• Author / Uploaded
• Mohammad Eko Adhitama II

Citation preview

AN ANALYSIS OF DISCOMFORT, RISKTAKING, SOCIABILITY, AND MOTIVATION IN THE L2 CLASSROOM Christopher M. Ely Ball State University This study investigated a causal model of second language learning. Particular attention was given to three situation-specific constructs: Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, and Language Class Sociability. It was theorized that voluntary Classroom Participation mediates the effect of Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Strength of Motivation on success in classroom L2 learning. The subjects were students enrolled in first year (first and second quarter) university Spanish classes. Data on Classroom Participation were gathered by means of classroom observation and audio recording. Proficiency was measured by correctness and fluency on a storyretelling task and correctness on a written final examination. The results of the causal analysis included findings that: Language Class Discomfort negatively predicted Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability; Language Class Risktaking positively predicted Classroom Participation; and Classroom Participation positively predicted Oral Correctness for the first quarter students.

In the field of personality research, the concept of fixed characteristics or traits has been questioned by Mischel (1968, 1977, 1981b) and others.' Although these researchers acknowledge that personality exhibits consistency, they suggest that it is often difficult to predict, on the basis of global trait measurements, an individual's thoughts, feelings, and overt behavior in a particular situation. * Most of the research on the role of personality in second language learning has been concerned with general personality traits, with little consideration given to the interaction of person and situation. A few investigations, however, have explored situation-specific constructs. In one study, a variable termed Overall Classroom Personality was formed 'A version of this paper was presented at the 1984 Annual TESOL Convention in Houston, Texas. This article summarizes portions of the author's doctoral dissertation, submitted at Stanford University (Ely 1984). The author is grateful to the members of his dissertation committee-Robert Politzer, Edward Haertel, and Edward LkAvila-for their guidance and support at every stage of this research. This manuscript has benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers. 'See Endler (1973); also, Bem and Allen (1974); Bem and Funder (1978); Mischel and Peake (1982); Cantor, Mischel, and Schwartz (1982). A related discussion in the context of L2 learning is presented by Busch (1982).

1

2

Language Learning

Vol. 36, No. 1

from student interview responses (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978:41, 53). This variable included self-reports o f (1) degree of certainty required when raising one’s hand; (2) affective reaction when called on without raising one’s hand; (3) embarrassment when speaking the L2; and (4) other affective reactions. Another example of situation-specific personality measurement is the scale of task self-esteem created by Heyde Parsons (1983, Heyde 1979) in her research with university students of French. A third instrument designed for use with second language students is the French Class Anxiety scale developed by Gardner and his associates (Gardner, ClCment, Smythe, and Smythe 1979; Gardner and Smythe 1974, 198 1; Gardner, Smythe, ClCment, and Gliksman 1976).

Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Language Class Discomfort The present study explores three constructs hypothesized to be predictors of second language learning in a classroom context. These constructs are: Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Language Class Discomfort. The first two constructs, Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability, are related to extraversion-introversion, a personality construct that has received considerable attention in studies of affective variables in second language learning. In these investigations, researchers have generally assumed extraversion to be promotive of L2 proficiency. However, while some studies have indeed found extraversion and language proficiency to be positively related (Chastain 1975; Rossier 1973, others have found either a negative association (Busch 1982) or no relationship at all (Busch 1982; Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978).4 In these studies, extraversion-introversion was measured by means of global personality instruments (usually the Eysenck Personality Inventory, Eysenck and Eysenck 1968). In the present research, the constructs of Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability are conceptualized and operationalized in the specific context of the second language classroom. 3Eysenck‘s (Eysenck and Eysenck 1968) spelling, extraversion, has been adopted in this study. Note also that there is no distinction made in this paper between the terms learning and acquisition. ‘In a further analysis that controlled for sex, Busch (1982) found that extraversion had a significant positive association with male students’ scores on one proficiency measure.

