Okyar, H., & Demir, Y. (2019). An investigation into
Turkish EFL learners’ stereotyped thoughts and
exposure to English: A correlational study.
International Online Journal of Education and
Teaching (IOJET), 6(2), 379-391.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/540
Received: 30.11.2018
Received in revised form: 03.01.2019
Accepted: 09.03.2019
AN INVESTIGATION INTO TURKISH EFL LEARNERS’ STEREOTYPED
THOUGHTS AND EXPOSURE TO ENGLISH: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY
Research Article
Hatice Okyar
Necmettin Erbakan University
okyarhatice@gmail.com
Yusuf Demir
Necmettin Erbakan University
demir.ysf@hotmail.com
Hatice OKYAR, Ph.D., currently works as an Assistant Professor at Necmettin Erbakan
University, School of Foreign Languages, Konya, Turkey. Her research interests include
foreign language education, language learning strategies and language teaching methodology.
Yusuf Demir, Ph.D., is currently employed as an Assistant Professor at Necmettin
Erbakan University, School of Foreign Languages, Konya, Turkey. His main research
interests include second language teacher education and the use of newly-introduced
technological tools in teaching foreign languages.
Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published
elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/540
mailto:okyarhatice@gmail.com
mailto:demir.ysf@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4458-4805
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-2364
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
379
AN INVESTIGATION INTO TURKISH EFL LEARNERS’
STEREOTYPED THOUGHTS AND EXPOSURE TO ENGLISH: A
CORRELATIONAL STUDY
Hatice Okyar
okyarhatice@gmail.com
Yusuf Demir
demir.ysf@hotmail.com
Abstract
This study aims to investigate tertiary EFL learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign
languages, the extent of their exposure to English, and the potential relationships between
these variables, also in relation to their proficiency level. 124 EFL students in the preparatory
school of a state university in Turkey participated in the study. Two quantitative data
collection instruments were distributed to the participants: Stereotyped Thoughts About
Foreign Languages Scale (Ünal, 2015) and Exposure to English Scale (Gökcan &
Çobanoğlu-Aktan, 2016). Descriptive statistics and correlations were used to analyze the
data. The results showed that the participants held a moderate level of stereotyped thoughts
and exposure to English. Moreover, significant and positive relationships were revealed
between L2 exposure and (1) proficiency level and (2) the two dimensions of stereotyped
thoughts: collectivity at a weak level and trying to change people at a moderate level.
However, L2 exposure correlated significantly and negatively with taking it personally and
exaggerated generalization at a weak level. Concerning the relationships between proficiency
level and the dimensions of stereotyping, the “Must” rule, taking it personally and
excessively self-sacrificing showed significant and negative relationships with proficiency
level weakly, while exaggerated generalization correlated with proficiency at a moderate
level.
Keywords: L2 exposure, stereotypes, foreign languages, attitudes
1. Introduction
A variety of factors have been historically and theoretically mentioned as being significant
in learning a second/foreign language. Among the most significant of these is sufficient and
comprehensible language input for successful acquisition of a language (Harmer, 2007;
Krashen, 1985, 1991; Krashen & Terrell, 1995). The term input here refers to learners’
exposure to spoken and written language, in other words, it includes experiencing the target
language through listening and reading (Gass, Behney & Plonsky, 2013; Gass & Mackey,
2007). Considering the essential role of exposure in language learning, many researchers (e.g.
Bahrani & Sim, 2012; Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Durrant &
Schmitt, 2010; Ellis, 1999; Ellis & Collins, 2009; Hernandez, 2008; Marsden, 2006; Okyar &
Yangın Ekşi, 2017; Rodrigo, Krashen & Gribbons, 2004; Rott, 1999; Sonbul & Schmitt,
2013) conducted studies in search for the link between language input and language learning
from various perspectives.
Related to L2 input, to mention but a few, Rott (1999) investigated the effects of quantity
of input, i.e. the frequency of exposure on the learning of the target words. In her study,
Okyar & Demir
380
learners were exposed to the target words in reading texts twice, four or six times, and it was
noticed that the more the learners encounter the target words, the more effectively they learn.
Considering this finding, it can be argued that the quantity of input, that is to say, amount of
exposure plays an important role in L2 learning. Shehata (2008) investigated the correlation
between EFL and ESL learners’ exposure to collocations and their collocational knowledge.
