Citation
A comparison of two theories in second language acquisition to success in high school Spanish classes

Material Information

Title:
A comparison of two theories in second language acquisition to success in high school Spanish classes
Creator:
McGlone, Jon Victor, 1960-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 83 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anxiety ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Foreign language learning ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Learning motivation ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Nonnative languages ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Instruction and Curriculum -- UF
Instruction and Curriculum thesis, Ph. D
Genre:
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-82).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jon Victor McGlone.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
023821331 ( ALEPH )
35771951 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION TO SUCCESS IN HIGH SCHOOL SPANISH CLASSES














BY

JON VICTOR MCGLONE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES


















This is dedicated to my family and friends without whose help
I could not have accomplished this task.














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support provided by Dr. Clemens L. Hallman. I wish to thank him for his classes and his support throughout my studies in education. I wish to also thank Dr. David Miller for his support throughout the data analysis of this study; Dr. Miller's expertise in statistics proved invaluable. Also, special thanks go to Dr. Eugene Todd for his guidance and encouragement that helped keep me on track. In addition, I want to thank Dr. Danling Fu for her encouragement and support during my final year at the University of Florida. She created an atmosphere of warmth and friendship whenever I required her assistance. Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Newman for his assistance in the completion of this study.

There were many people at the university who helped me accomplish my

academic goals besides the members of my committee. Two people immediately come to mind, Jo Johnson and Cherry Douglas. Ms. Johnson was always willing to assist me with necessary paperwork. She was also most helpful in making appointments to see Dr. Hallman. Cherry Douglas, always pleasant and ready with a warm greeting, made all the paperwork for the department an easy process.

I also want to thank the teachers and students who participated in this study. Without their help and patience, this study would not have been possible. The county office was also expedient in contacting teachers and principals. This expedience made the completion of this study possible before the Fall semester.

iii








A special acknowledgement goes to Dr. Richard Donato at the University of

Pittsburgh. Dr. Donato was always available to help me with any problem I had during the developing and writing stages of the dissertation. He has become a mentor and a friend. I look forward to a long and rewarding career that owes a debt to Dr. Donato! And I could never forget the encouragement that Dr. Frank Brooks continually gave me. Through e-mail and phone calls, he always encouraged me to continue and never give up.

Finally, to my family I give my thanks. My mother and father always supported me in all my efforts. Their support has been in the form of encouragement, support, financial, and love. And to my grandmother, Toodle, for making my undergraduate studies so easy; if she had not provided me with a home, love, and support, I would not be where I am today.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS ............................................ iii

LIST O F TA B LE S ................................................... vii

A B ST R A C T .................................................... viii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............................ I

Two Theories in Second Language Acquisition ....................... 1
Why These Two Theories? ..................... 3
Statem ent of the Problem ....................................... 4
G rad es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Significance of the Study .................. ..................... 6
H ypotheses 8................................................. 8
M ethodology ................................................ 9
D elim itations ................................................ 11
Limitations ................................................ 12
D efinition of Term s ........................................... 12
C onclu sion .................................. .. ..... .. ...... 13

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................. 14

Theories in Second Language Acquisition .......................... 14
Sw ain's Output Analysis ....................................... 23
The Q uestionnaire ............................................ 28
Krashen's AFH ....................................... 28
Swain's Output Hypothesis ..................................... 35
C onclusion ................................................. 35

3 METHODOLOGY ........................................... 37

Introduction ................................................ 37
T he Setting ... ..... ............. ...... .. ....... .. ..... ... .. 37









The Teachers and Grading ..................................... 44
D ata Collection .............................................. 48
Instrum entation .............................................. 48
Statistical A nalysis ........................................... 53
Data Analysis .............................................. 53
Sum m ary ........................... ....... ....... . .... .. .. 53

4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................................... 54

R esu lts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Additional Inform ation ........................................ 56
Sum m ary .................................................. 57

5 CON CLU SION .............................................. 58

Introduction ................................................ 58
The Affective Filter ........................................... 59
The Output Hypothesis ........................................ 60
D iscussion .................................................. 6 1
Further R esearch ............................................. 63
Conclusion ........................................... . 65

APPENDICES

A THE QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................... 66

B SAMPLE QUIZZES AND TESTS ............................... 74

C THE PERMISSION SLIP .................................... 77

R EFEREN CE S ...................................................... 78

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................ 83














LIST OF TABLES

Table

3-1 Grade 10 Assessment Test--School IA. Percentage of students scoring
above national median score ...................................... 38

3-2 HSCT--School IA. 1 th graders who passed the state test ............... 39

3-3 Expenditures and average class sizes ................................ 39

3-4 Enrollment--all students--all year. School IA ......................... 40

3-5 Grade 10 Assessment Test--School lB. Percentage of students scoring
above national median score ....................................... 41

3-6 HSCT--School lB. 11 th graders who passed the state test ............... 41

3-7 Enrollment--all students--all year. School lB .......................... 42

3-8 SAT and ACT scores for school IC ................................. 43

3-9 Enrollment--all students--all year. School 1 C .......................... 44

3-10 Harter's intrinsic vs extrinsic orientation in the classroom ................. 51

4-1 Regressions analysis to test the relationship between sucess and the
so u rces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5

4-2 Grade Level of students ....................................... 56

4-3 Grade distribution of the students ................................... 56














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION TO SUCCESS IN HIGH SCHOOL SPANISH CLASSES By

Jon Victor McGlone

August 1996

Chairman: Clemens L. Hallman
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum


This study was conducted to determine if there is any relationship between the

variables of two theories in second language acquisition, The Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Output Hypothesis, and students' success in the foreign language classroom. Success for this study was based on the yearly average (A, B, C, etc.) a student had in the class. A multiple choice questionnaire was developed to measure levels of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem (three tenets of the Affective Filter Hypothesis). Also, parts of the questionnaire assessed whether students were engaging in output, as defined by Swain, in the classroom.

There were 168 students who participated in the study. The teachers gave the students the questionnaire in class during the fourth quarter of the school year.








To determine if the variables of the two theories had a effect on success, a regression analysis was run. The results indicated that there was a significant relationship between one of the variables of the Affective Filter Hypothesis and students' success. However, the variables of the Output Hypothesis demonstrated no significant effect on success.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The two theories that were used in this study are Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. In order to determine the presence of the variables of the two theories, a questionnaire was given to 326 senior high students in 6 different foreign language classroom in three different schools. Based on the students' responses, it was determined if and how the variables of the two hypotheses were present in the classroom. Once the variables of the two hypotheses were identified in the classroom, and at what level they appeared, a General Linear Models Procedure was be conducted to determine if the hypotheses were related to the grade of each individual student. This study identified any relationship between students' grades (individual class average) in the class and characteristics of the two theories discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.

Two Theories in Second Language Acquisition

This study determined if there was a relationship between the variables of the two theories and grades in a classroom setting. The variables of the two theories that were correlated with grades are Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. What follows is a brief summary of the two hypotheses. Chapter 2 will discuss the two theories in detail; this introduction is a brief description to orient the reader.








Krashen's Affective Filter

The Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH) addresses affective features in the

language classroom. Krashen has related a student's attitude in the language classroom with the ability to acquire a language (This concept was originally discussed by Dulay and Burt, 1977). Thus, in order for a student to acquire a language, the affective filter must be low. When the affective filter is high, acquisition (see Definition of Terms at the end of this chapter) does not take place. In Krashen's studies (1981), he discovered three affective categories:

(1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second
language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative").

(2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend
to do better in second language acquisition.

(3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language
acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety.
(Krashen, 1982, p. 31)

The above three categories can inhibit acquisition by not letting comprehensible input reach the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (a section of the brain described by Chomsky where language is acquired). When the affective filter is high, input is blocked from reaching the LAD, and acquisition cannot take place. Therefore, for a student to be successful in the foreign language classroom, motivation must be high, self-confidence must also be high, and anxiety must be low. The AFH will be developed even further in Chapter 2 to address issues that affect the senior high student population.



"Integrative' motivation refers to the desire to 'be like' speakers of the target language. In foreign language situations (e.g., studying French in Anglophone Canada, students with more integrative motivations are usually superior, especially over the long run (Krashen, 1982, p. 54).








Swain's Output Hypothesis

Swain (1985) developed her theory of the Output Hypothesis (OH) after having studied French immersion students in Canada. Since these students did not perform as well as had been expected,

This caused her to question Krashen's hypothesis that comprehensible input was
the only causal variable in second language acquisition, since the immersion
students she was studying had been receiving comprehensible input for seven
years. She concluded that input was not enough to promote grammatical
development in a second language (Omaggio, p. 85).

Swain continued by stating that the missing component in the Canadian immersion programs was output (Swain, 1985, p. 248).

Swain (1985) believed that students needed to be "pushed" into conversation. Pushed implies a breakdown in communication, and the student must explain his/her intentions. When, for example, two students are communicating in a second language, and one student is unable to explain something in the target language, he/she must resort to alternative expressions to "get the idea across." This "negotiation of meaning" is the basis of the output hypothesis: the students are forced to communicate in the language the best way they know how.

Why These Two Theories?

Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis were

chosen for two reasons. First, because they are two highly discussed hypotheses in the field of second language acquisition. The second reason for choosing these two hypotheses has to do with the researcher's interest in how output and affective factors affect success.








Krashen's discussion of the Affective Filter is not as detailed as it should be.

Chapter 2, Review of the Literature, discusses in more detail the concepts of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem. Current theories and research on these subjects will be addressed.

Statement of the Problem

This study was conducted to verify a relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The researcher sought to identify if there exists a relationship between grades and variables of the two hypotheses: Does a high or low AF result in higher or lower grades, and does the presence of output reflect higher or lower grades for the students. If there is a relationship between higher grades and variables of a low AF, then this will be evidence to support the claim that a low AF will result in better performance (acquisition as opposed to learning; see Definition of Terms at the end of this chapter) on the students' part. Also, a relationship between higher grades and the variables of the Output Hypothesis will demonstrate a need to investigate a causal link between higher grades and providing students with situations that allow them to use the target language. For this study, it was assumed that higher grades are indicative of high achievement.

In order to determine if the students are experiencing a high or low AF, they were given a questionnaire to determine affective variables in the classroom (See Appendix A for the complete questionnaire). The students rated specific activities in relation to affective variables. This provided the researcher with the necessary information to determine motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety; all of these affective variables characterize the AFH.






5

To detect if students were provided with opportunities to negotiate meaning in the target language, sections of the same questionnaire addressed this issue. Questions specifically addressed situations where students were involved in communicative activities where the process breaks down, and they are required to "get the message across" in the best way they can.

Once the variables of the two theories were established in the classroom, a correlation was made between them and the students' grades.

Data obtained from the questionnaire provided the following information:

1. Did the student experience a high or low affective filter?

2. Did students use the target language in the classroom for meaningful communication?

3. The students' average in Spanish for the year.

Grades

For the purposes of this study, grades refer to the average a student has in a class based on several factors: participation, quiz average, test average, homework, class presentations, and any other variable the teachers use in averaging a student's grade. Chapter 3 will address how each teacher in the study calculated his/her students' grades.

The construct of grades could be vague and inconsistent from school to school. How grades were calculated in each of the classrooms is discussed at length in Chapter 3. It is necessary to address this construct in order to establish validity for this study. This study assumed (based on information about the grading criteria in the schools in this study) that the difference between an A and a B (and so on) reflected the same standards








from one school to the next. One does not feel that this is a gross misjudgment since most colleges and universities make the same assumptions about the quality of an A, a B, and so on, in setting admission standards and determining if a student is capable of successfully completing a program of study.

Also, some would argue that a student who receives an A in a class has not demonstrated mastery of the subject, but rather an ability to successfully take a test. Again, this study is not to determine how effective assessment procedures are in the foreign language classroom; this study looks at variables of two theories in second language acquisition and how they relate to success in the foreign language classroom.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study falls into three interrelated categories: (a) the

current status of foreign language study in this country, (b) the relationship of success to students' affective influences, and (c) the relationship of success to students' afforded opportunities to communicate via negotiation of meaning.

Too few students study foreign languages in this country, and those that do are rarely successful at communicating beyond their names and the weather. Why is this so? What is it about foreign language study that US students find unattractive? Hopkins (1992) states that "on the list of national priorities in this country, the acquisition of a foreign language by American students is very conspicuously, yet very definitely, absent" (p. 147). Hopkins continues describing this situation in an alarming fashion: "The world, it is often said, is growing smaller. Yet in our country, ignorance of foreign languages and of foreign cultures seems to be growing ever larger" (p. 148).








Hopkins cites other statistics of foreign language study in this country:

- Only 8 percent of United States college students are studying a foreign
language.
- Only one out of four US colleges requires its graduating students even to have
studied a foreign language. The requirement is to have studied, not to have
"achieved proficiency," or even a moderately profound comprehension.
- 356,000 students from other countries came to study in the United States in
1990. In that same year, only some 24,000 American students traveled abroad
to study. The single country of Malaysia had more of its students studying
abroad than did the United States of America.
- In 1990, students graduating from high school in Japan were required to have
taken six years of instruction in English. No more than two one-hundredths of
one percent of American high-schoolers received instruction in even the
fundamentals of the Japanese language.
- The European Community has set a goal that clearly exhibits where its
priorities lie. By the year 2000, every 16-year old student will be
expected to speak two languages in addition to his or her own. (p. 148)

What can be done in this country to improve students' understanding of other

languages and cultures? This researcher believes that the first step is understanding what the students experience in the FL classroom, and how learning takes place. Once educators better understand how language is acquired, how motivation affects learning, and what teaching techniques provide students with the best results, language acquisition can improve. Hopefully, this study will provide insights into the acquisition process, and the teaching environment may improve so that the grim statistics cited above will change for the better.

As stated previously, the affective filter must be low for input to reach the LAD. If input reaches the LAD, acquisition instead of learning takes place. According to Krashen, acquisition is preferable over learning if the student wishes to be able to communicate in the target language with little hindrance. Contrary to acquisition is learning: ". . . conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them" (Krashen, 1982, p. 10). Therefore,








with a low AF, acquisition takes place, and the results are more adept language users. If the students are more adept at language usage, higher scores on tests and improved overall grade average in the target language class should be a result (success). Thus, if a low AF filter is present in the class, and grades are high, there would be impetus to promote a classroom environment that provides for high motivation, high self-esteem, and low anxiety.

Also, if the Output Hypothesis is true, that when students are provided with opportunities to speak and negotiate meaning in the target language, language will be acquired, then students should perform with high success on tests of their ability. Therefore, by demonstrating a positive relationship between the variables of the Output Hypothesis and higher grades, more research in this area should be done in order to show a causal link between the two phenomena.

Hypotheses

Both Krashen and Swain state that their hypotheses are necessary to achieve

acquisition in the target language. If acquisition is the goal of the class, and acquisition results in improved performance, student success should improve in direct proportion to increased output and low affective filter. To test these hypotheses, a design was established to identify a relationship between grades and variables of the AFH and the OH. In order to test for statistical significance, the following null hypotheses were stated:

1. Grades and variables of the affective filter are not related.

2. Grades and variables of the OH are not related.








Methodology

This study entailed six major steps: (a) Designing the questionnaire, (b) Gaining entry, (c) Discussion of grading procedures, (d) Administering the questionnaire, (e) Statistical analysis, and (f) Data analysis and discussion. A detailed account of the methodology is in Chapter 3.

The Questionnaire

The design of the questionnaire (see Appendix A for the complete questionnaire) encompasses four areas. The first area established ethnic background, language background, age, and sex. The most significant question in this area is that of language background. If the language class in which the student is enrolled is not a foreign language for that person, s/he will be excluded from the study. Since this study addresses issues in the foreign language classroom, a student studying his/her native language would yield data that is not pertinent for this study. The other area of ethnicity, age, and sex will provide other avenues of analysis.

The second area of the questionnaire deals with grade level (9th, 10th, etc.) and grade average (A, B, C, etc.) in the class. The class average is significant because this study will show a relationship between class average and variables of the two theories discussed earlier. Again, grade level will enable the research to address other possible correlations between the variables and grade level.

The final two areas of the questionnaire address the two theories, Affective Filter Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis. This section of the questionnaire will establish how and if characteristics of each theory are present in the classroom.








This questionnaire was developed after reading about the two theories and

outlining characteristics of each. Also, three other questionnaires (detailed in Chapter 3) that deal with motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem were consulted to help form a questionnaire for this study.

Gaining Entry

The schools were chosen for their proximity to the researcher's university, and their students' diverse ethnic/socio-economic backgrounds. The county that was used in this study required that the researcher complete a form that outlined the project. Also, I had to attach a copy of the questionnaire and the permission letter that parents had to sign. After I submitted the form, the county office contacted the principal of each school and sent him/her a copy of the form, the questionnaire, and the permission slip. An administrator from each school then contacted me to inform me that permission had been given for me to administer the questionnaire in their schools. I was given the names of the teachers willing to participate, and told to talk with them and set up a meeting. I talked to the teachers, set up a meeting, and discussed with them the questionnaire and what was expected of them. They agreed to administer the questionnaire, and they told me they would contact me after the questionnaires had been completed. Teachers' Grading Policies

Before the questionnaire was administered, I discussed with each individual teacher his/her grading policy. This was an attempt to establish uniformity in grades from one school to the next. Details of how grades were calculated in each class is discussed in Chapter 3.








Administer Questionnaire

Before the questionnaire could be administered, students had to know their class average. The teachers provided the students with their class average for the year. I was not present for the administering of the questionnaire. Students were given the questionnaire once during the fourth quarter of the school year. Statistical Analysis

Once the questionnaires were completed, the results (on Scan-Tron) were entered into the computer; a regression analysis was run to provide the researcher with statistical calculations that would determine if a relationship between grades and the variables of the two theories did indeed exist.

Analyze Results

With the statistical calculations, analyzing the data was possible. A discussion of the results is in Chapter 4.

Delimitations

This study was delimited by the boundaries of one school district in North

Central Florida. The appropriate procedures established by this county were adhered to in order to conduct research in the county. The teachers that participated in administering the questionnaire were full time teachers of first year Spanish (some also taught other Spanish courses during the school day).

The students in the study were in grades 9 through 12 and come from a diverse cultural and socioeconomic background (see Chapter 3). They were enrolled in first year Spanish.








Limitations

A study that identifies relationships only identifies a link between two constructs. It does not show a cause. This study was designed to show a link between grades and variables of two current hypotheses in second language acquisition. In order to understand how grades and these variables are related, it would be necessary to undertake a qualitative study that would examine how these two hypotheses relate to a student's grades.

Definition of Terms

Acquisition vs Learning. I will use these terms as Krashen defined them in his text on second language acquisition (1982).

acquisition... a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop
ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious process;
language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring
language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for
communication.... What results is a "feel" for correctness or what sounds right.

learning... conscious knowledge of a second language,knowing the rules, being
aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms,
learning is "knowing about" a language, know to most people as "grammar," or
"rules." Some synonyms include, formal knowledge of a language, or explicit
learning. (p. 10)

Second Language vs. Foreign Language. These definitions come from an article by Oxford and Shearin (1994).

A second language is one that is learned in a location where that language is
typically used as the main vehicle of everyday communication for most people (for instance, French being learned by a non-native speaker of that language in
France, in Francophone Africa, or in Quebec). The learner of the second
language is surrounded by stimulation, both visual and auditory, in the target
language and thus has many motivational and instructional advantages. (p. 14)

A foreign language is one that is learned in place where that language is not
typically used as the medium of ordinary communication (for example, French as
it is usually learned in the US). Foreign language learners are surrounded by






13

their own native language and have to go out of their way to find stimulation and
input in the target language. These students typically receive input in the new
language only in the classroom and by rather artificial means, no matter how
talented the teacher is. (p. 14)

Success and Grades. In an academic environment, high grades (A's and B's) are indicative of success. If a student consistently receives grades in the high range, he or she is regarding as having achieved success in the classroom. This study proceeds on the premise that A's and B's in the Spanish classroom are indicative of success in the target language. Chapter 3 will detail each teacher's grading and testing policy, as well as material covered. This detailing of the grading and the testing policy is an attempt to show continuity among the grades of students from different classes and teachers. Also, acquisition, as defined above, is considered for this study to be indicative of success; an ability to communicate in the target language with the same ease as found in a native speaker is often preferred over a conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical paradigms.