E1.v

3

One component of general extraversion-introversion has been characterized as “risk taking and adventuresomeness: spontaneity and flexibility in social behavior, contrasted with social inhibition and restraint” (Morris 1979:41). Language Class Risktaking is more narrowly focused, referring specifically to an individual’s tendency to assume risks in using the L2 in the second language class. Another aspect of global extraversion-introversion has been described as “social activity. . . the intensity of one’s activities in social contexts, time spent in social encounters, talkativeness” (Morris 1979:41). The more delimited construct of Language Class Sociability is defined as a desire to interact with others in the second language class by means of the L2. Language Class Discomfort, a third construct explored in this research, is concerned with the degree of anxiety, self-consciousness, o r embarrassment felt when speaking the L2 in the classroom. This variable is similar to French Class Anxiety (Gardner, ClCment, Smythe, and Smythe 1979; Gardner and Smythe 1974), although a new scale was developed for the present study. French Class Anxiety has been found to be negatively correlated with proficiency (Gardner, Smythe, ClCment, and Gliksman 1976). Although one causal analysis (Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson 1982) failed to show a link between situational anxiety (measured by French Class Anxiety and French Use Anxiety) and achievement,6 another causal study (Lalonde 1982) found that self-perception of proficiency mediated the effect of situational anxiety (measured by French Class Anxiety) on L2 achievement.

Strength of Motivation An additional variable of major concern in this study is level of motivation. This construct, termed Strength of Motivation, concerns the degree to which an individual desires to learn the second language. A number of studies have investigated motivational level; research that has separated level of motivation from type of motivation (e.g., “instrumental” or “integrative” motivation) has generally found higher levels of motivation associated with grades (but not with scores on standardized ’Other approaches to assessing anxiety in the foreign language classroom are reported by Kleinmann (1977) and McCoy (1976). 6Anxiety, however, was predicted by prior achievement (Gardner, Lalonde. and Pierson 1982).

4

Language Laarning

Vol. 36, No. I

language tests) (Gardner and Lambert 1959, 1972). In a causal analysis, Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson (1982) found a latent variable measured by Motivational Intensity, Desire to Learn French, and Attitudes toward Learning French to be predictive of French achievement (as measured by grades, professor’s rating, and student’s self-rating) among Canadian university students (there was also a weaker effect of achievement on motivation).

Explaining the Role of Affective Variables While it is of theoretical and pedagogical interest to determine whelher affective variables influence L2 achievement, it is also important to discover how this influence may come about. In the present study, it was posited that: (1) affective variables influence a student’s voluntary classroom participation and (2) voluntary classroom participation (through various cognitive processes) in turn affects second language proficiency. The validity of this conceptualization is suggested by a number of studies. In two investigations (Gardner, Smythe, C16ment and Gliksman 1976; Gliksman 1976; Gliksman, Gardner, and Smythe 1982), Canadian high school students of French were administered a questionnaire on various motivational and attitudinal variables and were then observed in their classrooms. In both studies, it was found that students above the median on a combined motivational/ attitudinal measure (which was labeled “the Integrative Motive”) exhibited a significantly greater number of several classroom behaviors, including volunteering to answer questions (handraising). In their research with high school learners of French in Canada, Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) found that motivation and Overall Classroom Personality (discussed above) were significantly correlated with several classroom behaviors, including handraising. Regression analyses showed handraising and callouts to be significant positive predictors of French proficiency. Several other investigations are relevant to the second stage of the conceptualization. In Seliger’s (1977) research with adults studying ESL in the US., it was theorized that students who elicit more teacher input exhibit greater gains in L2 proficiency. Several of Seliger’s findings appeared to support his thesis. On the other hand, Day (1984), whose hypotheses were similar t o those of Seliger, did not find the voluntary classroom participation of adult ESL learners in the U.S. significantly related to proficiency.