With this purpose in mind, she included two groups in her study: Arabic students learning
English as a second language in the U.S., and Arabic students learning English as a foreign
language in Egypt. In order to see the learners’ perceived amount of exposure to English, a
questionnaire was delivered to the participants. Additionally, students’ collocational
knowledge was assessed through productive and receptive tests. The results of the analysis
showed a moderate positive correlation between the learners’ self-reported amount of
exposure and their collocational knowledge. When the analysis was conducted separately for
each group, it was seen that the correlation was strong for the ESL group while it was
moderate for the EFL group. Moreover, Matsumura (2003) reported a positive correlation
between the amount of L2 exposure and development of pragmatic competence of language
learners. Along similar lines, Trofimovich and Baker (2006) revealed the productive effect of
exposure on stress timing, while Leow (1998) found that multiple exposure to morphological
forms promoted students’ ability to produce these forms. These results overall show the
fundamental role of exposure to the target language for successful language learning.
Since there is a positive link between sufficient language exposure and successful
language learning (Harmer, 2007), it seems crucial for language learners to be exposed to the
target language to the greatest extent possible. However, ample exposure to target language
may not be easily possible for learners who learn English as a foreign language. This is
because in foreign language learning contexts—contrary to second language learning
contexts—the target language is not a medium of communication outside the classroom
(Brown, 2007a; Van den Branden, 2007; VanPatten & Benati, 2010). As a case in point,
students in Turkey learn English as a foreign language, and therefore they do not have plenty
of opportunities to hear and practice English outside the classroom while on the other hand
digital technologies seem to pave the way for more language exposure in EFL contexts.
Therefore, it is worth scrutiny to find out the amount of Turkish EFL learners’ exposure to
English both inside and outside the classroom. Language teachers might think that they
provide as much English input as possible in class; however, approaching the issue from the
other side of the coin, i.e. from the viewpoint of learners can be very helpful to get more
detailed information. Moreover, learners’ self-reported exposure to L2 can help to determine
what they do for their own learning outside the class.
In addition to language exposure, other factors such as motivation, self-confidence,
anxiety, attitude, in other words, personality factors can also impact on the learning of the
target language (Brown, 2007a; Gass et al., 2013; Krashen, 1981). To put it another way,
individual differences are involved in the language learning process in a way that affects the
achievement of language learners (Carrasquillo, 1994). Along these lines, another concept
that may have an important role in language learning process is stereotyping. In the most
general sense, stereotyping refers to ―some type of attitude toward the culture or language in
question‖ (Brown, 2007b, p. 192). The term attitude is crucial since a plethora of studies
mentioned the facilitative effects of positive attitudes on leading to language learning gains
(e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2014; Krashen, 1981). With this in mind, stereotyping in relation to
L2 learning is worth investigating. While some studies addressed stereotyping within the
framework of L2 culture (e.g. Heusinkveld, 1985; Nguyen & Kellogg, 2010; Nikitina, 2015;
Itakura, 2004; Stephens, 1997), others also included different variables such as gender
stereotypes (Demir & Yavuz, 2017; Lewandowski, 2014; Oliveira, 2008; Tajeddin & Janebi
javascript:;
https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Pavel%20Trofimovich&eventCode=SE-AU
https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Wendy%20Baker&eventCode=SE-AU
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X03000952#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814026123#bbib0095
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
381
Enayat, 2010) in relation to L2. As different from these studies, depending on Ünal (2015),
the current study focuses on stereotyped thoughts of learners about foreign languages. Ünal
(2015) highlighted the need for studies related to learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign
languages. To that end, he designed a study considering Dökmen’s (1997) classification of
stereotyped thoughts that affect daily life and learning process. These stereotyped thoughts
are categorized as exaggerated generalization, polarization, taking it personally, the must
rule, trying to change people, excessively self-sacrificing, regret, collectivity. Each of them is
elaborated by Dökmen (1996, p. 80-86) as follows:
Exaggerated generalization: Generalization refers to the thought that something (e.g. an
event or a situation) is true all the time for everyone. People who make exaggerated
generalizations miss the difference between the whole and the piece, and they like using the
words such as ―everyone, always, all the time, and never‖ (p. 80). For instance, the sentence I
will never succeed in English is typical of an exaggerated generalization. These kinds of
negative generalizations are discouraging and they may cause lack of self-confidence.
Polarization (all or nothing): It refers to the extreme attitudes toward the events. In
polarization, there is either black or white, that is to say, there is no gray. Therefore, people
with this kind of stereotyped thought perceive events as all-or-nothing. As a case in point, a
student might conceive of proficient speakers of English as respectable in comparison to
those who are not.
Taking it Personally: It refers to a person’s state of feeling responsible for other people’s
problems even though he/she is not involved in them. This involves self-accusation. To
exemplify, a student may not believe in his/her hard work to be sufficient to succeed in
English.