Conclusion

This study will attempt to show a relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. Once a relationship is proven, then studies can be organized to investigate how the correlation manifests itself The subsequent chapters address the following topics: Chapter 2: Review of the literature; Chapter 3: Methodology; Chapter 4: Review of the Data; and Chapter 5: Conclusion.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to orient the reader to this study. This chapter reviews two current theories in second language acquisition. This chapter will also review the topics of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem in the classroom. The chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section examines two theories in second language acquisition. The second section addresses issues concerning the questionnaire for this study. The two theories discussed will demonstrate how questions for the questionnaire were developed.

Theories in Second Language Acquisition Krashen's Five Hypotheses on Second Language Acquisition

Krashen (1982) theorizes on the processes of second language acquisition. In the introduction to his text, he states the purpose of his theories: "The purpose of this book is to take a new look at an old question: the relationship between second language teaching practice and what is known about the process of second language acquisition" (p. 1). His theories are divided into five hypotheses: (a) the acquisition/ learning distinction, (b) the natural order hypothesis, (c) the monitor hypothesis, (d) the input hypothesis, and (e) the affective filter hypothesis. Although this study will concentrate on one hypothesis (the Affective Filter Hypothesis), it will be necessary to review all five since they are interdependent.








Learning vs. Acquisition

The first hypothesis deals with defining two terms: learning and acquisition. Krashen (1982) defines acquisition as such:

a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in
their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious process;
language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring
language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language
for communication.

What results is a "feel" for correctness or what sounds "right."
(p. 10)

On the other hand, learning is defined as

conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being
aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms,
learning is "knowing about" a language, known to most people as
"grammar," or "rules." Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a
language, or explicit learning. (p. 10)

Krashen advocates an approach that allows students to acquire a language instead of learning one. When students are allowed to acquire as opposed to learning, a more "natural" language develops; hence, the student will be more likely to communicate effectively in the "real" world. According to Krashen, acquisition should result if the instructional approach emphasizes communication over the mastery of grammatical rules and the memorization of vocabulary lists.

Many foreign language classrooms today explicitly or implicitly promote

learning over acquisition. Since a majority of texts include vocabulary lists, drill pattern responses, and other mechanical exercises, communication in the target language is often replaced with meaningless exercises that demand focus on form over meaning. It is precisely these types of activities that Krashen relates to conscious learning. Activities








that promote communication over form will enable the student to acquire a foreign language, not just learn a few responses to structured questions. The Natural Order Hypothesis


The natural order hypothesis states that language structure develops in a

predictable manner. Krashen (1982) refers to this as an "exciting discovery" (p. 12). Krashen (1982) also cites various researchers who have validated this point: Brown, 1973; de Villiers and de Villiers, 1973; Dulay and Burt, 1974; Kessler and Idar, 1977; Fabris, 1978; and Makino, 1980. Although not all language learners acquire the same grammatical concepts in the same manner, "there are clear, statistically significant, similarities" (Krashen, 1982, p. 12). However, even though grammar may develop in a predictable manner, it is not recommended that syllabi reflect this via grammatical sequencing (pp. 12-14).

The studies that revealed data leading to the Monitor Hypothesis showed that

with various languages, certain grammatical concepts were acquired before others. The grammatical concepts acquired were consistent among language learners. Even though certain concepts are acquired before others, Krashen does not advocate the organization of course content around these findings. If the input is sufficient in quality and quantity, these concepts will develop naturally; there will be no need to address specific grammatical paradigms. In fact, creating a syllabus based on grammatical concepts will lead to learning, not acquisition.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis refers to the student mentally referring to rules of language structure in order to communicate in the target language. This is a conscious








effort on the part of the student and interferes with normal production of speech. In fact,

three conditions are necessary to utilize conscious grammar:

(i) Time. In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively a
second language performer needs to have sufficient time. For most
people, normal conversation does not allow enough time to think about
the rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i.e., a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner
is saying.

(ii) Focus on form. To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough.
The performer must also be focussed on form, or thinking about
correctness (Dulay & Burt, 1978). Even when we have time, we may be
so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are
saying it.

(iii) Know the rule. This may be a very formidable requirement.
Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language is extremely
complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best
known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed to only a
small part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even
the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to.
(Krashen, 1982, p. 16)

Thus, with the above criteria, communicating via the Monitor slows

communication and interferes with the "natural" flow common in everyday speech.

Hence, Monitor use should be used as little as possible during speech that is acquired.

Krashen continues with a description of three different Monitor users:

(i) Monitor Over-users. These are people who attempt to Monitor all the
time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their
conscious knowledge of the second language. As a result, such
performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of
utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak
with any real fluency.

(ii) Monitor under-users. These are performers who have not learned, or
if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even
when conditions allow it. Under-users are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a "feel" for correctness (e.g., "it
sounds right"), and rely completely on the acquired system.








(iii) The Optimal Monitor user. Our pedagogical goal is to produce
optimal users, performers who use the Monitor when it is appropriate and
when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will
not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere.
(Some very skilled performers, such as some professional linguists and
language teachers, might be able to get away with using considerable
amounts of conscious knowledge in conversation, e.g., Rivers, 1979, but
this is very unusual. We might consider these people "super Monitor
users," after Yorio, 1978) In writing, and in planned speech, however,
when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever corrections
they can to raise the accuracy of their output (see, for example, Krashen
and Pon, 1975). (Krashen, 1982, pp. 19-20)

Therefore, when a person has acquired a language (his/her native language, for

example), the person does not visualize and analyze grammatical paradigms in order to

produce speech. This speech emerges naturally, without mental references to rules and

memorized material. Being able to produce speech without this constant mental

referencing is what acquisition entails. When a student has learned a language, s/he

often has to think about grammatical rules before speech can be produced; thus,

producing slow and unnatural speech.

The Input Hypothesis

According to Krashen (1982), the input hypothesis answers the question "How do

we acquire language?" (p.20). The input hypothesis states that progress in SLA is

achieved when students are provided with meaningful input plus "a little bit more." This

is represented graphically by i + 1:

The input hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not
sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + I is that the acquirer
understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that the
acquirer is focussed on the meaning and not the form of the message.

We acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is a "little beyond" where we are now. (p. 21)






19

The letter "i" represents what the student already knows. And the number "1" is what the student has not been introduced to. Therefore, by using the students' knowledge base, and adding new information (either grammar or vocabulary) a little at a time, the student will acquire the new information and use it without the monitor effect.

This fourth hypothesis is contrary to previous theories in SLA. It was commonly believed that structure should be taught first, and then, communication would develop. However, others (Hatch, 1978) have adopted the input hypothesis:

Our assumption has been that we first learn structures, then practice using
them in communication, and this is how fluency develops. The input
hypothesis says the opposite. It says we acquire by "going for meaning"
first, and as a result, we acquire structure! (Krashen, 1982, p. 21)

Basically, what Krashen is stating is that any attempt to teach grammar overtly will not result in an increased ability on the students' part to communicate more effectively or with fewer errors. Only by exposure to comprehensible input will a student be able to acquire the necessary grammatical structures and internalize them.

Krashen (1982) states that for acquisition to take place, the student must be exposed to comprehensible input. It is not the verbal or written expression on the student's part that promotes acquisition, but what the student hears: "we acquire via input, what we read and hear, and not via output, actual talking and writing" (p.57). It is also worth repeating that comprehensible input cannot be the intentional goal of the instructor, it must occur in a nonstructured, nondeliberate manner, quite the opposite of what is seen on foreign language syllabi:

There is a "structure of the day," and usually both teacher and student feel
that the aim of the lesson is to teach or practice a specific grammatical
item or structure. Once this structure is "mastered," the syllabus proceeds
to the next one. (Krashen, 1982, pp. 21-22)








Krashen (1982) outlines the four parts to the input hypothesis:

(1) The input hypothesis relates to acquisition not learning.
(2) We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit
beyond our current level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help
of context or extra-linguistic information.
(3) When communication is successful, when the input is understood and
there is enough of it, i + I will be provided automatically.
(4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly. (pp. 21-22)

The first characteristic states that the students must understand what is being said to him/her. If what is being said in the target language is far beyond the student's comprehension, all he/she will hear is noise. And no one acquires another language by listening to noise. Krashen bases this belief on the fact that no one has ever acquired another language by just being exposed to it as is often the case with second generation children growing up with parents or grandparents who communicate in another language. If the child is not given input in a comprehensible manner, acquisition will not take place. Krashen cites a study by Ervin-Tripp that showed "that hearing children of deaf parents do not acquire language from TV or radio" (Krashen, 1982, p. 63). Therefore, just by being merely exposed to a language does not a language speaker make; the information must be comprehensible.

How does one go about by making language comprehensible? Krashen (1982) cites a 1979 work by Hatch that identifies three qualities of comprehensible input.:

1) slower rate and clearer articulation, which helps acquirers to identify word
boundaries more easily, and allows more processing time;
2) more use of high frequency vocabulary, less slang, fewer idioms;
3) syntactic simplification, shorter sentences. (Krashen, 1982, p. 64)

The second characteristic of the input hypothesis states that input must be interesting and/or relevant. As stated above, the input hypothesis requires that the student focus on content and not form. Therefore, for the student to focus on form, it








must be interesting if not relevant to the student: "the best input is so interesting and relevant that the acquirer may even 'forget' that the message is encoded in a foreign language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 66). Krashen continues by emphasizing the importance for the teacher to provide the students with meaningful exercises and not mechanical ones.

The third characteristic deals with the sequencing of grammar. Although

Krashen earlier stated that grammar follows a particular order in reference to acquisition, the goal of any syllabus should not be to center itself on grammatical structures. Krashen believes that if enough i + I is used in the classroom, grammar will automatically be included. Krashen lists four reason for not using a grammar based syllabus. Reason number one is based on the supposition that not all the students are at the same place grammatically or linguistically. Therefore, if a uniform approach to grammar is utilized, some students will be left out. "Unsequenced but natural input, it is hypothesized, will contain a rich variety of structure--if it is comprehensible, there will be i + I for everyone as long as there is enough input" (Krashen, 1982, pp. 68-69).

The second reason for avoiding a grammar-based syllabus is that usually a

grammatical concept is presented one day, and then the class moves on. What happens to the student that missed that day or did not grasp the concept? The input hypothesis provides the student with review on a continual basis:

Unsequenced communicative input contains built-in review. We don't have to
worry if we miss the progressive tense today, it will be part of the input again...
and again! Comprehensible input thus guarantees us natural review and
recycling, assuming, as mentioned above, that there is enough of it. (Krashen,
1982, p. 69)

Again, what this second reason is trying to convey is that the lesson should center on what is being said in the target language, not how it is said. And once the lesson begins








to focus on communicating in the language, grammar and review will automatically be addressed.

The third reason against overt grammar instruction deals with communication. If the teacher emphasizes grammar, communication in the target language is reduced to simple exercises that attempt to reinforce a grammatical concept. "Teachers will be concerned with how they are speaking, reading selections will be aimed at including x number of examples of structure y along with a certain vocabulary sample, a sure guarantee of boring and wooden language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 70).

The fourth reason for avoiding the grammar based syllabus refers to the attempt at guessing the order at which a student acquires a language. Krashen believes that it is impossible to guess when and how each student in the class will acquire certain concepts. Therefore, teachers should rely on i + I to supply the students with the necessary grammar at the necessary time: "Comprehensible input, it is claimed, will automatically follow a natural order insofar as i + 1 will be provided (along with many other structures)" (Krashen, 1982, p. 70).

The fourth characteristic of the input hypothesis states that input must be in sufficient quantity. Krashen does admit that the research does not yet answer the question how much is enough. What he does say is "that the profession has seriously underestimated the amount of comprehensible input necessary to achieve even moderate, or 'intermediate' levels of proficiency in the second language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 71). This characteristic cannot yet be answered. Krashen (1982) does reaffirm that teachers, in his opinion, do not use enough comprehensible input:

Despite our current paucity of data, what seems clear to me now is that we
are not using enough of the available instruction time for supplying








comprehensible input, and that we will be able to stimulate more rapid (and more comfortable) second language acquisition if we put greater
focus on input. (p. 73)

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, was originally proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977). Krashen (1982) states three areas in the affective domain that affect the acquisition of a language: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety (p. 31). Krashen posits that only when motivation is high, self-confidence is good, and anxiety is low can acquisition take place. A high Affective filter will not allow the comprehensible input to reach the part of the brain that allows for language acquisition. This area of the brain to which Krashen refers is called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). The LAD is an area of the human brain that Chomsky (1965) hypothesized was responsible for a human's unique ability to use language. Thus, comprehensible input is not enough for acquisition to take place; the teacher must create an environment that promotes a low affective filter (Krashen, 1982, pp.30-32).

Swain's Output Hypothesis

Swain first proposed her Output Hypothesis in 1985. This hypothesis was

developed in response to results of tests of fluency administered to sixth grade students who had been in an immersion school for seven years. The results of the tests showed that the immersion students were not able to communicate in French with the same level of accuracy as other native (French speaking) sixth grade students. While the immersion students were able to perform as well as the native speakers in areas such as discourse and sociolinguistic competence, their grammar was at a lower level. Swain studied the immersion setting and concluded that students were receiving sufficient quantities of








comprehensible input; however, one thing was lacking: sufficient opportunities to communicate to express themselves in the target language.

Since the students were receiving input in sufficient quantities, this caused Swain to question Krashen's hypothesis on input.

The hypothesis that comprehensible input is the only causal variable in
second language acquisition seems to me to be called into question by the
immersion data just presented in that immersion students do receive
considerable comprehensible input. Indeed, the immersion students in the
study reported on here have been receiving comprehensible input in the
target language for almost 7 years. (Swain, 1985, pp. 245-46)

Therefore, if comprehensible input along with a low affective filter is the only causal variable leading to acquisition (according to Krashen), why did these students not acquire the language like the native speakers? Swain hypothesized that the students needed output, in additions to input. After she reviewed the learning environment of the immersion students, she concluded that the students were not given sufficient opportunities to communicate in the target language. Swain demonstrated that the immersion students performed as well as the native speakers in comprehension, but the test on grammar showed that the immersion students were not as proficient:

On tests of listening comprehension in French, the immersions students perform as well as native speakers of French by grade 6 (Swain, Lapkin, and Andrew 1981). This strongly suggests that the immersion students understood what they were being taught, that they focused on meaning.
Yet, as we have seen, after 7 years of this comprehensible input, the target
system has not been fully acquired. (Swain, 1985, p. 146)

Swain does not intend to downplay the importance of the Input Hypothesis

described by Krashen. She is stating that in addition to the Input Hypothesis, output is necessary for acquisition: "Comprehensible output ... is a necessary mechanism of acquisition independent of the role of comprehensible input. Its role is, at minimum, to








provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it" (Swain, 1985, p. 252).

In another article (1993), Swain outlines tenets of the Output Hypothesis. Four characteristics of the hypothesis are described: (a) language production, (b) language production teaches the student about the language, (c) language production allows for hypothesis testing, and (d) output produces feedback.

The first way in which output enables a student to acquire a language is through language production. Swain states that "language production provides the opportunity for meaningful practice of one's linguistic resources permitting the development of automaticity in their use" (1993, p. 159). Swain states that this has to do with fluency. In other words, if a student is to become fluent in the target language, the student has to practice it. This alone will not produce a fluent speaker; the other tenets of the Output Hypothesis are necessary.

The second tenet involves using the language to learn about it. Swain (1993) quotes Krashen in reference to understanding language: " In many cases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding--we often get the message with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus extra-linguistic information" (Krashen, 1982, p. 66). Thus, with the input hypothesis, students may understand what is being said without a full understanding of syntax. Swain believes that by using the language, the student is forced to consider syntax. Speaking in the target language then forces "the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing" (Swain, 1993,








p. 159). Swain believes this "forces learners to recognize what they do not know or know only partially" (1993, p. 159). Therefore, by speaking in the target language, students will learn what they do not know, and be forced to learn it or state it in a manner that is different but similar in meaning.

The third tenet is that of hypothesis testing. When a student is speaking in the target language, s/he may use what has been learned. Output allows the student the opportunity to test possible varieties of one idea in the target language. Swain believes that only when a student who is speaking or writing in the target language is s/he able to test what is grammatical. And only through this testing does the student acquire (in the sense of "get a feel" for the language) language. This third tenet is directly linked to the fourth, feedback.

Feedback is a response from the listener; it may be negative (the original

utterance was grammatically incorrect or incomprehensible) or positive (the message was understood). By having spoken in the target language, whether testing a hypothesis or simply communicating, the speaker generates a response. These utterances "may generate responses from speakers of the language which can provide learners with information about the comprehensibility or well-formedness of their utterances" (Swain, 1993, p. 160). This feedback allows the student to judge his/her utterance; the student may either continue or clarify his/her remarks. Swain says that "Feedback can lead learners to modify or 'reprocess' their output" (1993, p. 160). This feedback and speech modification is sometimes referred to as negotiation of meaning. Others have agreed with Swain; Pica, et al. (1989) state that when language learners negotiate meaning, they "experiment with new structures and forms, and expand and exploit their interlanguage








resources in creative ways" (p. 64). Swain (1995) refers to this as "the leading edge of the learner's interlanguage" (p. 374).

In order for students to produce in the target language, Swain feels that they need to be pushed. "Learners need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness and accuracy" (1993, pp. 160-61). Swain summarizes the Output Hypothesis in her 1995 article:

In producing the L2 [second language], a learner will on occasion become
aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention
either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal
feedback). Noticing a problem "pushes" the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. Thus,
output may set "noticing" in train, triggering mental processes that lead to
modified output. (pp. 372-73)

The two theories discussed above are not totally in opposition to each other.

Krashen states that for acquisition to take place, students must receive comprehensible input while the affective filter is down. He believes, based on numerous studies, that output is not a factor in language acquisition. Swain, on the other hand, believes that input is necessary for acquisition; however, it is not the only variable in the language acquisition process. In order for students to acquire a language, they must be provided with the opportunity to communicate (verbally or in written form) in the target language. Swain's research has shown that when students are given able comprehensible input without output, language is not truly acquired.

As stated above, this study is to determine if there is a relationship between the two theories and students' achievement in the classroom. This study does not attempt to






28

prove one theory more valid than the other. The purpose is to demonstrate a relationship and give direction for further research addressing the Affective Filter and Output Hypotheses.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire is based on the two theories discussed above: Krashen's

Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH) and Swain's Output Hypothesis. Questions developed for the questionnaire were based on these two theories. However, Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis is "considered by many to be the weakest part of Krashen's theory of SLA (Gregg, 1984; Pieneman & Johnson, 1987)" (Crookes & Schmidt, p. 478). One of the reasons Crookes and Schmidt state is that "the concept appears close to that of a 'mental block,' and thus has more connections to popular than scientific psychology" (p. 478). Therefore, this study will elucidate the construct validity of the AFH. To this end, the researcher wishes to explore the notions of motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. In this section, an explanation of how sections of the questionnaire dealing with these constructs were determined. Also, the section on the Output Hypothesis was created to demonstrate how and to what extent students were engaging in output.

Krashen's AFH

As stated above, the affective filter is linked to issues of motivation, selfconfidence, and anxiety. How are these terms defined? How do these three constructs affect the foreign language learner? How will questions on a questionnaire address these constructs? These questions will be answered in the following sections.








Motivation

The term motivation has many definitions, and many researchers cannot agree on what motivation really means, or all that it entails. Some researchers (McDonough, 1981; Ellis, 1985; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) claim that motivation has been used as a catch-all term that incudes many different areas. For the purposes of this study, I will focus on one area of motivation: intrinsic/extrinsic motivation.

When Krashen discusses motivation in Principles and practice in second language acquisition, Krashen refers briefly to integrative (p. 31) motivation. Integrative motivation refers to a student's desire to be like the culture he/she is studying. Krashen does not go into detail about this term, and therefore, leaves the idea of motivation unclear. The idea of integrative motivational theory comes from Gardner and Lambert (1972). However, since integrative motivation was so briefly mentioned in Krashen's text, I will concentrate on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. The reason for this orientation is due to the large volume of research in the area of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and a preference for this area of motivation on the part of the researcher.