5

Model for Investigation Figure I displays the theoretical model investigated. (For a detailed discussion of each component of this model, see Ely 1984.)' As can be seen, a number of variables were incorporated into the model in addition to Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Strength of Motivation. These other variables were included in order to construct as complete a causal model as possible. The model indicates the hypotheses which were tested in the study. First, Language Class Discomfort was seen as decreasing both Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability. It was felt that the presence of such Discomfort discourages a student from taking risks with the language and also inhibits the student's interaction with others in Spanish. It was hypothesized that Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability increase Classroom Participation. In addition, in order to determine whether Language Class Discomfort reduces Classroom Participation directly, as well as indirectly (through reducing Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability), a causal path was posited between Language Class Discomfort and Classroom Participation. Classroom Participation was hypothesized to be a positive predictor of proficiency. Research related to this hypothesis has been discussed above. It was hypothesized that Strength of Motivation has a positive influence on Classroom Participation. Strength of Motivation was also posited to be a positive predictor of proficiency, partly in an attempt to replicate findings of other studies (Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson 1982). Another variable in the model was Attitude toward the Language Class. Several causal studies (Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson 1982; Lalonde 1982)

'

'The results of a descriptive study of motivational type were included in the analysis. Space does not permit a discussion here of this aspect of the research (see Ely in press). 'In the initial planningfor this study, a distinction was made between quantity (number, not length o r complexity, of utterances) and quality (correctness) of Classroom Participation. It was hypothesized that Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability would be linearly (and positively) related to quantity of Classroom Participation. but curvilinearly related to quality (correctness) of Classroom Participation, with moderate amounts of Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability most promotive of correctness in class. Subsequently, it was decided to simplify the model by focusing only upon quantity of Classroom Participation. The hypothesis that risktaking is curvilinearly related to accuracy may be especially attractive in cases where the individual has an opportunity to use the language somewhat freely, as in a naturalistic environment or at relatively advanced stages of classroom language learning. For a further discussion of curvilinearity in the association between risktaking and L2 acquisition, see Beebe (1983).

Language Learning

6

Vol. 36, N o . 1

Proficiency 9 t r m vt h

/

/

\//* Language Class Discomfort

Class Language Class Sociability

Figure I. Theoretical model for investigation.

E1.v

7

have found students’ attitudes toward the teacher and the course to be predictive of motivation. In the present study, Attitude toward the Language Class was hypothesized t o be a positive predictor of Classroom Participation. It was theorized that students who have a strong desire to achieve high grades (high Concern for Grade) manifest high Classroom Participation. Concern for Grade was also seen as a positive predictor of proficiency. Another positive contributor to Classroom Participation, as well as to proficiency, may be the student’s Language Learning Aptitude. Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) extensive factor-analytic study of U.S. high school learners of French yielded numerous significant common factor loadings of aptitude and proficiency. Lalonde (1982) found aptitude to be a predictor of French achievement among Canadian university students. In addition to the main constructs (shown in Figure l), two variables representing prior learning of Spanish were introduced as control variables. These were: amount of previous classroom study of Spanish and presence or absence of a Spanish-speaking home environment. These variables were included in the prediction of Classroom Participation and proficiency.

METHOD Setting of the Study The subjects were students enrolled in first year Spanish courses at a university in northern California. The study involved six classes: three classes of students in their first quarter of Spanish study (Level 1) and three classes of second quarter students (Level 2). The students, who gave their written consent to participate in the study, were told only that the study concerned ‘‘various aspects of language learning.” Similarly, the six teachers were not advised of the specific objectives of the research; they were aware, however, that it was the students, rather than the teachers, who were the focus of the study. The data were gathered during the winter quarter of the 1982-83 academic year.

8

Language Learning

Vol. 36, No. 1

Overview of Scale Operationalization There were several steps in the development of the Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, Language Class Discomfort, and Strength of Motivation scales. First, the theoretical dimensions of each scale were established, and representative items were ~ r i t t e n A . ~pilot questionnaire was then constructed from these items, and administered to fifty students in first year (third quarter) and second year Spanish classes. (Participation was voluntary, and students did not identify themselves on the questionnaire.) Item-analysis of the pilot questionnaire results was carried out in order to select the most appropriate items for the final questionnaire. The following sections discuss the conceptual development, item construction, and item analysis of the individual scales.