The “Must” Rule: It refers to the thought that some of the rules can never change. The
following sentences exemplify the nature of the ―must‖ rule for L2 learners:
- ―It is a prerequisite for me to take private English courses to be successful.”
Trying to Change People: This refers to the effort to change people in a way that they think
and act the way we do. The following is an example for this categorization.
- “I direct people around me to learn a foreign language.”
Excessively self-sacrificing: The exact opposite of trying to change people is excessively
self-sacrificing. For excessively self-sacrificing people, other people’s thoughts are more
important than their own. These people sacrifice their own desires, and try to behave and act
the way other people want them to as the following example shows:
- “I learn the foreign language because my family wants.”
Regret (I wish I had…): Regret means a feeling of sadness as a result of some events that
happened in the past. The expressions such as I wish I had not gone there, I wish I had not
said that are typical examples of regret which make us unhappy (p. 85). It is exemplified as
follows:
- “I wish I had studied more to learn a foreign language.”
Collectivity (To put all eggs in one basket): A person can have various roles and traits such as
being beautiful, a housewife, a landlord, and so on. Collectivity refers to a person’s
perception of all these traits and roles collectively without differentiating among them. For
instance, if an employee starts to conceive of himself as a useless person as a result of a
punishment because of his/her one mistake at work, then this is called collectivity. A person
Okyar & Demir
382
has many different roles and being unsuccessful in one area does not mean that this person is
totally unsuccessful in many other areas. Collectivity for L2 learners is exemplified below:
- “My writing ability shows my foreign language knowledge.”
Ünal (2015), based on the above-mentioned stereotyped thoughts, developed a scale
related to learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages, which served as a
springboard for the researchers to handle stereotyping from a different perspective.
Investigating L2 learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages and their relationship
with learners’ proficiency level may shed light on the possible reasons behind their success
and failure in L2 learning. In addition to this, learners’ self-perceived exposure to English in
relation to their proficiency level can help to gain deeper insights into the effects of L2
exposure on L2 learning. Considering the need for research on these issues, the present study
aimed to address the following research questions:
1. What are Turkish EFL learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages?
2. What is the extent of exposure to English among Turkish EFL learners?
3. Do EFL learners’ stereotypes about foreign languages, their exposure to English, and
English proficiency correlate?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants of this study are tertiary-level EFL learners in the English preparatory
program of a state university in Turkey. Having been sampled conveniently out of the
compulsory English classes at the end of 2017-18 academic year, a total of 124 intermediate-
level participants were involved in the study, which corresponds to almost one third of the
whole population. 34% of the participants were females (n=42) while 66% were males
(n=82). The distribution of the research participants in relation their departments is as
follows: civil aviation management (49%, n=61), engineering faculty (31%, n=38), and
international relations (20%, n=25).
2.2. Data collection instruments
Two scales were utilized in the data collection process of the study. The first one was
oriented toward measuring the amount of exposure to English (Exposure to English Scale),
and the second one allowed for revealing students’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign
languages (Stereotyped Thoughts About Foreign Languages Scale). Both of the scales were
developed in a similar context as in the current study, i.e. in the Turkish EFL context with
Turkish EFL learners, and were applied in their mother tongue.
Stereotyped Thoughts About Foreign Languages Scale was developed by Ünal (2015)
with 313 university students. In order to generate factors and check the suitability of the scale
for factor analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the KMO index (Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin)
were calculated. KMO index was calculated as .810 while Bartlett’s test of sphericity had a
significant value (p<.01), which were eligible results for exploratory factor analysis. The
emergent stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages scale consisted of 42 items under 8
factors. The scale items were based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ―strongly
disagree‖ to ―strongly agree‖. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the whole
instrument was reported as 0.876.
Developed by Gökcan and Çobanoğlu-Aktan (2016) with 505 students, the 20-item
Exposure to English Scale was arranged into five dimensions as a result of exploratory factor
analysis, induced by a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity value (p<.01) and a KMO index
of .932. The whole scale had an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.907. In the current study, the
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
383
scale measured exposure to English based on the frequency words ranging from ―never‖ to
―always‖.