Intrinsic motivation refers to an individual's desire to learn without the pressures of grades, social demands, or any other rewards that the student might gain from having learned something. Deci and Ryan (1985) define intrinsic motivation as such:

To be truly intrinsically motivated, a person must also feel free from
pressures, such as rewards or contingencies. Thus, we suggest, intrinsic motivation will be operative when action is experienced as autonomous,
and it is unlikely to function under conditions where controls or
reinforcements are the experienced cause of action. (p. 29)








A necessary part of intrinsic motivation is self-determination. Without selfdetermination, there can be no intrinsic motivation. Self-determination is basically

freedom from control:

Self-determination is a quality of human functioning that involves the
experience of choice, in other words, the experience of an internal
perceived locus of causality. It is integral to intrinsically motivated
behaviors.... Self determination is the capacity to choose and to have
those choices rather than reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other
forces or pressures, be the determinants of one's actions .... Selfdetermination is more than a capacity; it is also a need. (Deci & Ryan, p.
38)

In summary, intrinsic motivation is the desire to learn something. This desire

comes from within the individual; there is no outside reason to learn the material. If a

student in a foreign language classroom is intrinsically motivated, s/he experiences

enjoyment in learning about another culture; the ability to express one's self in another

language gives the student a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. The idea of

learning new material just to receive a high grade on a test or quiz is not the motivating

factor. Nor is the desire to please the teacher nor a desire to compete

among other students a motivating factor. Deci and Ryan summarize intrinsic

motivation:

When people are intrinsically motivated, they experience interest and
enjoyment, they feel competent and self-determining, they perceive the
locus of causality for their behavior to be internal, and in some instances
they experience flow'. (p. 34)



'The idea of flow comes from research by Csikszentmihalyi (1975). Deci and Ryan (1985) describe flow, based on the above author's work, as "that peculiar, dynamic, holistic sensation of total involvement with the activity itself In the state of flow, action and experience seem to move smoothly from one moment to the next, and there seems to be no clear distinction between the person and the activity. Flow involves a 'loss of ego' and an experienced unity with one's surroundings." (p.29)








Extrinsic motivation refers to energizing an individual to do something that s/he would not do on his/her own. How someone is made to learn something may vary according to the situation. In a social context, a child is forced to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Most of these socially acceptable affectations are not intrinsic; they must be taught and reinforced. "Caretakers feel the need to prohibit or redirect children's activity so that children will engage in behaviors that they would not otherwise do, but that ensure their safety, conform with cultural values, or in some way gratify the caretaker's needs" (Deci & Ryan, p. 129). In a classroom, affecting learning may be in the form of grades, peer pressure, parental contact, and course requirements, to name a few. Therefore, contrary to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation involves the need to perform will on a test or quiz, to avoid embarrassment in an oral presentation, to succeed in a class that is required for college admission, and/or to please someone else (e.g., parents or teacher).

Researchers have concluded that students in the classroom are more successful if the are intrinsically motivated as opposed to extrinsically motivated. "Recent reviews of motivation in education (e.g., Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Harter & Connell, 1984; Ryan et al., 1985; Thomas, 1980) have increasingly recognized the importance of intrinsic motivation and have emphasized the role of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes in the promotion of children's learning and achievement" (Deci & Ryan, p. 245). How is intrinsic motivation enhanced in the classroom? "Bruner (1962), for example, suggested that one of the most important ways to help children think and learn is to free them from the control of rewards and punishments" (Deci & Ryan, p. 246).








Also, as stated before, students must have a sense of self-determination in the classroom in order for intrinsic motivation to be enhanced.

The section of the questionnaire for this study that deals with intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation follow a similar format of a questionnaire used by Harter (1981). Harter listed five areas of classroom learning that involve intrinsic and extrinsic motivation:

(a) learning motivated by curiosity versus learning in order to please the
teacher,
(b) incentive to work for one's own satisfaction versus working to please the
teacher and get good grades,
(c) preference for challenging work versus preference for easy work,
(d) desire to work independently versus dependence on the teacher for help, and
(e) internal criteria for success or failure versus external criteria (e.g., grades,
teacher feedback) to determine success or failure. (p. 301)

Harter's format for her questionnaire was one that allowed the student to choose responses such as "sort of true for me," and "really true for me." She argues that true and false questions are susceptible "to socially desirable responses" (p. 302). However, I have chosen to use the scale of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" to give students a wider variety of choices and to also avoid the rigidity of true or false questions. Details of the questionnaire and how it follows Harter's five delineations are discussed at length in Chapter 3.

Self-confidence

Krashen (1982) described this section of the Affective Filter as "Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition" (p. 31). Having self-confidence and a good self-image are related to self-esteem. Blascovich and Tomaka define self-esteem as "the extent to which one prizes, values, approves, or likes oneself' (p. 115). Therefore, according to the AFH, if a student holds








him/herself in high regard, approves of him/herself, and basically likes him/herself, this student is more likely to acquire a second language.

For the purposes of this study, I have chosen the Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) (Coopersmith, 1967) to measure this construct. The statements in this section of the questionnaire, according to the author, "were designed to measure self-regard in four specific areas: peers, parents, school, and personal interests" (Coopersmith, p. 127). For this study, the SEI questionnaire was slightly altered to match the format of the questionnaire for this study. Specifically, the original responses were "like me," and "unlike me." For this study, the responses will be from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The altered format will allow the students a more varied response scenario and will keep in sync with the original format of the questionnaire.

In reference to reliability and validity of the SEI

J.B. Taylor and Reitz (1968) reported a split-half reliability of .90. Van Tuinen and Ramanaiah (1979) reported a Cronback a of .83.... Coopersmith reported
test-retest correlation of .88 for a 5-week period and .70 over 3 years. Demo
(1985) found the 25-item version to correlate .44 with 'beeper' self-reports of selfesteem, .55 with the Rosenberg Scale. (Blascovich and Tomaka, p. 128)

Based on the above information, I feel the SEI adequately confronts significant issues that affect children in school and that might affect their self-esteem and is statistically reliable and valid.

Anxiety

As Krashen (1982) stated, "Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety" ( p. 31). Therefore, to further examine the AFH, the questionnaire will address anxiety in the foreign language classroom.








The New World Dictionary defines anxiety as "a state of being uneasy,

apprehensive, or worried about what may happen; concern about a possible future event" (1976, p. 62). Horowitz, et al. (1986), in developing their Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLACS), quote Guiora in their introduction to their 1986 article: "Guiora argues that language learning itself is a "profoundly unsettling psychological proposition" because it directly threatens an individual's self-concept and world view (p. 125).

Counselors at the Learning Skills Center at the University of Texas found "that anxiety centers on the two basic task requirements of foreign language learning: listening and speaking" (Horowitz, et al., 1986, p. 126). Horowitz, et al. (1986) developed the FLACS by forming a support group of 30 university students and asking these students about what troubled them most in the foreign language classroom. Three areas were identified that related to anxiety in the foreign language classroom: communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation:

Communication apprehension is a type of shyness characterized by fear of
or anxiety about communicating with people.

Test-anxiety refers to a type of performance anxiety stemming from a fear of
failure.

Fear of negative evaluation, defined as "apprehension about others' evaluations,
avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate
oneself negatively." (p.127-28)

These three areas of anxiety were used to create the FLACS to determine the level of anxiety a student may be facing in the foreign language classroom. This is the first scale developed to measure anxiety in the foreign language classroom. Gardner, Clement, Smythe, Clement, and Gliksman developed a measure of anxiety specifically for the








French classroom, but this test could not be applied globally to all foreign language classes. According to Horowitz, et al. (1986), the FLACS "has demonstrated internal reliability, achieving an alpha coefficient of .93 with all items producing significant corrected item-total scale correlations. Test-retest reliability over eight weeks yielded an r = .83 (p < .001)" (Horowitz, et al., 1986, p. 129).

The FLACS has proven to be a reliable test of anxiety in the classroom (see also Aida, 1994). Although this test has been used in the foreign language classroom, there has been no use of this test on students at the junior and senior high school levels; this is the unique aspect of this section of the questionnaire.2 Thus, to complete the area of the AFH, this test will be used to determine the level of anxiety, and along with other measures, the raising or lowering of the Affective Filter.

Swain's Output Hypothesis

This section of the questionnaire determines if students are engaging in output as described by Swain. The ten questions on the questionnaire that demonstrate output were derived from the four tenets described above. Questions addressed output, how students engaged in output, the level of output, negotiation of meaning, and feedback. A detailed description of the questions is provided in the following chapter.

Conclusion

This chapter dealt with two main theories in second language acquisition:

Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. This study is based on the tenets of the two theories; specifically, how they relate to success in the



2A search on ERIC found no matches with the following two terms: "FLACS" and "High School."






36

foreign language classroom. By combining established questionnaires with newly created questions, the aspects of motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, and output may shed new light on the acquiring of a second language. The following chapters deal with the methodology, interpretation of the data, and concluding remarks.













CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study examined the relationship between grades that students received in the foreign language classroom and variables of two theories in second language acquisition (SLA). The methodology and the procedures used in this study are explained in detail in this chapter. This chapter is divided into seven sections: (a) the setting, (b) the teachers and grading, (c) data collection, (d) instrumentation, (e) statistical analysis, (f) data analysis, and (g) summary.

The Setting

The schools selected for this study are located in North-Central Florida. Three schools were chosen from one county, and all were high schools. These schools were selected based on several qualities that define them as typical schools in the state, such as ethnic background of students and socio-economic status. These qualities are described in more detail below in the sub-section titled "Setting Description."

Statistics on ACT, SAT, Grade 10 Achievement Tests, High School Competency Test, expenditures, and enrollment for the three schools in this study came from the Florida School Report. This is a report that all Florida public schools must make available to the public in an effort to comply with state regulations regarding goals for public schools. The Florida School Reports used for this study were all from the 19931994 school year.








In the section of this chapter titled "Setting Description" is a summary of the Florida School Report for each school in the study. The purpose of this section is to show the commonalities the schools in the study share with the general population. Setting Description

The following descriptions of the three schools in this study are an attempt to

show similarities within the schools to the general population. From the statistics in the Florida School Reports of each school, it will be apparent that the schools draw from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Also, the figures show that the students perform on a level similar to the general population on commonly used standardized tests.

School IA. SAT and ACT (see school IC) scores for school 1A were not

reported on the Florida School Report. However, scores on other standardized tests were available. Table 3-1 shows the results of the Grade 10 Assessment Test. Of the students tested, scores were slightly above district and state levels. On the High School Competency Test (HSCT) for 11 th graders (see Table 3-2), students at school 1A performed similarly to other students at the district level. At the state level, scores were higher. This demonstrates that students at this school are on an academic level similar to that of the rest of the county and slightly higher than students throughout the state. Table 3-1. Grade 10 Assessment Test--School LA. Percentage of students scoring above national median score.


Reading
Students tested School District State Percentage Percentage Percentage 262 56 55 46 Math
263 575 49








Table 3-2. HSCT--School IA. 11 th graders who passed the state test.

Communications
Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 264 94 93 89 Math
269 80 80 77


Expenditures per student in regular classes at school 1A (see Table 3-3) were $224.00 above the state average.


Table 3-3. Expenditures and average class sizes.

Expenditures per student in regular classes- 1993-94
School School amount State average School IA $4,263 $4,039 School lB $3,947 $4,039 School IC $3,833 $4,039 Average class size for School IA Class School average State average Math 23.3 26.5 Social Studies 21.9 24.7 Language Arts 20.8 19.8 Average class size for School lB Class School average State average Math 26.3 26.5 Social Studies 26.5 24.7 Language Arts 21.1 19.8 Average class size for School IC Class School average State average Math 27.9 26.5 Social Studies 25.5 24.7 Language Arts 16.8 19.8








The average class size in Table 3-3 shows that classrooms have fewer students than the state average, with the exception of Language Arts. This is significant figure because it implies that students received more one-on-one attention from the teachers that is normally available throughout the state.

Table 3-4 shows that School IA has a higher percentage of African American

students than does the typical school in Florida. School 1 A is located in a predominantly African American neighborhood. It has been designated a magnate school (there is also an International Baccalaureate program at this school), attracting students from all over the county. This special status accounts for the relatively even number of African American and white students.


Table 3-4. Enrollment--all students--all year. School 1A ......__ School 1A
Race Female Male School % State % White 395 388 49.0 59.9 Black3 352 374 45.4 23.2 Hisp 13 10 1.4 14.6 Asian 36 27 3.9 2.1 Indian 2 1 0.2 0.2


School lB. Students' scores on the Grade 10 Assessment Test and the HSCT were reported for this school too. Again, these scores were taken from the 1993-94



3The Florida School Report uses the ethnic term "black." However, throughout this study I shall use the term African American.








School Report. Table 3-5 shows the Grade 10 Assessment Test scores. The students tested scored slightly above the district percentage in both reading and math. However, students at school lB scored well above the state percentage. Therefore, students at school lB performed on a level comparable to other students in the county, but on the average, are stronger than students across the state in reading and math. Table 3-5. Grade 10 Assessment Test--School lB. Percentage of students scoring above national median score.


Reading
Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 419 59 55 46 Math
419 61 55 49


Table 3-6 shows the percentage of 11 th grade students that passed the HSCT. In communications, the number of students that passed was similar to other students in the district. At the state level, the percentage is slightly higher. The area of math was similar to communications: similar on the district level, and slightly higher than the state. Table 3-6. HSCT--School lB. 11 th graders who passed the state test.


Communications
Students tested School District State
Percentage Percentage Percentage 363 94 93 89
Math
369 83 1 80 77






42

Expenditures per student in regular classes at school 1B (see Table 3-3) were just below the state average. Students at school I B received about $100 less per student that the state average.

The average class size at school IB was very close to the state average in every category. Therefore, class population was similar at school I B to other classes around the state.

Table 3-7 shows the student population by ethnic background. School lB has a breakdown similar to the rest of the state. Again, the major difference is in the Hispanic population. South Florida, with its large Hispanic population, increases dramatically the state percentage. This school might be considered a "typical" school based on the student population.


Table 3-7. Enrollment--all students--all year. School lB


.......__ _ ... ,School 1B ....
Race Female Male School % State % White 697 718 67.4 59.9 Black 288 275 26.4 23.2 Hisp 29 33 3.0 14.6 Asian 25 28 2.5 2.1 Indian 2 3 0.2 0.2


School 1 C. School I C made scores from SAT and ACT exams available. Table 3-8 gives a summary of these scores. SAT scores at this school were lower for both 1993 and 1994 compared to the district level. However, on a national level, students achieved








higher scores the other students across the state and nation. Nevertheless, these scores are not significantly higher.


Table 3-8. SAT and ACT scores for school IC.


SAT Scores School IC
School District State Nation
1993 444 453 416 424
Verbal
1993 501 498 466 478
Math
1994 430 441 413 423
Verbal
1994 481 489 466 479
Math
__ _ACT Scores School IC School District State Nation
1993 20.9 20.6 20.7 20.7 1994 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.8


Expenditures per student at School IC (see Table 3-3) are about $200.00 below the state average. All the schools in this study receive below average expenditures per student. With a student population of 1,998, this figure would approach $20,000.00.

The average class size (see Table 3-3) is near the state average in all three areas. The variation of students in the classes is not significant.

Enrollment at School IC is listed in Table 3-9. The percentages of whites and blacks is very similar to the state percentages. Only the Hispanic population at School








IC is significantly lower than the state average. It is the large Hispanic population in South Florida (especially Miami) that raises the state average to above 14%. Table 3-9. Enrollment--all students--all year. School IC School IC
Race Female Male School % State % White 623 599 61.2 59.9 Black 281 290 28.6 23.2 Hisp 54 81 6.8 14.6 Asian 37 27 3.2 2.1 Indian 4 2 .3 .2


The Teachers and Grading

The schools in this study were all from the same county. One grading aspect was the same for each school: the grading scale. The grading scale for this county was the following: A 94-100; B 85-94; C 75-84; D 65-83; F 64 and below. The teachers all used the same text, Spanish for mastery. Also, the teachers in the study covered about the same amount of material during the 1995-96 school year. What follows is a detailed description of the grading policy for the teachers in the study. School IA

At schools IA two teachers agreed to administer the questionnaire in their

classes. Both teachers, although using different texts, covered approximately the same amount of material.

Teacher IA. I used the text Spanish of mastery in the classes. The material that this teacher covered in his classes was similar to the other teachers in the county. This








teacher covered about six units in the text. The material covered was fairly consistent with the other teachers: ar/er/ir verbs; interrogatives; adjectives; gender of nouns; articles; possessives; irregular verbs; extensive vocabulary; and various cultural settings. There is a sample of this teacher's quizzes in Appendix B.

This teacher did not divide grades into sections and percentages. He used a point system: there were 25 written assignments that were worth 5 points each (total = 125 pts.); 200 points for a test (total = 200 pts.); 25 points for each quiz (total = 75 pts.); 20 points for a composition (total = 20 pts.). Although this appears to be different from the other grading systems, the percentages that each of these points make of the total possible points are similar to the other teachers: written assignments 30%, test 47%, quizzes 18%, and composition 5%.

This teacher gave the permission slips to all of his Spanish 1 classes. There were a total of 120 students given the permission slip; only 68 returned the slips and were able to take the questionnaire.

Teacher IA.2 used the text Ya veras in her classes. Unfortunately, this teacher waited until the end of the school year to decided that there was not enough time in her schedule to administer the questionnaire. Therefore, the total number of questionnaires in this study was reduced by about 100 subjects. School lB

In this school, there were three teachers that participated in the study. All teachers used the same text and covered the same amount of material. There was a consensus among the teachers to cover the same material so that students would not be at a disadvantage in going to a different teacher for Spanish II. The teachers at this school






46

used the text Spanish for mastery and covered the first six units of the text. This material was very similar to the material covered in school IA. The differences are minute: different cultural settings, and variations in vocabulary. The commonalities are strong: ar/er/ir verbs; irregular verbs; ser and estar; adjectives; interrogatives; and possessives. Also, in Appendix C, there are examples of tests and quizzes to show commonalities in testing.

Teacher lB. I calculated his grades in the following manner: tests 30%; quizzes 30%; homework 30%; and participation 10%. Grading procedures for test and homework were identical to those at school 1A.

Teacher lB. I administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 31

students in it. Of the permission slips given to the students, 28 students returned them. Again, only students who returned the permission slips were able to take the questionnaire.

Teacher 1B.2 used the same text, and as stated before, covered the same amount of material. Her grades were calculated in the following manner: tests 40%; quizzes 20%; homework 20%; and participation 20%. Copies of this teachers tests and quizzes are in Appendix C. Homework and participation were calculated virtually in the same manner as the teachers above.

Teacher lB.2 administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 28

students in it, and 25 students returned the permissions slips so as to be able to take the questionnaire.

Teacher 1B.3, again, using the same text and covering the same amount of material, calculated grades in the following manner: tests 33.3%; quizzes 33.3%; and








homework/participation 33.3%. There was little variance in how these grades were calculated compared to the other teachers in the study

Teacher 1B.3 administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 32 students in it, and 29 students returned the permission slips. School IC

At this school there was only one teacher that participated in the study. This teacher had all Spanish I classes. The text used was Spanish for mastery. This teacher covered more material than the other teachers. Although he did not go through the book in an orderly fashion, he said that most of the material in the text was covered. Therefore, these students, in addition to what was covered at the above two schools, were required to learn more vocabulary. Also, students were introduced to the preterit tense.

This teacher at school IC calculated his grades in the following manner: tests

20%; quizzes 35%; homework 20%; and participation 25%. Although test covered more that the above teachers (due to covering more material in the class), homework and participation were calculated in a similar fashion.

The teacher at school 1 C gave questionnaires to all of his students. There were a total of 115 students given permission slips, and 31 returned them. Summary

It can be argued that the weakest part of this study is the idea that grades from one school to the next indicate the same level of achievement. The above section attempts to deflate that argument by demonstrating that the commonalities among the teachers and schools are by far much greater than the differences. The teachers cover approximately the same amount of material. Also, the calculations of grades are very








similar: tests and quizzes make up 50-60% of the students grades; homework 20-30%; and participation 15-25%. The variations between grades and material covered are not great enough to warrant the claim that an A from school IA is vastly different than an A from school lB.