Language Class Risktaking In the operationalization of Language Class Risktaking, lo four dimensions of the construct were posited: a lack of hesitancy about using a newly encountered linguistic element; a willingness to use linguistic elements perceived to be complex or difficult; a tolerance of possible incorrectness or inexactitude in using the language;” and an inclination to rehearse a new element silently before attempting to use it aloud. Twelve pilot questionnaire items, representing the four dimensions of the construct, were constructed. These items were included in the general pilot questionnaire, interspersed with items for the scales of Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Sociability, Concern for Grade, and 9The decision regarding the number of items for each scale was influenced by two constraints. First, there was a relatively large number of variables to be included in the final study. Also, it was felt that in order to make the constructs less obvious to the subjects, it would be useful to insert a number of foil items (distractors). In view of these limitations, it was decided to construct scales of five to seven items each for Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, Language Class Discomfort, and Strength of Motivation. It is possible that future versions of these scales will include more items. ‘?his variable may be regarded as a manifestation of personality a n d / o r cognitive style. It is, in fact, often difficult to distinguish clearly between personality and cognitive style. For example, tolerance of ambiguity is classified as a personality construct by Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) but as a cognitive style variable by Brown (1980). For a related discussion, see Brown (1980:90). “A student interview question included in the variable of Overall Classroom Personality (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978:53)appears to represent this aspect of Language Class Risktaking: “Do you wait until you are absolutely certain before you put your hand up or d o you take a chance and attempt an answer anyway?” (1978:41).

Strength of Motivation. Each item was followed by a six-point Likert response scale, with the alternatives labeled: “strongly disagree,” “moderately disagree,” “slightly disagree,” *slightly agree,” “moderately agree,” and “strongly agree.”’* Following the use of item-analysis procedures, the following six items were selected (a minus sign indicates an item which is negative on the scale): I. I like to wait until I know exactly how to use a Spanish word before using it. (-) 2. I don’t like trying out a difficult sentence in class. (-) 3. At this point, I don’t like trying to express complicated ideas in Spanish in class. (-) 4. I prefer to say what I want in Spanish without worrying about the small details of grammar. 5. In class, I prefer to say a sentence to myself before I speak it. (-) 6. I prefer to follow basic sentence models rather than risk misusing the language. (-)

Language Class Sociability The pilot questionnaire items representing Language Class Sociability explored several aspects of the construct. First, it was theorized that students high in Language Class Sociability want to use the L2 for the purpose of becoming better acquainted with others in the class. Second, it was thought that those high in Language Class Sociability tend to prefer a learning situation in which there are a number of other people present (and thus not favor an individualized study program, such as the one available at the university). Finally, it was posited that students high in Language Class Sociability seek to create and maintain a sense of camaraderie in the language classroom. In addition to items representing these three dimensions, there was a fourth group of items designed to measure the overall degree of enjoyment provided by interacting in Spanish. After item-analysis of the pilot questionnaire scale, the following items were selected for the final questionnaire: l 3

‘*Therewas no “neutral” point; see Ely (1984:31) for discussion. ‘%pace does not permit a detailed account of the item-analysis procedure (see Ely 1984). Statistical analyses for this procedure, as well as for reliability, descriptive analysis, factor analysis, and regression, were done with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Update 7-9 (Hull and Nie 1981).

10

Language Learning

I.

2. 3. 4. 5.

VoL 36, No. I

I’d like more class activities where the students use Spanish to get to know each other better. I think learning Spanish in a group is more fun than if I had my own tutor. I enjoy talking with the teacher and other students in Spanish. I don’t really enjoy interacting with the other students in the Spanish class. (-) I think it’s important to have a strong group spirit in the language classroom.