2.3. Data analysis
The item scores in both of the scales were directly input into SPSS 23 software, i.e. no
reverse coding was made. This is because in the first scale, all the items elicited stereotyped
thoughts irrespective of negativeness/positiveness of the phrasings, while the second scale
revealed exposure to English through frequencies. The results with regard to the students’
stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages and their exposure to English were evaluated
within the following limit values as specified in the original scale developed by Ünal (2015),
respectively: ―strongly disagree‖ (1.00 – 1.79), ―disagree‖ (1.80 – 2.59), ―undecided‖ (2.60 –
3.39 ), ―agree‖ (3.40 – 4.19) and ―strongly agree‖ (4.20 – 5.00) for the first scale, and ―never‖
(1.00 – 1.79), ―rarely‖ (1.80 – 2.59), ―sometimes‖ (2.60 – 3.39 ), ―usually‖ (3.40 – 4.19) and
―always‖ (4.20 – 5.00) for the second scale. In the present study, alpha reliability coefficients
were calculated as 0.862 for the Stereotyped Thoughts About Foreign Languages Scale, and
0.810 for the Exposure To English Scale.
In the reporting of the data, descriptive statistics such as mean, percentage and standard
deviation were utilized. In addition, before the statistical analyses, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted to check for the distribution of the data in terms of
normality. As a result of the p value that is lower than .05 and therefore signals that the data
did not show normal distribution, non-parametric tests were opted over parametric tests. In
this respect, Spearman’s correlation was performed in order to reveal possible correlations in
place of Pearson correlation test.
3. Results
3.1. Turkish EFL learners’ stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages
Table 1 shows the mean scores received by the eight dimensions of the stereotyped
thoughts about foreign languages scale as well as the average score on the whole instrument.
Considering the reference ranges specified, it is seen that the participants hold a moderate
level of stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages (𝒙 =2.86). With reference to the
dimensions of the scale, regret and collectivity demonstrate the highest mean scores (𝒙 =3.72,
sd=4.402; 𝒙 =3.40, sd=4.381, respectively. Reference range is agree for both dimensions). On
the other hand, excessively self-sacrificing, taking it personally, and exaggerated
generalization receive the lowest mean scores (𝒙 =1.96, sd=2.899; 𝒙 =2.35, sd=3.398; 𝒙 =2.35,
sd=5.427, respectively. Reference range is disagree for all the three dimensions). The
remaining three dimensions fall within undecided category in a descending order as the
“must” rule (𝒙 =3.14, sd=4.774), trying to change people (𝒙 =2.98, sd=4.967) and
polarization (𝒙 =2.87, sd=5.099).
Table 1. Results related to the stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages scale
Dimension N 𝒙 SD
Exaggerated
generalization
124 2.35 5.427
Trying to change people 124 2.98 4.967
Regret 124 3.72 4.402
Polarization 124 2.87 5.099
Collectivity 124 3.40 4.381
The ―Must‖ rule 124 3.14 4.774
Taking it personally 124 2.35 3.398
Okyar & Demir
384
Excessively self-
sacrificing
124 1.96 2.899
Total 124 2.86
As shown in Table 2, the four top rated items of the scale belong to regret dimension (at
agree level, 𝒙 =4.02, sd=1.189; 𝒙 =4.01, sd=1.016; 𝒙 =4.00, sd=1.119; 𝒙 =3.98, sd=1.158,
respectively). These items include regretfulness regarding the students’ past negligences of
beginning to study earlier and harder, dedicating enough time and importance to a foreign
language. The fifth most rated item, which sees it as a prerequisite to practice a foreign
language with an accompanier in order to succeed, belongs to the “Must” rule dimension (at
agree level, 𝒙 =3.81, sd=1.054).
Concerning the first three least rated items, the students seem not to be holding
excessively self-sacrificing dispositions. (at disagree level, 𝒙 =1.83, sd=1.010; 𝒙 =1.90,
sd=1.078; 𝒙 =1.98, sd=1.024, respectively). These items reflect the students’ reluctance to
renounce the opportunity of learning a foreign language for the sake of their families. As for
the other least rated items, they do not tend to make exaggerated generalizations such as
never being able to learn a foreign language and believing to make the same error all the time
(at disagree level, 𝒙 =2.06, sd=.917; 𝒙 =2.10, sd=1.019, respectively).
Table 2. The most and the least rated items in the stereotyped thoughts scale
Most rated items 𝒙 SD
I wish I had started learning a foreign language earlier. (regret) 4.02 1.189
I wish I had allowed more time to learn a foreign language. (regret) 4.01 1.016
I wish I had grasped the importance of learning a foreign language
earlier. (regret)
4.00 1.119
I wish I had studied more to learn a foreign language. (regret) 3.98 1.158
In order to succeed in a foreign language, there certainly must be
somebody around me with whom I can speak that language. (the
―Must‖ rule)
3.81 1.054
Least rated items 𝒙 SD
I learn a foreign language because my family wants me to do so.