Data Collection

Approval for this tudy was obtained from my committee, the Internal Review

Board, the county office of the schools, and the principals from each school. I then met with the teachers from each school. I discussed the questionnaire, and what the study was investigating. I talked at length with each teacher about his/her grading policy. I discussed the texts that were used, and how much material was covered in each class. I explained to the teachers that they would first have to give the students a permission slip that had to be signed by a parent; if the slip was not signed and returned, the student could not take the questionnaire. Once the slips were returned, the teacher administered the questionnaire. The teachers were left with enough permission slips, scan-trons, and questionnaires for all of their students. The teachers administered the questionnaire, and I returned to the schools to collect the material. This process, from committee meeting to collection of material, took about six weeks.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire used in this study has four sections: anxiety, motivation, selfconfidence, and output. What follows is a detailed description of each section, and how each section was developed. The first six questions of the questionnaire separates the subjects by foreign language class, gender, grade, and class average. These areas will








provide additional information about how the relationship between grades and the two theories might vary from gender, grade, and foreign language class. Anxiety Measure

The anxiety measure of the questionnaire is found in questions 7-39. The questions in this section address one area of Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis. Specifically, it addresses the issue of anxiety: if anxiety is high, the affective filter is high and input is not able to reach the Language Acquisition Device. Hence, language acquisition is not possible.

This section of the questionnaire is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horowitz, Horowitz, & Cope, 1986). In Chapter 2, I discussed how it was developed and other aspects of the test. I chose to use this test because of its internal reliability and item-total scale correlation: alpha coefficient of .93, and a test-retest reliability over eight weeks of r=. 83. Also, the questions address anxiety in the following areas: communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. In addition, Horowitz, et al. surveyed students in an effort to narrow the questions to the most common emotions of foreign language students. Motivation Measure

The section of the questionnaire that addresses motivation is in questions 40-51. The questions were taken from Harter (1981) and her work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Her research is based on the work by Deci (see Chapter 2). The original questions she used were in a format where students were given statements and boxes to check labeled "really true for me" and "sort of true for me." She used this format because she argued that it provided students with the opportunity to answer questions








without being susceptible to the effect of socially desirable responses. I have altered the format to follow the original design of this study (strongly disagree to strongly agree). When Harter (1981) referred to socially desirable responses, she was concerned with true and false questions. Harter explains her reasoning for her format below:

The effectiveness of this question format lies in the implication that half
of the children in the world (or in one's reference group) view themselves
in one way, whereas the other half view themselves in the opposite
manner. That is, this type of question legitimizes either choice. The
option of checking "sort of true for me" or "really true for me" broadens
the range of choices over the typical two-choice format. In addition, none
of the choices involve the responsefalse. Rather, the child must decide
which of the options is most true for him or her. (p. 302)

Therefore, by avoiding a true/false format, I will also avoid the rigidity associated with such test. Subjects will also have a broad choice of responses that will enable them to choose a response that best describes their feelings about an area.

Harter divided the intrinsic/extrinsic construct into five different subscale dimensions (see Table 3-10). These subscales address the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of motivation. Harter originally created 30 questions (six for each subscale); only a sample was given in the 1981 article. I used the 10 questions from the sample to compose the section of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. In order to keep this questionnaire as brief as possible (students should be able to complete the questionnaire within the 50 minute period of class), the other 20 questions were omitted.

Harter (1982), in her pilot study of the questionnaire, found the test to be valid and reliable. She also stated that with standard deviations of less than 1.0 that the test had no ceiling or floor effects. Using a reliability coefficient, the range was from .54 to .84.








Table 3-10. Harter's intrinsic vs extrinsic orientation in the classroom.


Subscale Dimension Intrinsic Pole Extrinsic Pole Preference for challenge Does the child like hard, Does the child like easier vs. challenging work? assignments and subjects? Preference for easy work
Curiosity/interest Does child work to satisfy Does child do schoolwork to vs. own interest and curiosity? satisfy teacher, get marks Pleasing teacher/grades and grades? Independent mastery Does child prefer to work, Does child rely on teacher vs. figure out problems on his/ for help and guidance,
Dependence on teacher her own? particularly when figuring out problems and
assignments?
Independent judgment Does child feel capable of Is child primarily dependent vs. making judgments about on teacher's opinion and
Reliance on teacher's what to do? judgment about what to do? judgment
Internal criteria Does child know when Is child dependent on vs. she/he has succeeded/failed external sources of
External criteria on assignments or tests? evaluation (e.g., teacher feedback, grades, marks)?


Self-confidence Measure

The self-confidence section of the questionnaire is contained in questions 62-120.

The questions in this questionnaire are taken verbatim from the Self-Esteem Inventory

(SEI) developed by Coopersmith. This questionnaire was located in Measures of

personality and social psychological attitudes, edited by Robinson, Shaver, and

Wrightsman.

The original study that used this test involved 87 fifth and sixth grade boys and

girls in a public school in Connecticut. Subsequent studies revealed the following

results: a split-half reliability of.90; a Cronbach a of.83 and .75 (two different








testings); test-retest correlations of .88 (a 5 week period) and .70 (over 3 years); and "Demo (1985) found the 25-item version to correlate .44 with 'beeper' self-reports of self-esteem, .55 with the Rosenberg Scale, .41 with peer ratings, .33 with observer Qsorts of self-esteem, and .50 with a self-esteem interview" (Blascovich & Tomaka, p. 128).

The SEI in this study has been altered from the original. The original questions are used; however, the possible responses were changed from "like me" and "unlike me" to "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."

Output Measure

Questions that address if students are engaging in output are numbers 53-60. These questions will determine if the students were engaging in output as described by the author of the Output Hypothesis (Swain).

In Swain's 1993 article, she described four tenets of the Output Hypothesis (OH). The first tenet, meaningful practice while developing fluency is addressed in questions 52 and 53. The second tenet, moving from semantic processing to syntactic processing is found in questions 54-56. The third tenet, the testing of hypotheses, appears in questions 57 and 58. The fourth tenet, generating responses, is addressed in questions 59-61.

These questions will determine if the students are engaged in the four tenets of the OH. Since students have a choice of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," they do not simply have to answer "yes" or "no." They can judge their level of engagement and give responses that imply high or low levels of activity.








Statistical Analysis

The answers to the questions on the questionnaire were on Scan-tron sheets. The sheets were taken to the Office of Instructional Resources and scanned; the results were placed on a computer disk. Once I had the results of the questionnaire, they were used in conjunction with the SAS program available on University of Florida computer systems. A regression analysis was run to determine if there was a relationship between success and the variables of the two theories discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 contains the results of the analysis.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data is discussed at length in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a more detailed interpretation of the results of the data analysis.

Summary

This chapter covered many areas: the questionnaire, the setting, details of grades and the schools, and how the study was administered. The following chapter will address statistical analysis and what the questionnaire revealed. The final chapter will be a conclusion to the study and address among other issues, further areas of research.













CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This study investigated the relationship of success in the foreign language

classroom to variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The first theory, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, refers to motivation, anxiety, and selfconfidence. The second theory, the Output Hypothesis, refers to students engaging in communicative situations in the classroom. Both of these hypotheses were compared to the success students had in the foreign language classroom to determine if either of the hypotheses plays a role.

A questionnaire was given to students in three different schools in North-Central Florida to determine levels of motivation, self-confidence, anxiety, and if students were engaging in output. A general linear models procedure was performed on the data. What follows is a detailed explanation of the results of the analysis.

Results

There were a total of 189 questionnaires scanned. Of this total, 168 were usable for the data analysis. This was due to incomplete questionnaires and multiple marks in various item numbers. The two null hypotheses were tested individually using a general linear models procedure, or often referred to as a regression analysis.

Hypothesis 1: Grades and variables of the Affective Filter are not related.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis refers to three areas: motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence. These three areas were covered on the questionnaire. The regression analysis (see Table 4-1) did not show a significant relationship between grades and








motivation and self-confidence. Motivation and self-confidence had a probability factor greater than 0.05. However, anxiety was significant. The probability factor for anxiety was less than 0.05, and therefore, demonstrated a relationship. Table 4-1. Regressions analysis to test the relationship between success and the sources. Source df Parameter Est. Probability Anxiety 1 -2.74 0.0067 Motivation 1 -1.07 0.2873 Self-Conf. 1 0.24 0.8069 Output 1 1.40 0.1623


Although motivation and self-confidence did not show a significant relationship, the null hypothesis was rejected. Anxiety did show a significant relationship, and therefore, is sufficient reason to reject the null hypothesis.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis has proven itself to affect how well a student will perform in the foreign language classroom. For this study, motivation and selfconfidence were not factors to be considered. However, anxiety did affect students' success in the foreign language classroom.

Hypothesis 2: Grades and variables of the Output Hypothesis are not related.

The regression analysis demonstrated that there was not a significant relationship between grades and the Output Hypothesis. The probability factor was greater the 0.05, and thus, indicated that if students engaged or did not engage in output, there was no relationship to grades. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Further analysis of the data showed that gender was not a significant factor in the analysis. The above analysis was taken from a reduced model because gender had no effect.








Additional Information

Gender

Of the students who took the questionnaire, 77 were male and 103 were female. Again, some students left this item blank on the questionnaire. Grade Level

The students in this study were in grades 9 through 12. Table 4-2 shows a distribution by grade level. Grades

The grade distribution was not even. Table 4-3 shows that the majority of students in the study were at the "B" range or higher.


Table 4-2. Grade level of students Grade No. of Students
9 108 10 44 11 27 12 2



Table 4-3. Grade distribution of the students Grade No. of Students A 68 B 74 C 28 D 4 F 4








Summary

The above analysis demonstrated that success in the foreign language classroom was not affected by variables of the Output Hypothesis. Success, defined as high grades in the classroom, was not affected by the four tenets of the Output Hypothesis as described by Swain. However, variables of the Affective Filter Hypothesis did show an effect. Although not all of the areas of the Affective Filter Hypothesis affected success, the one area of anxiety did have an effect, and thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A thorough explanation of the implications of the above findings will be discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 will not only discuss the findings, but will also list areas of further research as it relates to the findings of this study.













CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Introduction

The previous four chapters introduced the study, discussed the pertinent literature, detailed the design of the study, and reported the statistical analysis. This chapter will discuss fully the implications of the data analysis. Also, areas of future research will be addressed. Chapter 5 is divided into the following sections: an introduction, discussion of the Affective Filter Hypothesis, discussion of the Output Hypothesis, further research, and a conclusion.

This study analyzed student success in the foreign language classroom in relation to variables of two theories in second language acquisition. Success, as defined in Chapter 1, refers to students receiving high grades. As stated before, students who receive A's and B's in a class are considered to be successful. The purpose was to determine if variables of the two theories were related to success in the foreign language classroom. The levels of anxiety, motivation, selfconfidence, and output were measured with a questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to students at the end of the school year. The teacher in each class collected permission slips and then administered the questionnaire.

The design of the study employed a regression analysis to determine if there existed a relationship between the two theories and success in the foreign








language classroom. The two null hypotheses were tested and only one of the hypotheses was rejected, the Affective Filter Hypothesis.

As stated in Chapter 3, there were originally six teachers that participated in this study. The teachers were in three different schools. One of the teachers decided that participation was impossible, therefore, leaving five teachers in three schools. Of the five teachers that participated, there were 326 students in the classes. All of these students were given permission slips and given ample time to return them. Out of the 326 students, 181 students returned the permission slips, and thus, 181 students took the questionnaire. This represents a return rate of 56%. However, due to erroneous marks on the questionnaire and non-native English speakers, only 169 scan-tron sheets were used.

The Affective Filter

As stated in previous chapters, the Affective Filter Hypothesis states that when anxiety is high, motivation is low, and self-confidence is low, students will be unable to acquire language. The questionnaire contains sections that measure all of the three attributes of the Affective Filter Hypothesis. As stated in Chapter 4, motivation and self-confidence were not related to success. However, anxiety did show a relationship. There is a connection between anxiety and grades. The level of anxiety in a classroom can affect the grades of a student; as anxiety levels increase, grades decrease. The other areas of the Affective Filter Hypothesis showed no effect on grades. Although only one area of the Affective Filter Hypothesis demonstrated an effect, the null hypothesis was rejected.






60

Since motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety are not directly related, it is conceivable that one area could have an effect and the others not. It is possible for a highly motivated, self-confident person to experience anxiety. Therefore, for the participants in this study, motivation was not a factor in determining success, nor was self-confidence. Only anxiety was a factor that affected the grades of the students.

The results of this study do not attempt to diminish the importance of the Affective Filter Hypothesis. These results imply that motivation and selfconfidence need to be addressed more fully to understand how these two areas affect the foreign language learner. Anxiety, however, did show a relationship to grades. Thus, in order for grades in the foreign language classroom to improve, it will be necessary to lower the levels of anxiety a student might experience.

The Output Hypothesis

The Output Hypothesis states that when students engage in meaningful communication, they acquire language; input is not sufficient. In this study, the Output variables showed no relationship to grades. That is to say that the four tenets of the Output Hypothesis, language production, learning from language production, hypothesis testing, and feedback, do not affect the students' grades or level of success in the foreign language classroom. It would appear that when students engage in output, the level of success in the foreign language classroom is not affected.

Again, this does not mean to imply that the benefits of output in the foreign language classroom will have no effect on language acquisition. The






61

only interpretation from this study is that grades are not impacted by output in the foreign language classroom. As with the Affective Filter, it would appear that grades are not indicators of acquisition.

Discussion

Although only one of the null hypotheses was rejected in this study, the importance of these two hypotheses in second language acquisition should not be disregarded. The students in this study demonstrated that although output, motivation, and self-confidence did not affect their grades, there could be other factors not accounted for that did. This study only demonstrated if there was or was not a relationship between grades and the Affective Filter variables and the Output variables. No cause for the existence or non-existence of a relationship was stated or implied.

One conclusion that might be made is that grades and language

acquisition are not related. It is possible that success in the foreign language classroom is not an indicator of language acquisition. Maybe the tests, quizzes, and participation grades do not reflect acquisition as defined by Krashen. Perhaps the grading policies of the teachers in the study only reflect the students' ability to succeed on a numerical scale that was established by teachers; this scale (grading scale) probably does not measure language acquisition, but rather the ability of a student to take a test or memorize vocabulary lists and grammatical paradigms. It would appear that the A and D/F students, while significantly different for the teachers' measures, are not different for this study with respect to language acquisition.






62

Another conclusion related to the one above might be that output is not an indicator of success as well. Perhaps the students' output is not a reflection of their grades. According to Swain, when students engage in output, several processes take place that enable the student to acquire a second language. Therefore, perhaps grades in these classrooms do not reflect language acquisition.

Also, although difficult to imagine, motivation and self-confidence are not related to grades either. In Chapter 2, there is a discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The understanding was that when students are intrinsically motivated, they perform better. However, the results showed that there was not a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and success. Possibly students were not provided the necessary levels of self-determination and freedom from controls and punishment to achieve adequate levels of intrinsic motivation. Possibly, the more intrinsically motivated students have better learning strategies than the other students, but this is not reflected in their grades. Also, it is possible that the performance indicators do not adequately capture the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Several different performance indicators would show a different profile of the students and their various levels and degrees of motivation. As for self-confidence, the results are counter intuitive. It is difficult to imagine that self-confidence has no role in success. Conceivably, as with motivation, the performance indicators did not capture and accurate profile of the students with regards to their levels of selfconfidence.






63

Anxiety was the only area of the analysis that is supported by the research discussed in Chapter 2. The analysis revealed that as students' levels of anxiety increased, their grades decreased. Not only is this finding in agreement with other research, it is logical: as students became more anxious in the foreign language classroom, their grades went down.

Further Research

As stated before, this study only investigated if there was a relationship between success in the foreign language classroom and variables of the two theories in second language acquisition. This study found a relationship for only one of the variables, anxiety, as described by the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Therefore, the following areas should be further examined to understand what effects the two theories have on students' success:

1. How are tests designed in the foreign language classroom, and what do they actually measure. Tests currently in use in most foreign language classrooms might only test memorization of vocabulary and simple grammatical paradigms.

2. How motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and output affect success in the foreign language classroom. Do these constructs affect performance and if so, how?

3. How the social environment of the classroom affects the two theories discussed in this study. Does the interaction between students and teachers (as well as among students) affect the constructs of anxiety, motivation, self-








confidence, and output? And if these various forms of interaction do affect the success of a student, how?

4. Are the output activities similar to test activities? If students are

permitted to engage in communicative activities, sections of the tests and quizzes should be similar. It seems that it would not be appropriate to have students acquire language through communicative activities, and then rate their success not on their ability to communicate but rather their ability to perform on a standardized test.

5. What can teachers do in the foreign language classroom to reduce the levels of anxiety among students. Also, how can teachers recognize anxiety in the students and at what level.

6. The research on intrinsic motivation is substantial. More research on intrinsic motivation in the foreign language classroom needs to be addressed.

7. The students' self-confidence in the foreign language classroom needs to examined more closely. Which classroom activities foster self-confidence and which ones do not?

8. Do grades reflect acquisition? A qualitative study on acquisition in the classroom and how it is measured for purposes of grading should be conducted.

9. How do acquisition and learning apply to other fields? Should these concepts be applied to other fields in education? And if so, what would be the application?








Conclusion

This study examined variables from two theories in second language acquisition and how they relate to success in the foreign language classroom. The two theories were the Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Output Hypothesis. According to the data analysis, the Output Hypothesis variables showed no effect on grades. Only one variable of the Affective Filter Hypothesis, anxiety, proved to have a effect on grades. As stated before, these conclusions do not attempt to diminish the significance of the two theories. There are additional studies that show that affective variables and output variables significantly improve a student's ability to communicate in the target language. The salient conclusion for this study is that although grades may be an indicator of success in an academic setting, they are not an indicator of acquisition. Further studies on grading and acquisition need to be performed.














APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What foreign language class are you enrolled in?

A) Spanish B) French C) German

2. In what year of foreign language study are you?

A) 1st B) 2nd C) 3rd D) 4th E) 5th

3. Is English your native language?

A) yes B) no

4. What grade are you in?

A) 8th B) 9th C) 10th D) 1 th E) 12th

5. What is your sex?

A) Male B) Female

6. What is your current grade in this class?

A) A B) B C) C D) D E) F For the following statements, use the guide below:

A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

7. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my foreign language class.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

8. I don't worry about making mistakes in the language class.

9. I tremble when I know that I'm going to be called on in language class. 10. It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language class.

11. It wouldn't bother me at all to take more foreign language classes. 12. During language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course.

13. I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am. 14. I am usually at ease during tests in my foreign language class. 15. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in language class. 16. I worry about the consequences of failing my foreign language class. 17. I don't understand why some people get so upset over foreign language classes.

18. In language class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. 19. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my language class. 20. I would not be nervous speaking the foreign language with native speakers. 21. I get upset when I don't understand what the teacher is correcting. 22. Even if I am well prepared for language class, I feel anxious about it. 23. I often feel like not going to my language class. 24. I feel confident when I speak in foreign language class. 25. I am afraid that my language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

26. I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on. 27. The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get. 28. I don't feel pressure to prepare very well for language class. 29. I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do.

30. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the foreign language in front of other students.

31. Language class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind. 32. I feel more tense and nervous in my language class than in my other classes. 33. I get nervous when I don't understand every word the language teacher says. 34. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak a foreign language.

35. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the foreign language.

36. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of the foreign language.

37. I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I haven't prepared in advance.

38. When I am on my way to language class, I feel very sure and relaxed. 39. I get nervous when I don't understand every word the language teacher says. 40. I like new and challenging material. 41. The foreign language class is too demanding, and the challenges are beyond me.

42. I study because I am curious about how the foreign language "works."








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree


43 I study to get good grades and teacher approval. 44. Foreign languages are interesting to me. 45. I am only taking this class to fulfill a requirement. 46. I prefer to figure out homework assignments on my own. 47. I prefer that the teacher help me with homework assignments. 48. I know when I have succeeded or failed on assignments before I get results from the teacher.

49. I only know the results of test or homework assignments when I get them back from the teacher.

50. I often know what to do in class (assignments, activities, etc.). 51. I need the teacher to tell me what to do and how to do it (assignments, activities, etc.).

52. I often get to speak in the foreign language class. 53. I get to express verbally and in written form what I know in the foreign language.

54. When I speak or write in the foreign language, I know when I make a mistake.

55. Sometimes when I speak or write in the foreign language, and I realize i make a mistake, I know how to correct the mistake. 56. I learn best when I speak or write in the foreign language. 57. When I am not sure how to state something in the foreign language, I try the best I can.

58. I use what information I have to express an idea or answer a question in the foreign language.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree


59. The teacher's responses to what I say in the foreign language help me better my foreign language skills. 60. When I speak in the foreign language, the teacher responds in the foreign language.