Language Class Discomfort In designing the Language Class Discomfort scale, a major criterion was that the items be as moderate and low-key as possible, in order to encourage students to reveal their feelings of awkwardness or discomfort frankly. Item analysis of the pilot test results led to the inclusion of the following items in the final questionnaire: 1. I don’t feel very relaxed when I speak Spanish in class. 2. Based on my class experience so far, I think that one barrier to my future use of Spanish is my discomfort when speaking. 3. At times, I feel somewhat embarrassed in class when I’m trying to speak. 4. I think I’m less self-conscious about actively participating in Spanish class than most of the other students. (-) 5. I sometimes feel awkward speaking Spanish.

Strength of Motivation A nine-item Strength of Motivation scale was designed for the pilot questionnaire. After item analysis of the results, two items with low corrected item-total scale correlations were deleted; the seven items used in the final questionnaire are listed below. (Items 1, 2, and 3 were patterned after items on the scales of Motivational Intensity and Desire to Learn French [see, Gardner, Cltment, Smythe, and Smythe 1979; Gardner and Smythe 1981; Gliksman, Gardner, and Smythe 1982].)14 ’‘1nitially, it had been intended to employ the Motivational intensity and Desire to Learn French scales. However, a close examination of these scales led to the decision to use an instrument designed expressly for the specific target population. See Ely ( 1984:28-32) for further discussion. (In comparing this scale with the pilot questionnaire scale, note that items 3 and 5 of the original scale were those deleted [cf. Ely 1984:31].)

E1.v

11

1. Outside of class, I almost never think about what I’m learning in class. (-) 2. If possible, I would like to take a second year Spanish course. 3. Speaking realistically, I would say that I don’t try very hard to learn Spanish. (-) 4. I want to be able to use Spanish in a wide variety of situations. 5. I don’t really have a great desire to learn a lot of Spanish. (-) 6. Learning Spanish well is not really a high priority for me at this point. (-) 7. I don’t really feel that learning Spanish is valuable to me. (-)

Attitude toward the Language Class A number of studies have utilized semantic differential scales by which students evaluate their language course and teacher on various dimensions (Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson 1982; Lalonde 1982; see also Gliksman, Gardner, and Smythe 1982). In the present study, it was decided to focus on the students’ interest in and enjoyment of the class. The following items were designed: 1. I find Spanish class to be very boring. (-) 2. I would say that I’m usually very interested in what we do in Spanish class. 3. I don’t really like the Spanish class. (-) 4. In general, I enjoy the Spanish class. Students responded to these items, in Likert scale format, on the final questionnaire (the scale was not included in the pilot questionnaire).

Concern for Grade The following item was written to assess Concern for Grade: It is very important to me to get a good grade in Spanish this quarter. While it would have been preferable to construct more than one item for this variable, it was felt that the topic was a sensitive one and that a student’s attitude toward the questionnaire might be adversely affected by presenting another item. The item was in Likert scale format.

12

Language k a r n i n g

Vol. 36, No. 1

Previous Language Study and Language Background Prior learning of Spanish was represented by two control variables: previous classroom Spanish study and home language background. Previous language study was operationalized as number of Years of High School Spanish Study. The item ascertaining Language Background asked students “Is/ was Spanish spoken at home by either parent?” Questions regarding Years of High School Spanish Study and Language Background were not included in the pilot questionnaire.

Summary of the Final Questionnaire The final questionnaire consisted of three sections. In the first section, students responded to the items comprising the scales of Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, Strength of Motivation, Attitude toward the Language Class, and Concern for Grade. The items of each scale were interspersed with those of the other scales and with seven foil items (concerning various aspects of language study). The second section of the questionnaire concerned Motivational Type and is described elsewhere (Ely in press). The third section gathered additional data on students’ previous and current opportunities for learning Spanish. Included were the questions regarding Language Background and Years of High School Spanish Study.