(excessively self-sacrificing)
1.83 1.010
I can renounce an opportunity of foreign language education if my
family does not want it. (excessively self-sacrificing)
1.90 1.078
I can give up learning a foreign language in order not to get my
family into financial trouble. (excessively self-sacrificing)
1.98 1.024
I think I will always make the same error in a foreign language.
(exaggerated generalization)
2.06 .917
I think I will never succeed in learning a foreign language.
(exaggerated generalization)
2.10 1.019
―strongly disagree‖ (1.00 – 1.79), ―disagree‖ (1.80 – 2.59), ―undecided‖ (2.60 – 3.39 ),
―agree‖ (3.40 – 4.19) and ―strongly agree‖ (4.20 – 5.00)
3.2. The extent of exposure to English
When the extent of exposure to English is examined, as seen in Table 3, the students show
a moderate level of exposure to English (𝒙 =2.87 out of 5.00, in sometimes range). While their
biggest sources of exposure are multimedia (𝒙 =3.71, sd=3.320, in usually range) and school
(𝒙 =3.61, sd=3.137, in usually range), they get the least exposure from the text (𝒙 =2.12,
sd=4.595, in rarely range) and friends (𝒙 =2.43, sd=2.276, in rarely range) dimensions.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
385
Table 3. Results related to extent of exposure to English
Dimension N 𝒙 SD
Text 124 2.12 4.595
Multimedia 124 3.71 3.320
School 124 3.61 3.137
Friends 124 2.43 2.276
Software 124 3.01 2.521
Total 124 2.87
―never‖ (1.00 – 1.79), ―rarely‖ (1.80 – 2.59), ―sometimes‖ (2.60 – 3.39 ), ―usually‖ (3.40 –
4.19) and ―always‖ (4.20 – 5.00)
Moreover, a scrutiny of the featured exposure items reveals that the students get the most
exposure, in a descending order, from the lessons being taught in English (𝒙 =4.34, sd=.835),
English songs (𝒙 =4.17, sd=.960) and films (𝒙 =3.99, sd=.975), teacher talk in English
(𝒙 =3.97, sd=.945) and English TV series (𝒙 =3.90, sd=1.015). On the other hand, they are
least exposed to English newspapers (𝒙 =1.69, sd=.868), short messages in English (𝒙 =1.81,
sd=.974), and magazines (𝒙 =1.82, sd=996).
3.3. Correlations between exposure, stereotyped thoughts and English proficiency
level
The correlations between/among students’ level of exposure to English, English
proficiency as understood from their year-end scores, and the dimensions of their stereotyped
thoughts were examined through Spearman correlation coefficient. As shown in Table 4,
slightly though, the students’ exposure to English and their proficiency level correlated
positively and significantly (r =.232, p<.01), which means as the amount of exposure
increases, so does the level of proficiency, and vice versa. What is more, by dividing the
exposure scale items into two categories (peripheral exposure items such as teacher, school,
friends etc. as opposed to personal exposure items such as watching English films, TV series,
reading magazines etc.), an effort was made to understand the potential relationships between
proficiency level and (1) peripheral and (2) personal exposure, separately. As a result, a
significant positive relationship was revealed only between proficiency level and personal
exposure (r =.223, p<.05 at a weak level).
When the potential relationships between the level of exposure and the dimensions of
stereotyped thoughts are investigated, it is seen that significant positive relationships were
observed between exposure and (1) trying to change people (r =.401, p<.000 at a moderate
level), and (2) collectivity (r =.216, p<.05 at a weak level) whereas exposure correlated with
(1) taking it personally (r = -.252, p<.01) and (2) exaggerated generalization (r = -.205,
p<.05) weakly and negatively. However, no significant relationships were observed between
exposure and (1) regret, (2) polarization, (3) the “Must” rule and (4) excessively self-
sacrificing dimensions (p>.05 in all cases).
With reference to the relationships between proficiency level and the dimensions of
stereotyped thoughts, (1) the “Must” rule (r = -.239, p<.01 at a weak level), (2) taking it
personally (r = -.256, p<.01 at a weak level), (3) excessively self-sacrificing (r = -.209, p<.05
at a weak level) and (4) exaggerated generalization (r = -.468, p<.000 at a moderate level)
showed significant and negative relationships with proficiency level. On the other side, there
were not significant relationships between proficiency level and (1) trying to change people,
(2) regret, (3) polarization, and (4) collectivity (p>.05 in all cases).