61. I review corrected written assignments. 62. I spend a lot of time daydreaming. 63. I'm pretty sure of myself 64. I often with I were someone else. 65. I'm easy to like. 66. My parents and I have a lot of fun together. 67. I never worry about anything. 68. I find it very hard to talk in front of the class. 69. I wish I were younger. 70. There are lots of things about myself Id change if I could. 71, I can make up my mind without much trouble. 72. I'm a lot of fun to be with. 73. I get upset easily at home. 74. I always do the right thing. 75. I'm proud of my school work.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

76. Someone always has to tell me what to do. 77. It takes me a long time to get used to anything new. 78. I'm often sorry for the things I do. 79. I'm popular with kids my own age. 80. My parents usually consider my feelings. 81. I'm never unhappy. 82. I'm doing the best work that I can. 83. I give in very easily. 84. I can usually take care of myself 85. I'm pretty happy. 86. I would rather play with children younger than me. 87. My parents expect too much of me. 88. I like everyone I know. 89. I like to be called on in class. 90. I understand myself 91. It's pretty tough to be me. 92 Things are all mixed up in my life. 93. Kids usually follow my ideas. 94. No one pays much attention to me at home.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

95. I never get scolded. 96. I'm doing as well in school as I'd like to. 97. I can make up my mind and stick to it. 98. I really don't like being a boy/girl. 99. I have a low opinion of myself 100. I don't like to be with other people. 101. There are many times when I'd like to leave home. 102. I'm never shy. 103. I often feel upset in school. 104. I often feel ashamed of myself 105. I'm not as nice looking as most people. 106. If I have something to say, I usually say it. 107. Kids pick on me very often. 108. My parents understand me. 109. I always tell the truth. 110. My teacher makes me feel I'm not good enough. 111. I don't care what happens to me. 112. I'm a failure. 113, I get upset easily when I'm scolded.








A) Strongly agree
B) Agree
C) Neither agree nor disagree
D) Disagree
E) Strongly disagree

114. Most people are better liked than I am. 115. I usually feel as if my parents are pushing me. 116. I usually feel as if my parents are pushing me. 117. I always know what to say to people. 118. I often get discouraged in school. 119. Things usually don't bother me. 120. 1 can't be depended on.














APPENDIX B
SAMPLE QUIZZES AND TESTS This appendix gives a sample of the quizzes that were used by the
teachers in this study. The selections below were taken from various quizzes that were given throughout the school year. This is meant to give an idea of how the teachers tested the students' knowledge.


Teacher IA. 1 This is a sample of a quiz this teacher gave to Spanish 2 students. I. Fill in each blank with the correct preterit form of the verb in parentheses.

1. Felipe y yo (comer) a las siete.

2. *Ya ti (recibir) la carta?

3. LCuando (subir) Ud. al quinto piso?

4. Uds. (prometer) mandar los discos.

5. Yo (correr) demasiado ayer.

6. Ellos (decidir) no comprar el coche. II. Complete the dialogue below by filling in each blank with the correct word from the word bank.

a pr6ximo no de

1. qu es? Parece de seda. Y es muy caro.

2. importa. Lo llevo.

3. _ _ quin le compras un regalo tan caro? 4. El lunes es el compleafios de mama.








Teacher IB 1;2:3 These teachers often used the same tests. Below is a sample from this school. I. Contintia las conjugaciones.

1. Yo (to look for)

2. Vosotros (to punish)3. Tu (to carry)

4. Ellas (to enter)

5. Uds. (to complete) II. Translate.

1. I look for him.

2. We carry it (the table).

3. They need them (the pens).

4. I invite you (pl. m.). III. Mark the following statements True of False.

1. Muchos de los hispanohablantes que viven en NY vienen de Puerto Rico.
2. San Juan es la capital de Cuba.
3. Caracas es la capital de Venezuela.
4. En los paises hispanos, la familia es muy unida. IV. Give the meaning of the following Spanish words.

1. el arbol 2. mandar 3. el gato
4. segundo
5. menor
6. a menudo
7. decir









Teacher 1C. 1

I. Choose the correct answer.

1. La leche es una a) banana b) bebida c) fresa d) papa

2. Una hormiga es un a) cr6dito b) curso c) insecto d) mosquito e) pico

3. Un hombre se afeita la a) uva b) sal c) mostasa d) ceja e) barba


II. Translate.

1. a residence hall

2. an interviewer

3. the boss

4. the saleswoman













APPENDIX C
THE PERMISSION SLIP

May 6, 1996

Dear Parent:

My name is Victor McGlone, and I am a graduate student a the University of Florida in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum. As part of my doctoral research, I need to gather information on foreign language acquisition. I will need to administer a questionnaire, and I am asking your permission for your child's participation.

The questionnaire will take approximately 45 minutes to complete and will take place during your child's foreign language class. The questionnaire addresses three areas in the foreign language classroom: 1) attitude, 2) motivation, and 3) self-confidence. Your child may choose not to answer any question or may choose not to complete the questionnaire at all. Also, you or your child has the right to withdraw permission for participation at any time without any penalty. Students choosing not to participate during the questionnaire may remain in the class and read or study a lesson of his/her choosing. Your child's foreign language teacher has agreed to administer the questionnaire. Your child's participation or refusal to participate will NOT affect your child's grade in any way.

There will be no risks or discomforts to the students involved in the study. Benefits gained from the study may improve techniques in foreign language acquisition/learning. Also, the questionnaire does not ask for names of the participants; therefore, individual results will be anonymous. There will be no compensation for the participants.

Any further questions can be addressed to me at the address/phone number above. Questions or concerns about the research participants' rights can be directed to the UFIRB Office, PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250

I have read the described procedure above. I voluntarily agree to allow my child, ., to participate in Mr. McGlone's questionnaire study, and I have received a copy of this description.


Parent/Guardian Date



2nd Parent/Witness Date













BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horowitz, Horowitz, and Cope's construct of foreign
language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modem Language
Journal, 78, 155-167.

Blascovich, J. & J. Tomaka. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (pp. 115-119). San Diego, CA: Academis Press.

Brown, H.D., Yorio, C.A., & Crymes, R.H. (Eds.). (1977). Teaching and learning English
as a second language: Trends in research and practice. Washington, DC: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard Press. Bruner, J.S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finicchiaro, M. (Eds.). (1977). Viewpoints on English as a second
language. New York: Regents Publishing Company.

Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1974). Global and local mistakes. In J.H. Schumann & N.
Stenson (Eds.) (pp. 71-80), New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1, 1-47.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

-. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton and Company. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R.W. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda.
Language Learning 41, 469-512.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.








Deci, E.D., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in Human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Demo, D.H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 48, 1490-1502.

de Villiers, P. & de Villiers, J. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the of the acquisition of
grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.2, 267278.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modem Language Journal.78, 273-284.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.
Lanugage Learning, 24, 37-53.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt,
H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language
(pp. 95-126). New York: Regents.

Dweck, C.S., &Elliot, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (Vol 4) (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Edwards, A.L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories.
NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.

Ervin-Trip, S. (1973). Some strategies for the first and second years. In A. Dil (Ed.),
Language acquisition and communicative choice (pp. 204-238). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Fabris, M. (1978). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly. 8, 482.

Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

-----, Smythe, P. C., Clement, R., & Glicksman, L. (1976). Second language learning: A
social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32,198-213.








Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics. 5, 79-100.

Guiora, A. (Ed.) (1984). An epistemology for the language sciences. Detroit, MI:
University of Michigan.

Guralink, David B. (Ed.). (1976). New world dictionary. Cleveland, OH: The World
Publishing.

Harter, Susan. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in
the classroom: motivational and informational components. Developmental
Psychology 17, 300-312.

Harter, S., & Connell, J.P. (1984). A comparison of alternative models of the
relationships between academic achievement and children's preceptions of
competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The
development of achievement-related cognitions and behaviors. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.),
Second language acquisition (pp.401-435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hopkins, W. (1992). The acquisition of foreign languages as a national priority for
America. Foreign Language Annals,25,147-154.

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

Kessler, C. & Idlar, 1. (1977). The acquisition of English syntactic structures by a
Vietnamese child. Paper presented at the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition
Forum, UCLA.

Kleinmuntz, B. (1977). Personality measurement. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon Press.

-. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. & Pon, P. (1975). An error analysis of an advanced ESL learner. Working
Papers on Bilingualism. 7, 125-129.








Krashen, S., Scarcella, R.C., & Long, M.H. (Eds.). (1992). Child-adult differences in
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Makino, T. (1980). Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese adolescents.
Tokyo: Shinozaki Press.

McAlpine, D., Ervin, B.L., & Ging, D. (Eds.). (1989). Defining the essentials for the
foreign language classroom. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London: Allen and
Unwin.

Munsell, P., & Carr, T.H. (1981). Monitoring the monitor: A review of second language
acquisition and second language learning. Language Learning, 31, 493-502.

Omaggio, A.C. (1986). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.

Oppenheim, A.N (1992). Questionnaire design. interviewing and attitude measurement.
London, England: Pinter Publishers.

Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal78,12-28.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as
an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language
proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp.
45-141). Adelaide, New South Wales: National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Rivers, W. (1979). Foreign language acquisition: Where the real problems lie. Applied
Linguistics. 1, 48-57.

Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Deci, E.L., (1985). A motivational analysis of selfdetermination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R.E. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education: the classroom milieu. New York: Academic
Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in
its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Maden (Eds.), Input in second language
acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers

-. (1974). French immersion programs across Canada: research findings. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 117-129.








- (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The
Canadian Modem Language Review. 50, 158-64.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,16, 371-391.

Taylor, J.B., & Reitz, W. E. (1968). The three faces of self-esteem. (Res. Bull. No. 80).
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.

Thomas,, J. (1980). Agency and achievement: self-management and self-regard. Review
of Educational Research,50, 213-240.

Van Tuinen, M. & N V. Rananaiah. (1979). A multimethod analysis of selected selfesteem measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 16-24.

Yorio, C. (1978). Confessions of a second language speaker/learner. Paper presented at
12th annual TESOL convention, Mexico City, April 1978.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jon Victor McGlone was born in Huntington, West Virginia, on June 17, 1960. He grew up in Columbus, Ohio, and South Florida. He graduated from Marshall University in 1983 with a B.A. in Spanish. He attended graduate school at The Ohio State University and the University of Florida. All other graduate degrees were awarded at the University of Florida: M.A., 1988, Spanish literature; Ed.S., 1991, foreign language education; Ph.D., 1996, foreign language education.

Victor McGlone has taught as a graduate teaching associate at The Ohio State

University and at the University of Florida and was also a teacher in Clay County Schools. He was also awarded a U.S. Department of Education Bilingual Fellowship in 1995.








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



emens L. Hallman, Chair
Professor of Instruction and Curriculum



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



M. David Miller
Associate Professor of
Foundations of Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




gene A. Todd
Professor of Instruction and Curriculum


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Danling Fu
Assistant Professor of Instruction and Curriculum








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


Arthur J. Nvman
Professor of Foundations of Education



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


August 1996 "(7 % eui7


Dean, Graduate School




Full Text

PAGE 1

A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORffiS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION TO SUCCESS IN HIGH SCHOOL SPANISH CLASSES BY JON VICTOR MCGLONE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES

PAGE 2

This is dedicated to my family and friends without whose help I could not have accomplished this task.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support provided by Dr. Clemens L. Hallman. I wish to thank him for his classes and his support throughout my studies in education. I wish to also thank Dr. David Miller for his support throughout the data analysis of this study; Dr. Miller's expertise in statistics proved invaluable. Also, special thanks go to Dr. Eugene Todd for his guidance and encouragement that helped keep me on track. In addition, I want to thank Dr. Danling Fu for her encouragement and support during my final year at the University of Florida. She created an atmosphere of warmth and friendship whenever I required her assistance. Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Newman for his assistance in the completion of this study. There were many people at the university who helped me accomplish my academic goals besides the members of my committee. Two people immediately come to mind, Jo Johnson and Cherry Douglas. Ms. Johnson was always willing to assist me with necessary paperwork. She was also most helpful in making appointments to see Dr. Hallman. Cherry Douglas, always pleasant and ready with a warm greeting, made all the paperwork for the department an easy process. I also want to thank the teachers and students who participated in this study. Without their help and patience, this study would not have been possible. The county office was also expedient in contacting teachers and principals. This expedience made the completion of this study possible before the Fall semester. iii

PAGE 4

A special acknowledgement goes to Dr. Richard Donato at the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Donato was always available to help me with any problem I had during the developing and writing stages of the dissertation. He has become a mentor and a friend. I look forward to a long and rewarding career that owes a debt to Dr. Donato! And I could never forget the encouragement that Dr. Frank Brooks continually gave me. Through e-mail and phone calls, he always encouraged me to continue and never give up. Finally, to my family I give my thanks. My mother and father always supported me in all my efforts. Their support has been in the form of encouragement, support, financial, and love. And to my grandmother, Toodle, for making my undergraduate studies so easy; if she had not provided me with a home, love, and support, I would not be where I am today. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS pa ge ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "i LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT viu CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 Two Theories in Second Language Acquisition 1 Why These Two Theories? 3 Statement of the Problem 4 Grades 5 Significance of the Study 6 Hypotheses 8 Methodology 9 Delimitations 11 Limitations 12 Definition of Terms 12 Conclusion 13 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14 Theories in Second Language Acquisition 14 Swain's Output Analysis 23 The Questionnaire 28 Krashen's AFH 28 Swain's Output Hypothesis 35 Conclusion 35 3 METHODOLOGY 37 Introduction 37 The Setting 37 V

PAGE 6

"1 1 The Teachers and Grading . Data Collection Instrumentation Statistical Analysis Data Analysis Summary 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Results Additional Information Summary 5 CONCLUSION 58 Introduction 58 The Affective Filter 59 The Output Hypothesis 60 Discussion 61 Further Research 63 Conclusion 65 APPENDICES A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 66 B SAMPLE QUIZZES AND TESTS 74 C THE PERNDSSION SLIP 77 REFERENCES 78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 83 44 48 48 53 53 53 54 56 57 VI

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Grade 10 Assessment Test-School lA. Percentage of students scoring above national median score 38 3-2 HSCT-School lA. 1 1th graders who passed the state test 39 3-3 Expenditures and average class sizes 39 3-4 Enrollment—all students—all year. School 1 A 40 3-5 Grade 10 Assessment Test— School IB. Percentage of students scoring above national median score 41 3-6 HSCT-School IB. 1 1th graders who passed the state test 41 3-7 Enrollment— all students— all year. School IB 42 3-8 SAT and ACT scores for school IC 43 3-9 Enrollment-all students-all year. School IC 44 310 Barter's intrinsic vs extrinsic orientation in the classroom 51 41 Regressions analysis to test the relationship between sucess and the sources 55 4-2 Grade Level of students 56 4-3 Grade distribution of the students 56 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION TO SUCCESS IN HIGH SCHOOL SPANISH CLASSES By Jon Victor McGlone August 1996 Chairman: Clemens L. Hallman Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum This study was conducted to determine if there is any relationship between the variables of two theories in second language acquisition, The Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Output Hypothesis, and students' success in the foreign language classroom. Success for this study was based on the yearly average (A, B, C, etc.) a student had in the class. A multiple choice questionnaire was developed to measure levels of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem (three tenets of the Affective Filter Hypothesis). Also, parts of the questionnaire assessed whether students were engaging in output, as defined by Swain, in the classroom. There were 168 students who participated in the study. The teachers gave the students the questionnaire in class during the fourth quarter of the school year. viii

PAGE 9

To determine if the variables of the two theories had a effect on success, a regression analysis was run. The results indicated that there was a significant relationship between one of the variables of the Affective Filter Hypothesis and students' success. However, the variables of the Output Hypothesis demonstrated no significant effect on success. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The two theories that were used in this study are Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. In order to determine the presence of the variables of the two theories, a questionnaire was given to 326 senior high students in 6 different foreign language classroom in three different schools. Based on the students' responses, it was determined if and how the variables of the two hypotheses were present in the classroom. Once the variables of the two hypotheses were identified in the classroom, and at what level they appeared, a General Linear Models Procedure was be conducted to determine if the hypotheses were related to the grade of each individual student. This study identified any relationship between students' grades (individual class average) in the class and characteristics of the two theories discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. Two Theories in Second Language Acquisition This study determined if there was a relationship between the variables of the two theories and grades in a classroom setting. The variables of the two theories that were correlated with grades are Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. What follows is a brief summary of the two hypotheses. Chapter 2 will discuss the two theories in detail; this introduction is a brief description to orient the reader. 1

PAGE 11

2 Krashen's Affective Filter The Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH) addresses affective features in the language classroom. Krashen has related a student's attitude in the language classroom with the ability to acquire a language (This concept was originally discussed by Dulay and Burt, 1977). Thus, in order for a student to acquire a language, the affective fiher must be low. When the affective fiher is high, acquisition (see Definition of Terms at the end of this chapter) does not take place. In Krashen's studies (1981), he discovered three affective categories: (1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative'"). (2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition. (3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety. (Krashen, 1982, p. 31) The above three categories can inhibit acquisition by not letting comprehensible input reach the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (a section of the brain described by Chomsky where language is acquired). When the affective fiher is high, input is blocked from reaching the LAD, and acquisition cannot take place. Therefore, for a student to be successful in the foreign language classroom, motivation must be high, self-confidence must also be high, and anxiety must be low. The AFH will be developed even further in Chapter 2 to address issues that affect the senior high student population. ''Integrative' motivation refers to the desire to 'be like' speakers of the target language. In foreign language situations (e.g., studying French in Anglophone Canada, students with more integrative motivations are usually superior, especially over the long run (Krashen, 1982, p. 54).

PAGE 12

3 Swain's Output Hypothesis Swain (1985) developed her theory of the Output Hypothesis (OH) after having studied French immersion students in Canada. Since these students did not perform as well as had been expected. This caused her to question Krashen's hypothesis that comprehensible input was the only causal variable in second language acquisition, since the immersion students she was studying had been receiving comprehensible input for seven years. She concluded that input was not enough to promote grammatical development in a second language (Omaggio, p. 85). Swain continued by stating that the missing component in the Canadian immersion programs was output (Swain, 1985, p. 248). Swain (1985) believed that students needed to be "pushed" into conversation. Pushed implies a breakdown in communication, and the student must explain his/her intentions. When, for example, two students are communicating in a second language, and one student is unable to explain something in the target language, he/she must resort to alternative expressions to "get the idea across." This "negotiation of meaning" is the basis of the output hypothesis: the students are forced to communicate in the language the best way they know how. Why These Two Theories? Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis were chosen for two reasons. First, because they are two highly discussed hypotheses in the field of second language acquisition. The second reason for choosing these two hypotheses has to do with the researcher's interest in how output and affective factors affect success.

PAGE 13

Krashen's discussion of the Affective Filter is not as detailed as it should be. Chapter 2, Review of the Literature, discusses in more detail the concepts of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem. Current theories and research on these subjects will be addressed. Statement of the Problem This study was conducted to verify a relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The researcher sought to identify if there exists a relationship between grades and variables of the two hypotheses; Does a high or low AF result in higher or lower grades, and does the presence of output reflect higher or lower grades for the students. If there is a relationship between higher grades and variables of a low AF, then this will be evidence to support the claim that a low AF will result in better performance (acquisition as opposed to learning; see Definition of Terms at the end of this chapter) on the students' part. Also, a relationship between higher grades and the variables of the Output Hypothesis will demonstrate a need to investigate a causal link between higher grades and providing students with situations that allow them to use the target language. For this study, it was assumed that higher grades are indicative of high achievement. In order to determine if the students are experiencing a high or low AF, they were given a questionnaire to determine affective variables in the classroom (See Appendix A for the complete questionnaire). The students rated specific activities in relation to affective variables. This provided the researcher with the necessary information to determine motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety; all of these affective variables characterize the AFH.