Language Learning Aptitude The instrument used to measure a student’s aptitude for learning a foreign language was the Short Form of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carroll and Sapon 1959; Gliksman, Gardner, and Smythe 1979). Carroll and Sapon report Short Form split-half reliability coefficients of .93 for college males and females.

Classroom Participation The classroom behaviors hypothesized to predict proficiency were those representing students’ self-initiated utterances in Spanish. As discussed earlier, a number of studies have examined voluntary participation in the language class (Day 1984; Gliksman, Gardner, and Smythe 1982; Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978; Seliger 1977). In the present

investigation, Classroom Participation was operationalized as the number of times a student asked or answered a question or provided information in Spanish without being individually nominated t o d o so. Four categories of utterances were included: (1) responding to a question addressed to the group (coded “provide information-general solicit”); (2) providing information without being asked to do so (“provide informationvolunteer”); (3) asking a question requested of the group by the teacherthat is, a question in response to a solicit such as “Can anyone ask Bill about his weekend?” (“seek information-general solicit”); and (4) asking a question without being asked to do so (“seek information-volunteer”). A student’s Classroom Participation score was the total number of occurrences in all four categories. The classroom observers were two female native speakers of Spanish who were blind to the hypotheses of the study. These individuals received extensive training in observation and coding. Each observer was responsible for three of the six classes. The classes were observed six times; the last four observations (totaling 200 minutes) were used in the data analysis. The observers used an observation form on which they noted: (1) the identity of each new speaker (using the first letter of the person’s name) and (2) the first word or two each speaker uttered. In addition, the observers made audio recordings with minute ( I 3”) condensor microphones (Sony ECM-150) which were centrally placed and wired to a cassette tape recorder. I s The coding of classroom interaction was carried out by the two individuals who had observed the classes. Each person coded the classes she had observed, using the observation sheets and the audio recordings. l 6 To assess the reliability of the process of first noting speakers on the classroom observation sheet and then coding the utterances on the coding sheet, both individuals observed the same class for several periods and then coded the classroom interaction for the last period. The percentages of agreement for the classroom observation sheet were computed: coder A had noted (and agreed with the identification of the speaker of) 91 percent ”See Ely (1984) for details of microphone placement and effectiveness. 16A set of specific guidelines was followed in coding (Ely 1984). For example, a new behavior was considered to occur: ( I ) when a different individual began to speak or (2) when the current speaker changed from one behavior type (e.g., seek information-volunteer) to another (e.g., provide information-volunteer).

14

Language Learning

Yo/. 36, No. 1

of the utterances noted by B; coder B had done the same for 92 percent of the utterances noted by A. A reliability check was made of the specific codings: of the utterances coded as volunteer or general solicit by the other coder, coders A and B agreed with 99 and 97 percent of the codings, respectively.

Proficiency Three proficiency measures were employed: Oral Fluency; Oral Correctness; and Written Correctness. Oral Fluency and Oral Correctness were assessed by means of a “story-retelling” task (see Oller 1979). The stories were developed by the investigator, in consultation with the teachers participating in the research. Lists were compiled of all grammatical structures and lexical items in the textbook chapters studied during the quarter. From these lists, two stories were written, one for Levei I (first quarter students) and one for Level 2 (second quarter students). The content of the two stories was similar, relating a series of events common among college students. The stories were recorded by a female native speaker of Spanish. These stories were relatively short (103 words for Level 1; 122 words for Level 2); however, to help relieve students’ possible concern about their ability to remember the story, a handout was provided with picture frames showing the sequence of events. Each class performed the task in the university language laboratory during class time. Students sat in alternate booths and listened to and retold the story using individual tape recorders. Students were not allowed to take notes and were told that memorization of the story was not necessary. The stories were presented twice, following four conversational questions (designed to help the students become accustomed to the speaker’s voice). The tape recordings were transcribed by a native speaker of Spanish. These transcripts were the basis for determining an individual’s Oral Fluency and Oral Correctness. A high Oral Fluency score reflected a relative absence of self-interrupted elements. Interrupted elements fell into two categories: fragments and disfluent words. Fragments were phonemes ”This is probably a conservative estimate of the overall reliability of this process, since the coders commented that the interaction was unusually fast-paced during the final class period. “These stories, as well as the examinations used for Written Correctness, are not reproduced here because of the possibility of their future use by the university.