Okyar & Demir
386
Table 4. Correlations between exposure, stereotyped thoughts and proficiency level
4. Discussion
One of the prominent findings of this study was that the tertiary-level EFL learners’
exposure to English was at a moderate level and the most reported type of exposure to
English was through multimedia and school, respectively. The least reported source of
exposure to English, on the other hand, was through texts. It is worth noting that the learners’
proficiency levels correlated positively with their exposure to English. This finding seems to
be in line with those of many other studies (e.g. Matsumura, 2003; Rott, 1999; Shehata,
2008) which reported positive relationships between the amount of exposure and L2
development. At the same time, this finding of the present study supports the claims of some
theorists and methodologists (e.g. Harmer, 2007; Krashen, 1985, 1991; Krashen & Terrell,
1995) who highlight the positive link between sufficient L2 exposure and language gains.
With regard to exposure, another featured result of this study was that the students’ personal
exposure, rather than peripheral exposure, was significantly and positively correlated with
their proficiency levels. This shows that learners’ personal struggle to get target language
input outside the class (e.g. by reading magazines, watching English TV series, listening to
English songs etc.) can have more positive effects on their L2 development in comparison to
exposure
ex.
generaliz
ation
trying to
change
people
regret polarizat
ion
collectiv
ity
the
“Must”
rule
taking it
personal
ly
ex.self-
sacrifici
ng
proficiency
level
exposure r 1,000 -,205* ,401** ,086 ,102 ,216* -,008 -,252** -,154 ,232**
Sig. (2-tailed) . ,022 ,000 ,340 ,259 ,016 ,934 ,005 ,089 ,009
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
ex.
general.
r -,205* 1,000 -,151 ,270** ,203* ,002 ,356** ,511** ,407** -,468**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,022 . ,094 ,002 ,024 ,979 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
trying to
change p.
r ,401** -,151 1,000 ,286** ,147 ,327** ,194* -,137 -,009 ,073
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,094 . ,001 ,104 ,000 ,031 ,131 ,921 ,421
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
regret r ,086 ,270** ,286** 1,000 ,288** ,129 ,247** ,002 ,020 -,011
Sig. (2-tailed) ,340 ,002 ,001 . ,001 ,152 ,006 ,980 ,828 ,906
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
polarizatio
n
r ,102 ,203* ,147 ,288** 1,000 ,311** ,168 ,159 ,158 ,031
Sig. (2-tailed) ,259 ,024 ,104 ,001 . ,000 ,061 ,078 ,080 ,734
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
collectivity r ,216* ,002 ,327** ,129 ,311** 1,000 ,085 ,009 -,050 -,093
Sig. (2-tailed) ,016 ,979 ,000 ,152 ,000 . ,346 ,920 ,584 ,303
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
the “Must”
rule
r -,008 ,356** ,194* ,247** ,168 ,085 1,000 ,202* ,021 -,239**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,934 ,000 ,031 ,006 ,061 ,346 . ,024 ,820 ,008
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
taking it
personally
r -,252** ,511** -,137 ,002 ,159 ,009 ,202* 1,000 ,490** -,256**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,005 ,000 ,131 ,980 ,078 ,920 ,024 . ,000 ,004
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
ex.self-
sacrificing
r -,154 ,407** -,009 ,020 ,158 -,050 ,021 ,490** 1,000 -,209*
Sig. (2-tailed) ,089 ,000 ,921 ,828 ,080 ,584 ,820 ,000 . ,020
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
proficiency
level
r ,232** -,468** ,073 -,011 ,031 -,093 -,239** -,256** -,209* 1,000
Sig. (2-tailed) ,009 ,000 ,421 ,906 ,734 ,303 ,008 ,004 ,020 .
N 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
javascript:;
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
387
the exposure provided in formal instructional settings (e.g. teacher talk). This may also be the
result of the fact that when learners take responsibility for their own learning beyond the
classroom (see Benson, 2011), they can become more successful in L2 learning. This
personal effort is very crucial for EFL learners given the fact that there are no ―ready-made
contexts for communication beyond their classroom‖ (Brown, 2007a, p. 134) in EFL contexts
unlike the case in ESL contexts. Therefore, in EFL contexts, learners’ voluntary efforts to be
exposed to L2 through a variety of ways beyond the classroom seem to have facilitative
effects on their L2 proficiency development.
