, E., and Gvozdenko, I. (2005, June). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge, pedagogical implications and new research directions, TESL-EJ, 9(1), A1. Retrieved 29th September, 2005. http://tesl-ej.org/ej33/a1.html

Chawhan, L., & Oliver, R. (2000). What beliefs do ESL students hold about language learning? TESOL in Context, 10(1), 20-26.

Cheng, H -Y., (1995). Motivation, attitude, and achievement in English learning: A case study at the Chinese Military Academy. Doctoral dissertation. Florida International University.

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23(2), 195 205.

Donato, R., Antonek, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1996). Monitoring and assessing a Japanese FLES program: Ambiance and achievement. Language Learning, 46(3), 497-528

Dörnyei, Z. (1990), Conceptualising motivation in foreign-language learning, Language Learning, 40(1), 45-78.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic.

Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Surveying student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course, Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333 340.

Horwitz, E.K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language teaming. In A.L. Wenden & J. Robin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp.119-132). London: Prentice Hall.

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

Horwitz, E.K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about language learning: A Review of BALLI Studies [Special Issue]. System, 27, 557 576.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety, Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Huang, S. C., & Tsai, R. R. (2003). A comparison between high and low English proficiency learners' beliefs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 482 579

Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning, Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92.

Kim Yoon, H. (2000). Learner beliefs about language learning, motivation and their relationship: A study of EFL learners in Korea, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, TX.

Kunt, N. (1998). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Turkish-speaking university students learning English in North Cyprus, Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 59(1), July

Lightbown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Revised Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency, Modern Language Journal, 79, 372-386.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30(2), 449-472.

Patkowski, M. (1982). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. In Krashen, S., Long. M., & Scarcella, R. (Eds.), Age, rate, and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Patkowski, M. (1990). Age and accent in second language: A reply to James Emil Flege. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 73-89.

Park, G. P. (1995), Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning of university students learning English in Korea. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, TX.

Peackock, M. (1998). The links between learner beliefs, teacher beliefs, and EFL proficiency. Perspectives, 10(1), 125 159.

Peackock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 247-266

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers' beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System 29(2), 177-195.

Prudie, N., Hattie, J. & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87-100

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan

Rifkin, B. (2000). Revising beliefs about foreign language learning, Foreign Language Annals 33(4), 394 420.

Siebert, L. L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL Journal, 21, 7-39.

Tanaka, K. (2000). The effect of learning environment on learner beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study on learners of English in New Zealand and Japan. Paper presented at the 7th National Conference on Community Language and English for Speakers of Other Languages, Auckland, New Zealand.

Tanaka, K. & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, Language Proficiency and Learner Beliefs about Language Learning. JALT Journal, 25(1), 63-85.

Tercanlioglu, L. (2005). Pre-service EFL teachers' beliefs about foreign language learning and how they relate to gender. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 53(1), 145-162.

Truitt, S. (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean university students learning English. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 56, 6, June 5789-A

Tsai, C. I. (2004). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Taiwanese students learning English. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 11, May 3936-A

Tumposky, N. R. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, 50 65.

Weinstein, C. E. (1994). A look to the future: what we might learn from research on beliefs. In R. Garner and P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about instruction with text (pp.12-39), NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learners' strategies for learner autonomy. UK: Prentice Hall International, Hertfordshire.
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 40, 3-12.

White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System, 27(4), Special Issue, 443-467.

Yang, D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy. System, 27(4), 515 535.

Yang, D. (1992). Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 1993, 53, 8, February