or syllables which did not constitute words. Disfluent words were words (either isolated or in phrases) which did not convey a complete thought, but which were interrupted when the speaker began to frame the same idea in an alternative manner or began to express a new idea. The transcripts were marked for Oral Fluency by the investigator. Reliability was measured by comparing practice transcripts marked separately by the investigator and a bilingual Spanish speaker: there was an average of 98 percent agreement (97 and 99 percent) with the other person regarding utterances marked as disfluent. A student’s Oral Fluency score was calculated by adding the number of fragments and disfluent words, and then dividing by the number of fluent words. Oral Correctness was assessed by marking errors in morphology, syntax, and lexical choice in the transcripts. In order to prevent Oral Correctness from being confounded with Oral Fluency, the transcripts were first marked for fluency; only non-disfluent elements were marked for correctness. Oral Correctness was judged by two individuals who had recently taught first year courses in the Spanish program at the university. The judges had two tasks: first, to mark the transcripts, indicating and correcting mistakes; and second, to assign a score (a count of the number of pertinent errors). Errors were ignored if they did not represent language elements covered in the textbook chapters (see Ely 1984 for scoring guidelines). A student’s Oral Correctness score consisted of an average of the judges’ error counts divided by the number of fluent words. The degree of agreement between the judges was assessed by means of a Pearson correlation coefficient calculated for all of the scores assigned: the correlation was .98. The third proficiency score, Written Correctness, was the numerical grade on the regular final written examination. The examinations focused on grammar and included opportunities for using language in the context of connected discourse. These final examinations covered the same textbook chapters used in the story-retelling task. Each level had one examination, which was prepared by a group of teachers. The exams were graded by the teachers; the grading was checked by the investigator and, where necessary, the number of points taken off for a particular type of error was equated across exams (see Ely 1984). A modified form of splithalf reliability was calculated (with totals for odd and even numbered sections constituting the two halves) and stepped up using the SpearmanBrown prophecy formula. The estimates of reliability for the Level 1 and 2 examinations were .94 and .91, respectively.

16

Language Learning

Vol. 36, No. 1

FINDINGS Preliminary Analyses After the final questionnaire was administered, two items were found to have low corrected item-total correlations, Risktaking item 4 and Sociability item 5." These two items were omitted from the scales in subsequent analyses. The scales were subjected to a reliability assessment before use in the causal analysis. The Cronbach alphas for the scales were: Strength of Motivation, .86; Language Class Discomfort, .79; Language Class Risktaking, .65; Language Class Sociability, .66; and Attitude toward the Language Class, .86.2032' For all the variables in the model, the data were examined for significant differences in the means. The one significant difference among the means for the six classes was for classroom participation. (As discussed below, differences attributable to class were controlled for in the prediction of Classroom Participation.) An additional analysis was carried out in order to investigate the factors which may underlie the variables of Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability. All the items on the three scales were subjected to a single factor analysis. The items were found to load on three factors (see Ely, 1984 for a more detailed presentation and discussion).

I9A reexamination of the results for the pilot questionnaire showed these two items to have had the lowest corrected item-total correlations for their respective scales (as detailed in Ely 1984). *?he levels of reliability for Risktaking and Sociability were lower than expected; it may be noted, however, that they compare favorably with reliability coefficients for certain other personality, motivation, and cognitive style scales used in research with L2 learners. See, for example, Gardner and Smythe ( 198 I ) and Lalonde (1982). as well as Budner (1962, used in Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco 1978). In general, the reliability figures for the final questionnaire scales were lower than those of the pilot study; this may have been due to the addition of foil items, the shortening of the scales, differences in the samples, etc. "In a subsequent study with a larger sample of first year university Spanish students (125 subjects), a considerably higher Cronbach alpha of .74 was obtained for Language Class Risktaking. A report of that study, which had a different overall purpose from that of the present research, is in progress.