As is the case with the learners’ general exposure to L2, analyses also revealed a moderate
level of stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages. Among the eight dimensions of
stereotyped thoughts, regret (I wish I had…) was the most frequently reported stereotype by
the learners. This highlights their expressions of regret regarding not spending more time or
not making more efforts for learning English. The second most rated dimension of
stereotyped thoughts by the learners was collectivity. Learners having the stereotype of
collectivity think that their success in one aspect of a language (e.g. grammar) indicates their
level of knowledge in L2. However, the success of a learner in one language skill does not
necessarily generalize to every aspect of L2. The least rated dimensions of stereotyped
thoughts were excessively self-sacrificing, taking it personally, and exaggerated
generalization, respectively. First of all, these results indicate that learners do not want to
give up learning a foreign language for the sake of others (e.g. their families). With this in
mind, it can be said that learners tend to adopt positive attitudes toward learning foreign
languages. This is especially important given that learners become more successful in
learning a foreign language when their attitudes toward the target language is positive
(Eshghinejad, 2016; Fakeye, 2010; Oroujlou & Vahedi, 2011). When the low scores
regarding the dimensions taking it personally and exaggerated generalization are taken into
account, it can be deduced that the students do not have very negative stereotyped thoughts
about learning foreign languages. As for the results related to the relationship between
learners’ stereotyped thoughts and proficiency level, exaggerated generalization, excessively
self-sacrificing, taking it personally and the “Must” rule are in negative correlation with the
learners’ proficiency level. This finding may imply that when learners’ negative
generalizations and stereotyped thoughts are eliminated, their L2 development can be
promoted.
As to the correlations between L2 exposure and the dimensions of stereotyped thoughts, it
was seen that the highest positive relationship was between L2 exposure and trying to change
people at a moderate level. On this basis, it can be said that when learners feel the benefits of
exposure to L2, considering this usefulness, they try to change other people, in other words,
encourage others to engage more with the target language (e.g. leading others to learn and
speak English, to read texts and watch TV programs in English, etc.). In addition to this, the
negative correlations between exposure to L2 and exaggerated generalization and taking it
personally indicates that more exposure to L2 can help to minimize making exaggerated and
unfavorable generalizations and taking it personally. For instance, one’s biased
misconception of never being able to learn a foreign language could be disposed through
his/her exposure to foreign languages, of course depending on the quality and quantity of
input.
With respect to the relationships between proficiency level and the dimensions of
stereotyped thoughts, there was a moderate and negative correlation between the learners’
proficiency level and exaggerated generalization. To put it another way, as the learners’
proficiency level increases, they tend to make less generalization (e.g. I can never learn a
foreign language) about learning foreign languages. Furthermore, other three dimensions of
Okyar & Demir
388
stereotyped thoughts, namely, the “Must” rule, taking it personally and excessively self-
sacrificing were also negatively correlated with proficiency level. From this point forth, it can
be reasoned that stereotyped thoughts seem to have some serious potential to negatively
affect learners’ achievement in L2. Therefore, as a consequence, it seems to be a worthwhile
investment to help learners get rid of these stereotyped thoughts.
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
This study was conducted to find out the EFL learners’ self-reported level of exposure to
English and their stereotyped thoughts about learning English as well as their relationship
with learners’ English proficiency. One of the important findings of the study is that the
students’ level of exposure to English was moderate, and there was a positive relationship
between the students’ level of exposure and proficiency levels in English. Therefore,
considering the central role of L2 input both inside and outside the classroom, it seems
necessary to create opportunities for EFL learners to receive large amount of language input.
On this basis, language classes can be equipped with modern technologies that provide as
much authentic exposure to L2 as possible. Besides, it would be better to inform learners
about different kinds of L2 resources for using outside the class so that they can get plenty of
opportunities to meet the target language. Another important thing to mention here is that the
students reported to receive the least exposure from the texts and their friends, respectively.
Keeping this in mind, sources of L2 input can be enriched by exposing students to extensive
reading and by increasing students’ interaction through English-spoken cafes and clubs so
that the lack of exposure to the language in non-English speaking countries like Turkey can
be compensated.
Another important finding of the study is that the students’ had a moderate level of
stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages. Moreover, it was highlighted that there was a
negative relationship between some types of stereotyped thoughts (e.g. the “Must” rule,
taking it personally, excessively self-sacrificing, exaggerated generalization) and the
students’ proficiency level. In the light of this result, it seems a real necessity to eliminate the
negative effects of these stereotyped thoughts for more effective L2 learning. Therefore,
future studies need to be done on how to minimize the negative effects of learners’
stereotyped thoughts on learning foreign languages. Moreover, this study examined the
aforementioned concepts through quantitative measurements, and for this reason, further
research can add a qualitative dimension to get deeper insights into the effects of L2 exposure
and stereotyped thoughts on L2 learning. Besides, this study focused only on learners’ self-
reported level of L2 exposure and stereotyped thoughts. Considering this, further research
can also include observational methods to see how learners’ self-reported L2 exposure and
stereotyped thoughts are reflected to their L2 learning process. Lastly, in order to validate the
conclusions obtained from this study, future studies can explore these issues by including
larger sample sizes in different EFL contexts.