PAGE 14

5 To detect if students were provided with opportunities to negotiate meaning in the target language, sections of the same questionnaire addressed this issue. Questions specifically addressed situations where students were involved in communicative activities where the process breaks down, and they are required to "get the message across" in the best way they can. Once the variables of the two theories were established in the classroom, a correlation was made between them and the students' grades. Data obtained from the questionnaire provided the following information: 1 . Did the student experience a high or low affective filter? 2. Did students use the target language in the classroom for meaningful communication? 3. The students' average in Spanish for the year. Grades For the purposes of this study, grades refer to the average a student has in a class based on several factors: participation, quiz average, test average, homework, class presentations, and any other variable the teachers use in averaging a student's grade. Chapter 3 will address how each teacher in the study calculated his/her students' grades. The construct of grades could be vague and inconsistent from school to school. How grades were calculated in each of the classrooms is discussed at length in Chapter 3. It is necessary to address this construct in order to establish validity for this study. This study assumed (based on information about the grading criteria in the schools in this study) that the difference between an A and a B (and so on) reflected the same standards

PAGE 15

6 from one school to the next. One does not feel that this is a gross misjudgment since most colleges and universities make the same assumptions about the quality of an A, a B, and so on, in setting admission standards and determining if a student is capable of successfully completing a program of study. Also, some would argue that a student who receives an A in a class has not demonstrated mastery of the subject, but rather an ability to successfully take a test. Again, this study is not to determine how effective assessment procedures are in the foreign language classroom; this study looks at variables of two theories in second language acquisition and how they relate to success in the foreign language classroom. Significance of the Study The significance of this study falls into three interrelated categories: (a) the current status of foreign language study in this country, (b) the relationship of success to students' affective influences, and (c) the relationship of success to students' afforded opportunities to communicate via negotiation of meaning. Too few students study foreign languages in this country, and those that do are rarely successfiil at communicating beyond their names and the weather. Why is this so? What is it about foreign language study that US students find unattractive? Hopkins (1992) states that "on the list of national priorities in this country, the acquisition of a foreign language by American students is very conspicuously, yet very definitely, absent" (p. 147). Hopkins continues describing this situation in an alarming fashion: "The world, it is often said, is growing smaller. Yet in our country, ignorance of foreign languages and of foreign cultures seems to be growing ever larger" (p. 148).

PAGE 16

7 Hopkins cites other statistics of foreign language study in this country: Only 8 percent of United States college students are studying a foreign language. Only one out of four US colleges requires its graduating students even to have studied a foreign language. The requirement is to have studied, not to have "achieved proficiency," or even a moderately profound comprehension. 356,000 students from other countries came to study in the United States in 1990. In that same year, only some 24,000 American students traveled abroad to study. The single country of Malaysia had more of its students studying abroad than did the United States of America. In 1990, students graduating from high school in Japan were required to have taken six years of instruction in English. No more than two one-hundredths of one percent of American high-schoolers received instruction in even the fundamentals of the Japanese language. The European Community has set a goal that clearly exhibits where its priorities lie. By the year 2000, every 16-year old student will be expected to speak two languages in addition to his or her own. (p. 148) What can be done in this country to improve students' understanding of other languages and cultures? This researcher believes that the first step is understanding what the students experience in the FL classroom, and how learning takes place. Once educators better understand how language is acquired, how motivation affects learning, and what teaching techniques provide students with the best results, language acquisition can improve. Hopefully, this study will provide insights into the acquisition process, and the teaching environment may improve so that the grim statistics cited above will change for the better. As stated previously, the affective filter must be low for input to reach the LAD. If input reaches the LAD, acquisition instead of learning takes place. According to Krashen, acquisition is preferable over learning if the student wishes to be able to communicate in the target language with little hindrance. Contrary to acquisition is learning: "... conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them" (Krashen, 1982, p. 10). Therefore,

PAGE 17

with a low AF, acquisition takes place, and the results are more adept language users. If the students are more adept at language usage, higher scores on tests and improved overall grade average in the target language class should be a result (success). Thus, if a low AF filter is present in the class, and grades are high, there would be impetus to promote a classroom environment that provides for high motivation, high self-esteem, and low anxiety. Also, if the Output Hypothesis is true, that when students are provided with opportunities to speak and negotiate meaning in the target language, language will be acquired, then students should perform with high success on tests of their ability. Therefore, by demonstrating a positive relationship between the variables of the Output Hypothesis and higher grades, more research in this area should be done in order to show a causal link between the two phenomena. Hypotheses Both Krashen and Swain state that their hypotheses are necessary to achieve acquisition in the target language. If acquisition is the goal of the class, and acquisition results in improved performance, student success should improve in direct proportion to increased output and low affective filter. To test these hypotheses, a design was established to identify a relationship between grades and variables of the AFH and the OH. In order to test for statistical significance, the following null hypotheses were stated: 1 . Grades and variables of the affective filter are not related. 2. Grades and variables of the OH are not related.

PAGE 18

9 Methodology This study entailed six major steps: (a) Designing the questionnaire, (b) Gaining entry, (c) Discussion of grading procedures, (d) Administering the questionnaire, (e) Statistical analysis, and (f) Data analysis and discussion. A detailed account of the methodology is in Chapter 3. The Questionnaire The design of the questionnaire (see Appendix A for the complete questionnaire) encompasses four areas. The first area established ethnic background, language background, age, and sex. The most significant question in this area is that of language background. If the language class in which the student is enrolled is not a foreign language for that person, s/he will be excluded from the study. Since this study addresses issues in the foreign language classroom, a student studying his/her native language would yield data that is not pertinent for this study. The other area of ethnicity, age, and sex will provide other avenues of analysis. The second area of the questionnaire deals with grade level (9th, 10th, etc.) and grade average (A, B, C, etc.) in the class. The class average is significant because this study will show a relationship between class average and variables of the two theories discussed earlier. Again, grade level will enable the research to address other possible correlations between the variables and grade level. The final two areas of the questionnaire address the two theories. Affective Filter Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis. This section of the questionnaire will establish how and if characteristics of each theory are present in the classroom.

PAGE 19

10 This questionnaire was developed after reading about the two theories and outlining characteristics of each. Also, three other questionnaires (detailed in Chapter 3) that deal with motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem were consulted to help form a questionnaire for this study. Gaining Entry The schools were chosen for their proximity to the researcher's university, and their students' diverse ethnic/socio-economic backgrounds. The county that was used in this study required that the researcher complete a form that outlined the project. Also, I had to attach a copy of the questionnaire and the permission letter that parents had to sign. After I submitted the form, the county office contacted the principal of each school and sent him/her a copy of the form, the questionnaire, and the permission slip. An administrator from each school then contacted me to inform me that permission had been given for me to administer the questionnaire in their schools. I was given the names of the teachers willing to participate, and told to talk with them and set up a meeting. I talked to the teachers, set up a meeting, and discussed with them the questionnaire and what was expected of them. They agreed to administer the questionnaire, and they told me they would contact me after the questionnaires had been completed. Teachers' Grading Policies Before the questionnaire was administered, I discussed with each individual teacher his/her grading policy. This was an attempt to establish uniformity in grades from one school to the next. Details of how grades were calculated in each class is discussed in Chapter 3.

PAGE 20

11 Administer Questionnaire Before the questionnaire could be administered, students had to know their class average. The teachers provided the students with their class average for the year. I was not present for the administering of the questionnaire. Students were given the questionnaire once during the fourth quarter of the school year. Statistical Analysis Once the questionnaires were completed, the results (on Scan-Tron) were entered into the computer; a regression analysis was run to provide the researcher with statistical calculations that would determine if a relationship between grades and the variables of the two theories did indeed exist. Analyze Results With the statistical calculations, analyzing the data was possible. A discussion of the results is in Chapter 4. Delimitations This study was delimited by the boundaries of one school district in North Central Florida. The appropriate procedures established by this county were adhered to in order to conduct research in the county. The teachers that participated in administering the questionnaire were full time teachers of first year Spanish (some also taught other Spanish courses during the school day). The students in the study were in grades 9 through 12 and come fi^om a diverse cultural and socioeconomic background (see Chapter 3). They were enrolled in first year Spanish.

PAGE 21

Limitations A study that identifies relationships only identifies a link between two constructs. It does not show a cause. This study was designed to show a link between grades and variables of two current hypotheses in second language acquisition. In order to understand how grades and these variables are related, it would be necessary to undertake a qualitative study that would examine how these two hypotheses relate to a student's grades. Definition of Terms Acquisition vs Learning . I will use these terms as Krashen defined them in his text on second language acquisition (1982). acquisition ... a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious process; language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication. . . . What resuhs is a "feel" for correctness or what sounds right. learning . . . conscious knowledge of a second language,knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms, learning is "knowing about" a language, know to most people as "grammar," or "rules." Some synonyms include, formal knowledge of a language, or explicit learning, (p. 10) Second Language vs. Foreign Language . These definitions come fi^om an article by Oxford and Shearin (1994). A second language is one that is learned in a location where that language is typically used as the main vehicle of everyday communication for most people (for instance, French being learned by a non-native speaker of that language in France, in Francophone Africa, or in Quebec). The learner of the second language is surrounded by stimulation, both visual and auditory, in the target language and thus has many motivational and instructional advantages, (p. 14) A foreign language is one that is learned in place where that language is not typically used as the medium of ordinary communication (for example, French as it is usually learned in the US). Foreign language learners are surrounded by

PAGE 22

13 their own native language and have to go out of their way to find stimulation and input in the target language. These students typically receive input in the new language only in the classroom and by rather artificial means, no matter how talented the teacher is. (p. 14) Success and Grades . In an academic environment, high grades (A's and B's) are indicative of success. If a student consistently receives grades in the high range, he or she is regarding as having achieved success in the classroom. This study proceeds on the premise that A's and B's in the Spanish classroom are indicative of success in the target U language. Chapter 3 will detail each teacher's grading and testing policy, as well as material covered. This detailing of the grading and the testing policy is an attempt to show continuity among the grades of students from different classes and teachers. Also, acquisition, as defined above, is considered for this study to be indicative of success; an ability to communicate in the target language with the same ease as found in a native speaker is often preferred over a conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical paradigms. Conclusion This study will attempt to show a relationship between grades and variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. Once a relationship is proven, then studies can be organized to investigate how the correlation manifests itself The subsequent chapters address the following topics; Chapter 2: Review of the literature. Chapter 3: Methodology; Chapter 4: Review of the Data; and Chapter 5: Conclusion.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to orient the reader to this study. This chapter reviews two current theories in second language acquisition. This chapter will also review the topics of motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem in the classroom. The chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section examines two theories in second language acquisition. The second section addresses issues concerning the questionnaire for this study. The two theories discussed will demonstrate how questions for the questionnaire were developed. Theories in Second Language Acquisition Krashen's Five Hypotheses on Second Language Acquisition Krashen (1982) theorizes on the processes of second language acquisition. In the introduction to his text, he states the purpose of his theories: "The purpose of this book is to take a new look at an old question: the relationship between second language teaching practice and what is known about the process of second language acquisition" (p. 1). His theories are divided into five hypotheses: (a) the acquisition/ learning distinction, (b) the natural order hypothesis, (c) the monitor hypothesis, (d) the input hypothesis, and (e) the affective filter hypothesis. Although this study will concentrate on one hypothesis (the Affective Filter Hypothesis), it will be necessary to review all five since they are interdependent. 14

PAGE 24

15 Learning vs. Acquisition The first hypothesis deals with defining two terms: learning and acquisition. Krashen (1982) defines acquisition as such: a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious process; language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication. What results is a "feel" for correctness or what sounds "right." (p. 10) On the other hand, learning is defined as conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being ; aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms, learning is "knowing about" a language, known to most people as "grammar," or "rules." Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a language, or explicit learning, (p. 10) Krashen advocates an approach that allows students to acquire a language instead of learning one. When students are allowed to acquire as opposed to learning, a more "natural" language develops; hence, the student will be more likely to communicate effectively in the "real" world. According to Krashen, acquisition should result if the instructional approach emphasizes communication over the mastery of grammatical rules and the memorization of vocabulary lists. Many foreign language classrooms today explicitly or implicitly promote learning over acquisition. Since a majority of texts include vocabulary lists, drill pattern responses, and other mechanical exercises, communication in the target language is often replaced with meaningless exercises that demand focus on form over meaning. It is precisely these types of activities that Krashen relates to conscious learning. Activities

PAGE 25

that promote communication over form will enable the student to acquire a foreign language, not just learn a few responses to structured questions. The Natural Order Hypothesis The natural order hypothesis states that language structure develops in a predictable manner. Krashen (1982) refers to this as an "exciting discovery" (p. 12). Krashen (1982) also cites various researchers who have validated this point: Brown, 1973; de Villiers and de Villiers, 1973; Dulay and Burt, 1974; Kessler and Idar, 1977; Fabris, 1978; and Makino, 1980. Although not all language learners acquire the same grammatical concepts in the same manner, "there are clear, statistically significant, similarities" (Krashen, 1982, p. 12). However, even though grammar may develop in a predictable manner, it is not recommended that syllabi reflect this via grammatical sequencing (pp. 12-14). The studies that revealed data leading to the Monitor Hypothesis showed that with various languages, certain grammatical concepts were acquired before others. The grammatical concepts acquired were consistent among language learners. Even though certain concepts are acquired before others, Krashen does not advocate the organization of course content around these findings. If the input is sufficient in quality and quantity, these concepts will develop naturally; there will be no need to address specific grammatical paradigms. In fact, creating a syllabus based on grammatical concepts will lead to learning, not acquisition. The Monitor Hypothesis The monitor hypothesis refers to the student mentally referring to rules of language structure in order to communicate in the target language. This is a conscious

PAGE 26

effort on the part of the student and interferes with normal production of speech. In three conditions are necessary to utilize conscious grammar: (i) Time . In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively a second language performer needs to have sufficient time. For most people, normal conversation does not allow enough time to think about the rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble, i.e., a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is saying. (ii) Focus on form . To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough. The performer must also be focussed on form, or thinking about correctness (Dulay & Burt, 1978). Even when we have time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it. (iii) Know the rule . This may be a very formidable requirement. Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed to only a small part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to. (Krashen, 1982, p. 16) Thus, with the above criteria, communicating via the Monitor slows communication and interferes with the "natural" flow common in everyday speech. Hence, Monitor use should be used as little as possible during speech that is acquired. Krashen continues with a description of three different Monitor users: (i) Monitor Over-users . These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language. As a resuU, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency. * >K :tc i|< (ii) Monitor under-users . These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Under-users are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a "feel" for correctness (e.g., "it sounds right"), and rely completely on the acquired system.

PAGE 27

-J 18 (iii) The Optimal Monitor user . Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users, performers who use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere. (Some very skilled performers, such as some professional linguists and language teachers, might be able to get away with using considerable amounts of conscious knowledge in conversation, e.g.. Rivers, 1979, but this is very unusual. We might consider these people "super Monitor users," after Yorio, 1978) In writing, and in planned speech, however, when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever corrections they can to raise the accuracy of their output (see, for example, Krashen andPon, 1975). (Krashen, 1982, pp. 19-20) Therefore, when a person has acquired a language (his/her native language, for example), the person does not visualize and analyze grammatical paradigms in order to produce speech. This speech emerges naturally, without mental references to rules and memorized material. Being able to produce speech without this constant mental referencing is what acquisition entails. When a student has learned a language, s/he often has to think about grammatical rules before speech can be produced; thus, producing slow and unnatural speech. The Input Hypothesis According to Krashen (1982), the input hypothesis answers the question "How do we acquire language?" (p.20). The input hypothesis states that progress in SLA is achieved when students are provided with meaningful input plus "a little bit more." This is represented graphically by i + 1 : The input hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that the acquirer is focussed on the meaning and not the form of the message. We acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is a "little beyond" where we are now. (p. 21)

PAGE 28

19 The letter "i" represents what the student already knows. And the number " 1 " is what the student has not been introduced to. Therefore, by using the students' knowledge base, and adding new information (either grammar or vocabulary) a little at a time, the student will acquire the new information and use it without the monitor effect. This fourth hypothesis is contrary to previous theories in SLA. It was commonly believed that structure should be taught first, and then, communication would develop. However, others (Hatch, 1978) have adopted the input hypothesis: Our assumption has been that we first learn structures, then practice using them in communication, and this is how fluency develops. The input hypothesis says the opposite. It says we acquire by "going for meaning" first, and as a resuU, we acquire structure! (Krashen, 1982, p. 21) Basically, what Krashen is stating is that any attempt to teach grammar overtly will not result in an increased ability on the students' part to communicate more effectively or with fewer errors. Only by exposure to comprehensible input will a student be able to acquire the necessary grammatical structures and internalize them. Krashen (1982) states that for acquisition to take place, the student must be exposed to comprehensible input. It is not the verbal or written expression on the student's part that promotes acquisition, but what the student hears: "we acquire via input, what we read and hear, and not via output, actual talking and writing" (p. 57). It is also worth repeating that comprehensible input cannot be the intentional goal of the instructor, it must occur in a nonstructured, nondeliberate manner, quite the opposite of what is seen on foreign language syllabi: There is a "structure of the day," and usually both teacher and student feel that the aim of the lesson is to teach or practice a specific grammatical item or structure. Once this structure is "mastered," the syllabus proceeds to the next one. (Krashen, 1982, pp. 21-22)

PAGE 29

Krashen (1982) outlines the four parts to the input hypothesis: (1) The input hypothesis relates to acquisition not learning. (2) We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information. (3) When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i + 1 will be provided automatically. (4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly, (pp. 21-22) The first characteristic states that the students must understand what is being said to him/her. If what is being said in the target language is far beyond the student's comprehension, all he/she will hear is noise. And no one acquires another language by listening to noise. Krashen bases this belief on the fact that no one has ever acquired another language by just being exposed to it as is often the case with second generation children growing up with parents or grandparents who communicate in another language. If the child is not given input in a comprehensible manner, acquisition will not take place. Krashen cites a study by Ervin-Tripp that showed "that hearing children of deaf parents do not acquire language from TV or radio" (Krashen, 1982, p. 63). Therefore, just by being merely exposed to a language does not a language speaker make; the information must be comprehensible. How does one go about by making language comprehensible? Krashen (1982) cites a 1979 work by Hatch that identifies three qualities of comprehensible input,: 1) slower rate and clearer articulation, which helps acquirers to identify word boundaries more easily, and allows more processing time; 2) more use of high frequency vocabulary, less slang, fewer idioms; 3) syntactic simplification, shorter sentences. (Krashen, 1982, p. 64) The second characteristic of the input hypothesis states that input must be interesting and/or relevant. As stated above, the input hypothesis requires that the student focus on content and not form. Therefore, for the student to focus on form, it

PAGE 30

must be interesting if not relevant to the student: "the best input is so interesting and relevant that the acquirer may even 'forget' that the message is encoded in a foreign language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 66). Krashen continues by emphasizing the importance for the teacher to provide the students with meaningful exercises and not mechanical ones. The third characteristic deals with the sequencing of grammar. Although Krashen earlier stated that grammar follows a particular order in reference to acquisition, the goal of any syllabus should not be to center itself on grammatical structures. Krashen believes that if enough i + 1 is used in the classroom, grammar will automatically be included. Krashen lists four reason for not using a grammar based syllabus. Reason number one is based on the supposition that not all the students are at the same place grammatically or linguistically. Therefore, if a uniform approach to grammar is utilized, some students will be left out. "Unsequenced but natural input, it is hypothesized, will contain a rich variety of structure— if it is comprehensible, there will be i + 1 for everyone as long as there is enough input" (Krashen, 1982, pp. 68-69). The second reason for avoiding a grammar-based syllabus is that usually a grammatical concept is presented one day, and then the class moves on. What happens to the student that missed that day or did not grasp the concept? The input hypothesis provides the student with review on a continual basis: Unsequenced communicative input contains built-in review. We don't have to worry if we miss the progressive tense today, it will be part of the input again . . . and again! Comprehensible input thus guarantees us natural review and recycling, assuming, as mentioned above, that there is enough of it. (Krashen, 1982, p. 69) Again, what this second reason is trying to convey is that the lesson should center on what is being said in the target language, not how it is said. And once the lesson begins

PAGE 31

n to focus on communicating in the language, grammar and review will automatically be addressed. The third reason against overt grammar instruction deals with communication. If the teacher emphasizes grammar, communication in the target language is reduced to simple exercises that attempt to reinforce a grammatical concept. "Teachers will be concerned with how they are speaking, reading selections will be aimed at including x number of examples of structure y along with a certain vocabulary sample, a sure guarantee of boring and wooden language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 70). The fourth reason for avoiding the grammar based syllabus refers to the attempt at guessing the order at which a student acquires a language. Krashen believes that it is impossible to guess when and how each student in the class will acquire certain concepts. Therefore, teachers should rely on i + 1 to supply the students with the necessary grammar at the necessary time: "Comprehensible input, it is claimed, will automatically follow a natural order insofar as i + 1 will be provided (along with many other structures)" (Krashen, 1982, p. 70). The fourth characteristic of the input hypothesis states that input must be in sufficient quantity. Krashen does admit that the research does not yet answer the question how much is enough. What he does say is "that the profession has seriously underestimated the amount of comprehensible input necessary to achieve even moderate, or 'intermediate' levels of proficiency in the second language" (Krashen, 1982, p. 71). This characteristic cannot yet be answered. Krashen (1982) does reaffirm that teachers, in his opinion, do not use enough comprehensible input: Despite our current paucity of data, what seems clear to me now is that we are not using enough of the available instruction time for supplying