17

Overview of the Causal Analysis The method used to examine the validity of the causal model (Figure 1) was path analysis, with an ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression procedure employed at each stage of the analysis. Thus, the standardized regression (beta) coefficient obtained for a predictor of an outcome measure was the coefficient assigned to the causal path hypothesized to link the two variables. It should be noted that the test for causality carried out by the path analysis is based on the theoretical model investigated, rather than on the experimental manipulation of variables. (Scattergram plots were examined to determine if any independent variable was related in a way other than linearly to a dependent variable; it was judged that no such relationship existed.) The following sections describe the analysis conducted at each stage of the model. Data from 75 students were available for the prediction of Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Classroom Participation.

Prediction of Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability Language Class Discomfort had been hypothesized to have a negative effect on both Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability. Separate forward stepwise regressions were carried out to test the hypotheses; the results were duplicated using a backward procedure. (The level of significance for a variable to enter all of the regressions in the study was set at p = .05.) The results of these regressions showed Language Class Discomfort to be a significant negative predictor of both Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability. The beta weights were, for Language Class Risktaking and Language Class Sociability respectively: -0.47 (t = -4.53, p < .01) and -0.31 (t = 2.72, p = .01). Language Class Discomfort accounted for 22 percent of the variance ( R2) in Language Class Risktaking and 9 percent of the variance in Language Class Sociability.22

"In the study mentioned in the previous note, the corresponding R 2 figures were .37 for Language Class Risktaking and . I I for Language Class Sociability.

18

Language Learning

Vol. 36, No. I

Antecedents of Classroom Participation It had been hypothesized that Classroom Participation is influenced by Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, and Strength of Motivation, as well as by Attitude toward the Language Class, Concern for Grade, and Language Learning Aptitude. The two control variables included were: number of Years of High School Spanish study, and Language Background (whether or not Spanish was spoken at home). In addition, the differences in the means for Classroom Participation among the six classes (see above) suggested that certain aspects of the individual classes might influence the degree of Classroom Participation. Class was therefore included as a variable. Classroom Participation was regressed on these variables using a forward stepwise procedure. The variables were regressed in several blocks. The first block included Language Class Discomfort, Language Class Risktaking, Language Class Sociability, Strength of Motivation, Attitude toward the Language Class, Concern for Grade, and Language Learning Aptitude. The second block Years of High School Spanish Study, followed in the third block by a dummy Language Background variable (indicating a positive or negative answer to the item). Finally, five dummy variables representing contrasts for the six classes were entered as a block and tested for significance in the presence of all other variables that had entered the eq~ation.~ The ' results, which were duplicated in a backward procedure, are presented in Table 1. (In this table, significance is presented in terms of an F ratio, in order to permit comparison with the test for Class.) It should be noted that, for all regressions reported, the beta coefficient for a variable not in the regression equation represents the hypothetical addition of that variable alone to the final equation, not the result if all variables were added. The table shows the simple correlation of the predictor with the outcome measure (r), the standardized coefficient (beta), the t statistic showing the significance of the beta coefficient, and the significance level of the t statistic (P). As shown in Table 1, Language Class Risktaking was a significant positive predictor of Classroom Participation. Language Class Discorfort, Language Class Sociability and Strength of Motivation were

"As discussed in Ely (1984), the dependent measure represented a log transformation of Classroom Participation.

19 Table I Summary of srepwise regression of Classroom Parriciparion

Variables in equation

r

beta

F

P

Risktaking Class*

.39

0.40

13.92 2.91