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
389
References
Bahrani, T., & Sim, T. S. (2012). Audiovisual news, cartoons, and films as sources of
authentic language input and language proficiency enhancement. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 56-64.
Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). Language input and second language acquisition. Journal
of Education and Practice, 3(3), 39-42.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2
nd
Ed.). Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (3
rd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY:
Pearson.
Caravolas, M., & Bruck, M. (1993). The effects of oral and written language input on
children’s phonological awareness: A crosslinguistic study. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 55, 1-30.
Carrasquillo, A. L. (1994). Teaching English as a second language: A resource guide. New
York: Garland Publishing.
Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2014). The ideal L2 self, self-regulatory strategies and autonomous
learning: A comparison of different groups of English language learners. In K. Csizér
& M. Magid (Eds.), The impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 73-87).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Demir, Y., & Yavuz, M. (2017). Do ELT coursebooks still suffer from gender inequalities?:
A case study from Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 103-122.
Dökmen, Ü. (1996). Communication conflicts and empathy: A framework for Turkish
cultural understanding. Istanbul: System publishers.
Dökmen, Ü. (1997). İletişim çatışmaları ve empati. Ankara: Sistem Yayıncılık.
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure.
Second Language Research, 26(2), 163-188.
Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of
frequency, form, and function. Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language
Journal, 93(3), 329-335.
Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-
oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64–80.
Eshghinejad, S. (2016). EFL students’ attitudes toward learning English language: The case
study of Kashan University students. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1-13.
Fakeye, D. (2010). Students’ personal variables as correlates of academic achievement in
English as a second language in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 22, 205–211.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language
acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
Okyar & Demir
390
course (4
th
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gökcan, M., & Çobanoğlu Aktan, D. (2016). İngilizceye maruz kalma ölçeğinin geçerlik ve
güvenirliğinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Çağdaş Eğitim Araştırmaları Kongresi, 283-
295.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4
th
ed.). Pearson: Longman.
Hernandez, T. A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of
discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 665-75.
Heusinkveld, P. (1985). The foreign language classroom: A forum for understanding cultural
stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 321-325.
Itakura, H. (2004). Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language
learning. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied
Linguistics, 32(1), 37-51.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen S. (1985). The Input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and
language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409-431). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1995). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. New York: Phoenix ELT.
Leow, R. P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2
development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49-68.
Lewandowski, M. (2014). Gender stereotyping in EFL grammar textbooks. A diachronic
approach. Linguistik Online, 68(6), 83-99.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental
comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56(3),
507-566.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic
development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491.
Nguyen, H. T., & Kellogg, G. (2010). "I had a stereotype that American were fat": Becoming
a speaker of culture in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 56-73.
Nikitina, L. (2015) Country stereotypes and L2 motivation: A study of French, German and
Spanish language learners. Studies in Linguistics, 37, 483-509.
Okyar, H., & Yangın Ekşi, G. (2017). A comparative study on the effects of negative
evidence and enriched input on learning of verb-noun collocations. European Journal
of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 1-16.
Oliveira, S. (2008). Texto visual, estereótipos de gênero e o livro didático de língua
estrangeira (Visual text, gender stereotypes and L2 textbooks). Trabalhos em
Linguistica Aplicada, 47(1), 91-117.
http://eprints.um.edu.my/view/publication/Studies_in_Linguistics.html
International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2019, 6(2), 379-391
391
Oroujlou, N., & Vahedi, M. (2011). Motivation, attitude, and language learning. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 994-2000.
Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., & Gribbons, B. (2004). The effectiveness of two comprehensible-
input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System,
32(1), 53-60.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners'
incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 589-619.
Shehata, A. (2008). L1 influence on the reception and production of collocations by
advanced ESL/EFL Arabic learners of English. Unpublished MA dissertation, Ohio
University, USA.
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge: Acquisition of
collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63(1), 121–159.
Stephens, K. (1997). Cultural stereotyping and intercultural communication: Working with
students from the People's Republic of China in the UK, Language and Education,
11(2), 113-124.
Tajeddin, Z., & Janebi Enayat, M. (2010). Gender representation and stereotyping in ELT
textbooks: A critical image analysis. TELL, 4(2), 51-79.
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of
L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28(1), 1-30.
Ünal, M. (2015). Developing a scale for stereotyped thoughts about foreign languages.
International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 6(19), 218-233.
Van den Branden, K. (2007). Second language education: Practice in perfect learning
conditions? In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from
applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 161–179). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
VanPatten, B., & Benati A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London:
Continuum.