PAGE 32

comprehensible input, and that we will be able to stimulate more rapid (and more comfortable) second language acquisition if we put greater focus on input, (p. 73) The Affective Filter Hypothesis The fifth hypothesis, the Affective Fiher Hypothesis, was originally proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977). Krashen (1982) states three areas in the affective domain that affect the acquisition of a language; motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety (p. 31). Krashen posits that only when motivation is high, self-confidence is good, and anxiety is low can acquisition take place. A high Affective filter will not allow the comprehensible input to reach the part of the brain that allows for language acquisition. This area of the brain to which Krashen refers is called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). The LAD is an area of the human brain that Chomsky (1965) hypothesized was responsible for a human's unique ability to use language. Thus, comprehensible input is not enough for acquisition to take place; the teacher must create an environment that promotes a low affective filter (Krashen, 1982, pp.30-32). Swain's Output Hypothesis Swain first proposed her Output Hypothesis in 1985. This hypothesis was developed in response to results of tests of fluency administered to sixth grade students who had been in an immersion school for seven years. The results of the tests showed that the immersion students were not able to communicate in French with the same level of accuracy as other native (French speaking) sixth grade students. While the immersion students were able to perform as well as the native speakers in areas such as discourse and sociolinguistic competence, their grammar was at a lower level. Swain studied the immersion setting and concluded that students were receiving sufficient quantities of

PAGE 33

24 comprehensible input; however, one thing was lacking: sufficient opportunities to communicate to express themselves in the target language. Since the students were receiving input in sufficient quantities, this caused Swain to question Krashen's hypothesis on input. The hypothesis that comprehensible input is the only causal variable in second language acquisition seems to me to be called into question by the immersion data just presented in that immersion students do receive considerable comprehensible input. Indeed, the immersion students in the study reported on here have been receiving comprehensible input in the target language for almost 7 years. (Swain, 1985, pp. 245-46) Therefore, if comprehensible input along with a low affective fiUer is the only causal variable leading to acquisition (according to Krashen), why did these students not acquire the language like the native speakers? Swain hypothesized that the students needed output, in additions to input. After she reviewed the learning environment of the immersion students, she concluded that the students were not given sufficient opportunities to communicate in the target language. Swain demonstrated that the immersion students performed as well as the native speakers in comprehension, but the test on grammar showed that the immersion students were not as proficient: On tests of listening comprehension in French, the immersions students perform as well as native speakers of French by grade 6 (Swain, Lapkin, and Andrew 1981). This strongly suggests that the immersion students understood what they were being taught, that they focused on meaning. Yet, as we have seen, after 7 years of this comprehensible input, the target system has not been fiilly acquired. (Swain, 1985, p. 146) Swain does not intend to downplay the importance of the Input Hypothesis described by Krashen. She is stating that in addition to the Input Hypothesis, output is necessary for acquisition: "Comprehensible output ... is a necessary mechanism of acquisition independent of the role of comprehensible input. Its role is, at minimum, to

PAGE 34

25 provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it" (Swain, 1985, p. 252). In another article (1993), Swain outlines tenets of the Output Hypothesis. Four characteristics of the hypothesis are described: (a) language production, (b) language production teaches the student about the language, (c) language production allows for hypothesis testing, and (d) output produces feedback. The first way in which output enables a student to acquire a language is through language production. Swain states that "language production provides the opportunity for meaningful practice of one's linguistic resources permitting the development of automaticity in their use" (1993, p. 159). Swain states that this has to do with fluency. In other words, if a student is to become fluent in the target language, the student has to practice it. This alone will not produce a fluent speaker; the other tenets of the Output Hypothesis are necessary. The second tenet involves using the language to learn about it. Swain (1993) quotes Krashen in reference to understanding language: " In many cases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding— we oflen get the message with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus extra-linguistic information" (Krashen, 1982, p. 66). Thus, with the input hypothesis, students may understand what is being said without a full understanding of syntax. Swain believes that by using the language, the student is forced to consider syntax. Speaking in the target language then forces "the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing" (Swain, 1993,

PAGE 35

p. 159). Swain believes this "forces learners to recognize what they do not know or know only partially" (1993, p. 159). Therefore, by speaking in the target language, students will learn what they do not know, and be forced to learn it or state it in a manner that is different but similar in meaning. The third tenet is that of hypothesis testing. When a student is speaking in the target language, s/he may use what has been learned. Output allows the student the opportunity to test possible varieties of one idea in the target language. Swain believes that only when a student who is speaking or writing in the target language is s/he able to test what is grammatical. And only through this testing does the student acquire (in the sense of "get a feel" for the language) language. This third tenet is directly linked to the fourth, feedback. Feedback is a response from the listener; it may be negative (the original utterance was grammatically incorrect or incomprehensible) or positive (the message was understood). By having spoken in the target language, whether testing a hypothesis or simply communicating, the speaker generates a response. These utterances "may generate responses from speakers of the language which can provide learners with information about the comprehensibility or well-formedness of their utterances" (Swain, 1993, p. 160). This feedback allows the student to judge his/her utterance; the student may either continue or clarify his/her remarks. Swain says that "Feedback can lead learners to modify or 'reprocess' their output" (1993, p. 160). This feedback and speech modification is sometimes referred to as negotiation of meaning. Others have agreed with Swain; Pica, et al. (1989) state that when language learners negotiate meaning, they "experiment with new structures and forms, and expand and exploit their interlanguage

PAGE 36

27 resources in creative ways" (p. 64). Swain (1995) refers to this as "the leading edge of the learner's interlanguage" (p. 374). In order for students to produce in the target language, Swain feels that they need to be pushed. "Learners need to be pushed to make use of their resources, they need to have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest; they need to reflect on their output and consider ways of modifying it to enhance comprehensibility, appropriateness and accuracy" (1993, pp. 160-61). Swain summarizes the Output Hypothesis in her 1995 article: In producing the L2 [second language], a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal feedback). Noticing a problem "pushes" the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. Thus, output may set "noticing" in train, triggering mental processes that lead to modified output, (pp. 372-73) The two theories discussed above are not totally in opposition to each other. Krashen states that for acquisition to take place, students must receive comprehensible input while the affective filter is down. He believes, based on numerous studies, that output is not a factor in language acquisition. Swain, on the other hand, believes that input is necessary for acquisition; however, it is not the only variable in the language acquisition process. In order for students to acquire a language, they must be provided with the opportunity to communicate (verbally or in written form) in the target language. Swain's research has shown that when students are given able comprehensible input without output, language is not truly acquired. ^ • As stated above, this study is to determine if there is a relationship between the two theories and students' achievement in the classroom. This study does not attempt to

PAGE 37

28 prove one theory more valid than the other. The purpose is to demonstrate a relationship and give direction for further research addressing the Affective Filter and Output Hypotheses. The Questionnaire The questionnaire is based on the two theories discussed above: Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis (AFH) and Swain's Output Hypothesis. Questions developed for the questionnaire were based on these two theories. However, Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis is "considered by many to be the weakest part of Krashen's theory of SLA (Gregg, 1984; Pieneman «fe Johnson, 1987)" (Crookes «& Schmidt, p. 478). One of the reasons Crookes and Schmidt state is that "the concept appears close to that of a 'mental block,' and thus has more connections to popular than scientific psychology" (p. 478). Therefore, this study will elucidate the construct validity of the AFH. To this end, the researcher wishes to explore the notions of motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. In this section, an explanation of how sections of the questionnaire dealing with these constructs were determined. Also, the section on the Output Hypothesis was created to demonstrate how and to what extent students were engaging in output. Krashen's AFH As stated above, the affective filter is linked to issues of motivation, selfconfidence, and anxiety. How are these terms defined? How do these three constructs affect the foreign language learner? How will questions on a questionnaire address these constructs? These questions will be answered in the following sections.

PAGE 38

29 Motivation The term motivation has many definitions, and many researchers cannot agree on what motivation really means, or all that it entails. Some researchers (McDonough, 1981; Ellis, 1985; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) claim that motivation has been used as a catch-all term that incudes many different areas. For the purposes of this study, I will focus on one area of motivation: intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. When Krashen discusses motivation in Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Krashen refers briefly to integrative (p. 31) motivation. Integrative motivation refers to a student's desire to be like the culture he/she is studying. Krashen does not go into detail about this term, and therefore, leaves the idea of motivation unclear. The idea of integrative motivational theory comes from Gardner and Lambert (1972). However, since integrative motivation was so briefly mentioned in Krashen's text, I will concentrate on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. The reason for this orientation is due to the large volume of research in the area of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and a preference for this area of motivation on the part of the researcher. Intrinsic motivation refers to an individual's desire to learn without the pressures of grades, social demands, or any other rewards that the student might gain from having learned something. Deci and Ryan (1985) define intrinsic motivation as such: To be truly intrinsically motivated, a person must also feel free from pressures, such as rewards or contingencies. Thus, we suggest, intrinsic motivation will be operative when action is experienced as autonomous, and it is unlikely to function under conditions where controls or reinforcements are the experienced cause of action, (p. 29)

PAGE 39

30 A necessary part of intrinsic motivation is self-determination. Without selfdetermination, there can be no intrinsic motivation. Self-determination is basically freedom from control: Self-determination is a quality of human functioning that involves the experience of choice, in other words, the experience of an internal perceived locus of causality. It is integral to intrinsically motivated behaviors. . . . Self determination is the capacity to choose and to have those choices rather than reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures, be the determinants of one's actions. . . . Selfdetermination is more than a capacity; it is also a need. (Deci «& Ryan, p. 38) In summary, intrinsic motivation is the desire to learn something. This desire comes from within the individual; there is no outside reason to learn the material. If a student in a foreign language classroom is intrinsically motivated, s/he experiences enjoyment in learning about another culture; the ability to express one's self in another language gives the student a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. The idea of learning new material just to receive a high grade on a test or quiz is not the motivating factor. Nor is the desire to please the teacher nor a desire to compete among other students a motivating factor. Deci and Ryan summarize intrinsic motivation: When people are intrinsically motivated, they experience interest and enjoyment, they feel competent and self-determining, they perceive the locus of causality for their behavior to be internal, and in some instances they experience flow', (p. 34) 'The idea of flow comes from research by Csikszentmihalyi (1975), Deci and Ryan (1985) describe flow, based on the above author's work, as "that peculiar, dynamic, holistic sensation of total involvement with the activity itself In the state of flow, action and experience seem to move smoothly from one moment to the next, and there seems to be no clear distinction between the person and the activity. Flow involves a 'loss of ego' and an experienced unity with one's surroundings." (p. 29)

PAGE 40

31 Extrinsic motivation refers to energizing an individual to do something that s/he would not do on his/her own. How someone is made to learn something may vary according to the situation. In a social context, a child is forced to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Most of these socially acceptable affectations are not intrinsic, they must be taught and reinforced. "Caretakers feel the need to prohibit or redirect children's activity so that children will engage in behaviors that they would not otherwise do, but that ensure their safety, conform with cultural values, or in some way gratify the caretaker's needs" (Deci «& Ryan, p. 129), In a classroom, affecting learning may be in the form of grades, peer pressure, parental contact, and course requirements, to name a few. Therefore, contrary to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation involves the need to perform will on a test or quiz, to avoid embarrassment in an oral presentation, to succeed in a class that is required for college admission, and/or to please someone else (e.g., parents or teacher). Researchers have concluded that students in the classroom are more successful if the are intrinsically motivated as opposed to extrinsically motivated. "Recent reviews of motivation in education (e.g., Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Harter &. Connell, 1984, Ryan et al, 1985; Thomas, 1980) have increasingly recognized the importance of intrinsic motivation and have emphasized the role of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes in the promotion of children's learning and achievement" (Deci «& Ryan, p. 245). How is intrinsic motivation enhanced in the classroom? "Bruner (1962), for example, suggested that one of the most important ways to help children think and learn is to free them from the control of rewards and punishments" (Deci & Ryan, p. 246).

PAGE 41

32 Also, as stated before, students must have a sense of self-determination in the classroom in order for intrinsic motivation to be enhanced. The section of the questionnaire for this study that deals with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation follow a similar format of a questionnaire used by Harter (1981). Harter listed five areas of classroom learning that involve intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; (a) learning motivated by curiosity versus learning in order to please the teacher, (b) incentive to work for one's own satisfaction versus working to please the teacher and get good grades, (c) preference for challenging work versus preference for easy work, (d) desire to work independently versus dependence on the teacher for help, and (e) internal criteria for success or failure versus external criteria (e.g., grades, teacher feedback) to determine success or failure, (p. 301) Harter's format for her questionnaire was one that allowed the student to choose responses such as "sort of true for me," and "really true for me." She argues that true and false questions are susceptible "to socially desirable responses" (p. 302). However, I have chosen to use the scale of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" to give students a wider variety of choices and to also avoid the rigidity of true or false questions. Details of the questionnaire and how it follows Harter's five delineations are discussed at length in Chapter 3. Self-confidence Krashen (1982) described this section of the Affective FiUer as "Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition" (p. 31). Having self-confidence and a good self-image are related to self-esteem. Blascovich and Tomaka define self-esteem as "the extent to which one prizes, values, approves, or likes oneself (p. 115). Therefore, according to the AFH, if a student holds

PAGE 42

3^ him/herself in high regard, approves of him/herself, and basically likes him/herself, this student is more likely to acquire a second language. For the purposes of this study, I have chosen the Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) (Coopersmith, 1967) to measure this construct. The statements in this section of the questionnaire, according to the author, "were designed to measure self-regard in four specific areas: peers, parents, school, and personal interests" (Coopersmith, p. 127). For this study, the SEI questionnaire was slightly altered to match the format of the questionnaire for this study. Specifically, the original responses were "like me," and "unlike me." For this study, the responses will be from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The altered format will allow the students a more varied response scenario and will keep in sync with the original format of the questionnaire. In reference to reliability and validity of the SEI J.B. Taylor and Reitz (1968) reported a split-half reliability of .90. Van Tuinen and Ramanaiah (1979) reported a Cronback a of .83 . . . . Coopersmith reported test-retest correlation of .88 for a 5-week period and .70 over 3 years. Demo (1985) found the 25-item version to correlate .44 with 'beeper' self-reports of selfesteem, .55 with the Rosenberg Scale. (Blascovich and Tomaka, p. 128) Based on the above information, I feel the SEI adequately confronts significant issues that affect children in school and that might affect their self-esteem and is statistically reliable and valid. Anxiety As Krashen (1982) stated, "Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety" (p. 31). Therefore, to further examine the AFH, the questionnaire will address anxiety in the foreign language classroom.

PAGE 43

34 The New World Dictionary defines anxiety as "a state of being uneasy, apprehensive, or worried about what may happen; concern about a possible future event" (1976, p. 62). Horowitz, et al. (1986), in developing their Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLAGS), quote Guiora in their introduction to their 1986 article: "Guiora argues that language learning itself is a "profoundly unsettling psychological proposition" because it directly threatens an individual's self-concept and world view (p. 125). Counselors at the Learning Skills Center at the University of Texas found "that anxiety centers on the two basic task requirements of foreign language learning: listening and speaking" (Horowitz, et al, 1986, p. 126). Horowitz, et al. (1986) developed the FLACS by forming a support group of 30 university students and asking these students about what troubled them most in the foreign language classroom. Three areas were identified that related to anxiety in the foreign language classroom: communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation: Communication apprehension is a type of shyness characterized by fear of or anxiety about communicating with people. Test-anxiety refers to a type of performance anxiety stemming from a fear of failure. Fear of negative evaluation, defined as "apprehension about others' evaluations, avoidance of evaluative situations, and the expectation that others would evaluate oneself negatively." (p. 127-28) These three areas of anxiety were used to create the FLACS to determine the level of anxiety a student may be facing in the foreign language classroom. This is the first scale developed to measure anxiety in the foreign language classroom. Gardner, Clement, Smythe, Clement, and Gliksman developed a measure of anxiety specifically for the

PAGE 44

35 French classroom, but this test could not be applied globally to all foreign language classes. According to Horowitz, et al. (1986), the FLAGS "has demonstrated internal reliability, achieving an alpha coefficient of .93 with all items producing significant corrected item-total scale correlations. Test-retest reliability over eight weeks yielded an r = .83 (p < .001)" (Horowitz, et al., 1986, p. 129). The FLAGS has proven to be a reliable test of anxiety in the classroom (see also Aida, 1994). Although this test has been used in the foreign language classroom, there has been no use of this test on students at the junior and senior high school levels; this is the unique aspect of this section of the questionnaire.^ Thus, to complete the area of the AFH, this test will be used to determine the level of anxiety, and along with other measures, the raising or lowering of the Affective Fiher. Swain's Output Hypothesis This section of the questionnaire determines if students are engaging in output as described by Swain. The ten questions on the questionnaire that demonstrate output were derived from the four tenets described above. Questions addressed output, how students engaged in output, the level of output, negotiation of meaning, and feedback. A detailed description of the questions is provided in the following chapter. Conclusion This chapter dealt with two main theories in second language acquisition: Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis and Swain's Output Hypothesis. This study is based on the tenets of the two theories; specifically, how they relate to success in the ^A search on ERIG found no matches with the following two terms: "FLAGS" and "High School."

PAGE 45

36 foreign language classroom. By combining established questionnaires with newly created questions, the aspects of motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, and output may shed new light on the acquiring of a second language. The following chapters deal with the methodology, interpretation of the data, and concluding remarks.

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study examined the relationship between grades that students received in the foreign language classroom and variables of two theories in second language acquisition (SLA). The methodology and the procedures used in this study are explained in detail in this chapter. This chapter is divided into seven sections: (a) the setting, (b) the teachers and grading, (c) data collection, (d) instrumentation, (e) statistical analysis, (f) data analysis, and (g) summary. The Setting The schools selected for this study are located in North-Central Florida. Three schools were chosen from one county, and all were high schools. These schools were selected based on several qualities that define them as typical schools in the state, such as ethnic background of students and socio-economic status. These qualities are described in more detail below in the sub-section titled "Setting Description." Statistics on ACT, SAT, Grade 1 0 Achievement Tests, High School Competency Test, expenditures, and enrollment for the three schools in this study came from the Florida School Report. This is a report that all Florida public schools must make available to the public in an effort to comply with state regulations regarding goals for public schools. The Florida School Reports used for this study were all from the 19931994 school year. 37

PAGE 47

38 In the section of this chapter titled "Setting Description" is a summary of the Florida School Report for each school in the study. The purpose of this section is to show the commonalities the schools in the study share with the general population. Setting Description The following descriptions of the three schools in this study are an attempt to show similarities within the schools to the general population. From the statistics in the Florida School Reports of each school, it will be apparent that the schools draw from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Also, the figures show that the students perform on a level similar to the general population on commonly used standardized tests. School lA . SAT and ACT (see school IC) scores for school 1 A were not reported on the Florida School Report. However, scores on other standardized tests were available. Table 3-1 shows the results of the Grade 10 Assessment Test. Of the students tested, scores were slightly above district and state levels. On the High School Competency Test (HSCT) for 1 1th graders (see Table 3-2), students at school 1 A performed similarly to other students at the district level. At the state level, scores were higher. This demonstrates that students at this school are on an academic level similar to that of the rest of the county and slightly higher than students throughout the state. Table 3-1. Grade 10 Assessment Test-School lA. Percentage of students scoring above national median score. Reading Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 262 56 55 46 Math 263 57 55 49 1

PAGE 48

39 Table 3-2. HSCT--School 1 A. 1 1th graders who passed the state test. Communications Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 264 94 93 89 Math 269 80 80 77 1 Expenditures per student in regular classes at school lA (see Table 3-3) were $224.00 above the state average. Table 3-3. Expenditures and average class sizes. Expenditures per student in regular classes— 1993-94 School School amount State average School lA $4,263 $4,039 School IB $3,947 $4,039 School IC $3,833 $4,039 Average class size for School lA Class School average State average Math 23.3 26.5 Social Studies 21.9 24.7 Language Arts 20.8 19.8 Average class size for School IB Class School average State average Math 26.3 26.5 Social Studies 26.5 24.7 Language Arts 21.1 19.8 Average class size for School IC Class School average State average Math 27.9 26.5 Social Studies 25.5 24.7 Language Arts 16.8 19.8

PAGE 49

40 The average class size in Table 3-3 shows that classrooms have fewer students than the state average, with the exception of Language Arts. This is significant figure because it implies that students received more one-on-one attention fi-om the teachers that is normally available throughout the state. Table 3-4 shows that School 1 A has a higher percentage of Afiican American students than does the typical school in Florida. School 1 A is located in a predominantly African American neighborhood. It has been designated a magnate school (there is also an International Baccalaureate program at this school), attracting students from all over the county. This special status accounts for the relatively even number of African American and white students. Table 3-4. Enrollment—all students—all year. School 1 A School lA Race Female Male School % State % White 395 388 49.0 59.9 Black^ 352 374 45.4 23.2 Hisp 13 10 1.4 14.6 Asian 36 27 3.9 2.1 Indian 2 1 0.2 0.2 School IB . Students' scores on the Grade 10 Assessment Test and the HSCT were reported for this school too. Again, these scores were taken from the 1993-94 'The Florida School Report uses the ethnic term "black." However, throughout this study I shall use the term African American.

PAGE 50

41 School Report. Table 3-5 shows the Grade 10 Assessment Test scores. The students tested scored slightly above the district percentage in both reading and math. However, students at school IB scored well above the state percentage. Therefore, students at school IB performed on a level comparable to other students in the county, but on the average, are stronger than students across the state in reading and math. Table 3-5. Grade 10 Assessment Test-School IB. Percentage of students scoring above national median score. Reading Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 419 59 55 46 Vlath 419 61 55 49 1 Table 3-6 shows the percentage of 1 1th grade students that passed the HSCT. In communications, the number of students that passed was similar to other students in the district. At the state level, the percentage is slightly higher. The area of math was similar to communications: similar on the district level, and slightly higher than the state. Table 3-6. HSCT~School IB. 1 1th graders who passed the state test. Communications Students tested School Percentage District Percentage State Percentage 363 94 93 89 Math 369 83 80 77

PAGE 51

42 Expenditures per student in regular classes at school IB (see Table 3-3) were just below the state average. Students at school IB received about $100 less per student that the state average. The average class size at school IB was very close to the state average in every category. Therefore, class population was similar at school IB to other classes around the state. Table 3-7 shows the student population by ethnic background. School IB has a breakdown similar to the rest of the state. Again, the major difference is in the Hispanic population. South Florida, with its large Hispanic population, increases dramatically the state percentage. This school might be considered a "typical" school based on the student population. Table 3-7. Enrollment— all students— all year. School IB School IB Race Female Male School % State % White 697 718 67.4 59.9 Black 288 275 26.4 23.2 Hisp 29 33 3.0 14.6 Asian ' 25 28 2.5 2.1 Indian 2 3 0.2 0.2 1 School IC . School IC made scores from SAT and ACT exams available. Table 3-8 gives a summary of these scores. SAT scores at this school were lower for both 1993 and 1994 compared to the district level. However, on a national level, students achieved

PAGE 52

43 higher scores the other students across the state and nation. Nevertheless, these scores are not significantly higher. Table 3-8. SAT and ACT scores for school IC. SAT Scores School 1 C School District State Nation 1993 Verbal 444 453 416 424 1993 Math 501 498 466 478 1994 Verbal 430 441 413 423 1994 Math 481 489 466 479 ACT Scores School IC School District State Nation 1993 20.9 20.6 20.7 20.7 1994 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.8 Expenditures per student at School IC (see Table 3-3) are about $200.00 below the state average. All the schools in this study receive below average expenditures per student. With a student population of 1,998, this figure would approach $20,000.00. The average class size (see Table 3-3) is near the state average in all three areas. The variation of students in the classes is not significant. Enrollment at School IC is listed in Table 3-9. The percentages of whites and blacks is very similar to the state percentages. Only the Hispanic population at School

PAGE 53

44 IC is significantly lower than the state average. It is the large Hispanic population in South Florida (especially Miami) that raises the state average to above 14%. Table 3-9. Enrollment-all students-all year. School IC School IC Race Female Male School % State % White 623 599 61.2 59.9 Black 281 290 28.6 23.2 Hisp 54 81 6.8 14.6 Asian 37 27 3.2 2.1 Indian 4 2 .3 .2 The Teachers and Grading The schools in this study were all from the same county. One grading aspect was the same for each school: the grading scale. The grading scale for this county was the following: A 94-100; B 85-94; C 75-84; D 65-83; F 64 and below. The teachers all used the same text, Spanish for mastery . Also, the teachers in the study covered about the same amount of material during the 1995-96 school year. What follows is a detailed description of the grading policy for the teachers in the study. School lA At schools 1 A two teachers agreed to administer the questionnaire in their classes. Both teachers, although using different texts, covered approximately the same amount of material. Teacher 1 A. 1 used the text Spanish of mastery in the classes. The material that this teacher covered in his classes was similar to the other teachers in the county. This

PAGE 54

teacher covered about six units in the text. The material covered was fairly consistent with the other teachers: ar/er/ir verbs; interrogatives; adjectives; gender of nouns; articles; possessives; irregular verbs; extensive vocabulary; and various cultural settings. There is a sample of this teacher's quizzes in Appendix B. This teacher did not divide grades into sections and percentages. He used a point system: there were 25 written assignments that were worth 5 points each (total = 125 pts.); 200 points for a test (total = 200 pts.); 25 points for each quiz (total = 75 pts.); 20 points for a composition (total = 20 pts.). Although this appears to be different from the other grading systems, the percentages that each of these points make of the total possible points are similar to the other teachers: written assignments 30%, test 47%, quizzes 18%, and composition 5%. This teacher gave the permission slips to all of his Spanish 1 classes. There were a total of 120 students given the permission slip; only 68 returned the slips and were able to take the questionnaire. Teacher 1A.2 used the text Ya veras in her classes. Unfortunately, this teacher waited until the end of the school year to decided that there was not enough time in her schedule to administer the questionnaire. Therefore, the total number of questionnaires in this study was reduced by about 100 subjects. School IB In this school, there were three teachers that participated in the study. All teachers used the same text and covered the same amount of material. There was a consensus among the teachers to cover the same material so that students would not be at a disadvantage in going to a different teacher for Spanish II. The teachers at this school

PAGE 55

used the text Spanish for mastery and covered the first six units of the text. This material was very similar to the material covered in school lA. The differences are minute: different cultural settings, and variations in vocabulary. The commonalities are strong: ar/er/ir verbs; irregular verbs; ser and estar; adjectives; interrogatives; and possessives. Also, in Appendix C, there are examples of tests and quizzes to show commonalities in testing. Teacher IB. 1 calculated his grades in the following manner: tests 30%; quizzes 30%; homework 30%; and participation 10%. Grading procedures for test and homework were identical to those at school lA. Teacher IB. 1 administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 31 students in it. Of the permission slips given to the students, 28 students returned them. Again, only students who returned the permission slips were able to take the questionnaire. Teacher 1B.2 used the same text, and as stated before, covered the same amount of material. Her grades were calculated in the following manner: tests 40%; quizzes 20%; homework 20%; and participation 20%. Copies of this teachers tests and quizzes are in Appendix C. Homework and participation were calculated virtually in the same manner as the teachers above. Teacher IB. 2 administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 28 students in it, and 25 students returned the permissions slips so as to be able to take the questionnaire. Teacher IB. 3, again, using the same text and covering the same amount of material, calculated grades in the following manner: tests 33.3%; quizzes 33.3%; and

PAGE 56

homework/participation 33.3%. There was little variance in how these grades were calculated compared to the other teachers in the study Teacher IB. 3 administered the questionnaire to one class. This class had 32 students in it, and 29 students returned the permission slips. School IC At this school there was only one teacher that participated in the study. This teacher had all Spanish I classes. The text used was Spanish for mastery . This teacher covered more material than the other teachers. Although he did not go through the book in an orderly fashion, he said that most of the material in the text was covered. Therefore, these students, in addition to what was covered at the above two schools, were required to learn more vocabulary. Also, students were introduced to the preterit tense. This teacher at school IC calculated his grades in the following manner: tests 20%; quizzes 35%; homework 20%; and participation 25%. Although test covered more that the above teachers (due to covering more material in the class), homework and participation were calculated in a similar fashion. The teacher at school IC gave questionnaires to all of his students. There were a total of 1 1 5 students given permission slips, and 3 1 returned them. Summary It can be argued that the weakest part of this study is the idea that grades from one school to the next indicate the same level of achievement. The above section attempts to deflate that argument by demonstrating that the commonalities among the teachers and schools are by far much greater than the differences. The teachers cover approximately the same amount of material. Also, the calculations of grades are very

PAGE 57

48 similar: tests and quizzes make up 50-60% of the students grades; homework 20-30%; and participation 15-25%. The variations between grades and material covered are not great enough to warrant the claim that an A from school 1 A is vastly different than an A from school IB. Data Collection Approval for this tudy was obtained from my committee, the Internal Review Board, the county office of the schools, and the principals from each school. I then met with the teachers from each school. I discussed the questionnaire, and what the study was investigating. I talked at length with each teacher about his/her grading policy. I discussed the texts that were used, and how much material was covered in each class. I explained to the teachers that they would first have to give the students a permission slip that had to be signed by a parent; if the slip was not signed and returned, the student could not take the questionnaire. Once the slips were returned, the teacher administered the questionnaire. The teachers were left with enough permission slips, scan-trons, and questionnaires for all of their students. The teachers administered the questionnaire, and I returned to the schools to collect the material. This process, fi^om committee meeting to collection of material, took about six weeks. Instrumentation The questionnaire used in this study has four sections: anxiety, motivation, selfconfidence, and output. What follows is a detailed description of each section, and how each section was developed. The first six questions of the questiormaire separates the subjects by foreign language class, gender, grade, and class average. These areas will

PAGE 58

49 provide additional information about how the relationship between grades and the two theories might vary from gender, grade, and foreign language class. Anxietv Measure The anxiety measure of the questionnaire is found in questions 7-39. The questions in this section address one area of Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis. Specifically, it addresses the issue of anxiety: if anxiety is high, the affective filter is high and input is not able to reach the Language Acquisition Device. Hence, language acquisition is not possible. This section of the questionnaire is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horowitz, Horowitz, & Cope, 1986). In Chapter 2, 1 discussed how it was developed and other aspects of the test. I chose to use this test because of its internal reliability and item-total scale correlation: alpha coefficient of .93, and a test-retest reliability over eight weeks of r=.83. Also, the questions address anxiety in the following areas: communication apprehension, test-anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. In addition, Horowitz, et al. surveyed students in an effort to narrow the questions to the most common emotions of foreign language students. Motivation Measure The section of the questionnaire that addresses motivation is in questions 40-5 1 . The questions were taken from Harter (1981) and her work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Her research is based on the work by Deci (see Chapter 2). The original questions she used were in a format where students were given statements and boxes to check labeled "really true for me" and "sort of true for me." She used this format because she argued that it provided students with the opportunity to answer questions

PAGE 59

without being susceptible to the effect of socially desirable responses. I have altered the format to follow the original design of this study (strongly disagree to strongly agree). When Harter (1981) referred to socially desirable responses, she was concerned with true and false questions. Harter explains her reasoning for her format below: The effectiveness of this question format lies in the implication that half of the children in the world (or in one's reference group) view themselves in one way, whereas the other half view themselves in the opposite manner. That is, this type of question legitimizes either choice. The option of checking "sort of true for me" or "really true for me" broadens the range of choices over the typical two-choice format. In addition, none of the choices involve the response false. Rather, the child must decide which of the options is most true for him or her. (p. 302) Therefore, by avoiding a true/false format, I will also avoid the rigidity associated with such test. Subjects will also have a broad choice of responses that will enable them to choose a response that best describes their feelings about an area. Harter divided the intrinsic/extrinsic construct into five different subscale dimensions (see Table 3-10). These subscales address the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of motivation. Harter originally created 30 questions (six for each subscale); only a sample was given in the 1 98 1 article. I used the 1 0 questions from the sample to compose the section of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. In order to keep this questionnaire as brief as possible (students should be able to complete the questionnaire within the 50 minute period of class), the other 20 questions were omitted. Harter (1982), in her pilot study of the questionnaire, found the test to be valid and reliable. She also stated that with standard deviations of less than 1 .0 that the test had no ceiling or floor effects. Using a reliability coefficient, the range was from .54 to .84.

PAGE 60

51 Table 3-10. Harter's intrinsic vs extrinsic orientation in the classroom. Subscale Dimension Intrinsic Pole Extrinsic Pole Preference for challenge vs. Preference for easy work Does the child like hard, challenging work? Does the child like easier assignments and subjects? Curiosity/interest vs. Pleasing teacher/grades Does child work to satisfy own interest and curiosity? Does child do schoolwork to satisfy teacher, get marks and grades? Independent mastery vs. Dependence on teacher Does child prefer to work, figure out problems on his/ her own? Does child rely on teacher for help and guidance, particularly when figuring out problems and assignments? Independent judgment vs. Reliance on teacher's judgment Does child feel capable of making judgments about what to do ! Is child primarily dependent on teacher's opinion and judgment about what to do? Internal criteria vs. External criteria Does child know when she/he has succeeded/failed on assignments or tests? Is child dependent on external sources of evaluation (e.g., teacher feedback, grades, marks)? Self-confidence Measure The self-confidence section of the questionnaire is contained in questions 62-120. The questions in this questionnaire are taken verbatim from the Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) developed by Coopersmith. This questionnaire was located in Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes , edited by Robinson, Shaver, and Wright sman. The original study that used this test involved 87 fiflh and sixth grade boys and girls in a public school in Connecticut. Subsequent studies revealed the following resuhs: a split-half reliability of .90; a Cronbach a of .83 and ,75 (two different

PAGE 61

52 testings); test-retest correlations of .88 (a 5 week period) and .70 (over 3 years); and "Demo (1985) found the 25-item version to correlate .44 with 'beeper' self-reports of self-esteem, .55 with the Rosenberg Scale, .41 with peer ratings, .33 with observer Qsorts of self-esteem, and .50 with a self-esteem interview" (Blascovich & Tomaka, p. 128). The SEI in this study has been altered from the original. The original questions are used; however, the possible responses were changed from "like me" and "unlike me" to "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Output Measure Questions that address if students are engaging in output are numbers 53-60. These questions will determine if the students were engaging in output as described by the author of the Output Hypothesis (Swain). In Swain's 1993 article, she described four tenets of the Output Hypothesis (OH). The first tenet, meaningful practice while developing fluency is addressed in questions 52 and 53. The second tenet, moving from semantic processing to syntactic processing is found in questions 54-56. The third tenet, the testing of hypotheses, appears in questions 57 and 58. The fourth tenet, generating responses, is addressed in questions 59-61. These questions will determine if the students are engaged in the four tenets of the OH. Since students have a choice of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," they do not simply have to answer "yes" or "no." They can judge their level of engagement and give responses that imply high or low levels of activity.

PAGE 62

53 Statistical Analysis The answers to the questions on the questionnaire were on Scan-tron sheets. The sheets were taken to the Office of Instructional Resources and scanned; the results were placed on a computer disk. Once I had the results of the questionnaire, they were used in conjunction with the SAS program available on University of Florida computer systems. A regression analysis was run to determine if there was a relationship between success and the variables of the two theories discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 contains the results of the analysis. Data Analysis The analysis of the data is discussed at length in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a more detailed interpretation of the resuUs of the data analysis. Summary This chapter covered many areas: the questionnaire, the setting, details of grades and the schools, and how the study was administered. The following chapter will address statistical analysis and what the questionnaire revealed. The final chapter will be a conclusion to the study and address among other issues, fijrther areas of research.

PAGE 63

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This study investigated the relationship of success in the foreign language classroom to variables of two current theories in second language acquisition. The first theory, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, refers to motivation, anxiety, and selfconfidence. The second theory, the Output Hypothesis, refers to students engaging in communicative situations in the classroom. Both of these hypotheses were compared to the success students had in the foreign language classroom to determine if either of the hypotheses plays a role. A questionnaire was given to students in three different schools in North-Central Florida to determine levels of motivation, self-confidence, anxiety, and if students were engaging in output. A general linear models procedure was performed on the data. What follows is a detailed explanation of the results of the analysis. Results There were a total of 189 questionnaires scanned. Of this total, 168 were usable for the data analysis. This was due to incomplete questionnaires and multiple marks in various item numbers. The two null hypotheses were tested individually using a general linear models procedure, or often referred to as a regression analysis. Hypothesis 1 : Grades and variables of the Affective Filter are not related. The Affective Filter Hypothesis refers to three areas: motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence. These three areas were covered on the questionnaire. The regression analysis (see Table 4-1) did not show a significant relationship between grades and 54

PAGE 64

motivation and self-confidence. Motivation and self-confidence had a probability factor greater than 0.05. However, anxiety was significant. The probability factor for anxiety was less than 0.05, and therefore, demonstrated a relationship. Table 4-1 . Regressions analysis to test the relationship between success and the sources. Source df Parameter Est. Probability Anxiety 1 -2.74 0.0067 Motivation 1 -1.07 0.2873 Self-Conf 1 0.24 0.8069 Output 1 1.40 0.1623 Although motivation and self-confidence did not show a significant relationship, the null hypothesis was rejected. Anxiety did show a significant relationship, and therefore, is sufficient reason to reject the null hypothesis. The Affective Filter Hypothesis has proven itself to affect how well a student will perform in the foreign language classroom. For this study, motivation and selfconfidence were not factors to be considered. However, anxiety did affect students' success in the foreign language classroom. Hypothesis 2 : Grades and variables of the Output Hypothesis are not related. The regression analysis demonstrated that there was not a significant relationship between grades and the Output Hypothesis. The probability factor was greater the 0.05, and thus, indicated that if students engaged or did not engage in output, there was no relationship to grades. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Further analysis of the data showed that gender was not a significant factor in the analysis. The above analysis was taken fi-om a reduced model because gender had no effect.

PAGE 65

56 Additional Information Gender Of the students who took the questionnaire, 77 were male and 103 were female. Again, some students left this item blank on the questionnaire. Grade Level The students in this study were in grades 9 through 12. Table 4-2 shows a distribution by grade level. Grades The grade distribution was not even. Table 4-3 shows that the majority of students in the study were at the "B" range or higher. Table 4-2. Grade level of students Grade No. of Students 9 108 10 44 11 27 12 2 Table 4-3. Grade distribution of the students Grade No. of Students A 68 B 74 C 28 D 4 F 4

PAGE 66

Summary The above analysis demonstrated that success in the foreign language classroom was not affected by variables of the Output Hypothesis. Success, defined as high grades in the classroom, was not affected by the four tenets of the Output Hypothesis as described by Swain. However, variables of the Affective Filter Hypothesis did show an effect. Although not all of the areas of the Affective Filter Hypothesis affected success, the one area of anxiety did have an effect, and thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A thorough explanation of the implications of the above findings will be discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 will not only discuss the findings, but will also list areas of further research as it relates to the findings of this study.

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Introduction The previous four chapters introduced the study, discussed the pertinent literature, detailed the design of the study, and reported the statistical analysis. This chapter will discuss fully the implications of the data analysis. Also, areas of future research will be addressed. Chapter 5 is divided into the following sections: an introduction, discussion of the Affective Filter Hypothesis, discussion of the Output Hypothesis, further research, and a conclusion. This study analyzed student success in the foreign language classroom in relation to variables of two theories in second language acquisition. Success, as defined in Chapter 1, refers to students receiving high grades. As stated before, students who receive As and B's in a class are considered to be successful. The purpose was to determine if variables of the two theories were related to success in the foreign language classroom. The levels of anxiety, motivation, selfconfidence, and output were measured with a questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to students at the end of the school year. The teacher in each class collected permission slips and then administered the questionnaire. The design of the study employed a regression analysis to determine if there existed a relationship between the two theories and success in the foreign S8

PAGE 68

59 language classroom. The two null hypotheses were tested and only one of the hypotheses was rejected, the Affective Fiher Hypothesis. As stated in Chapter 3, there were originally six teachers that participated in this study. The teachers were in three different schools. One of the teachers decided that participation was impossible, therefore, leaving five teachers in three schools. Of the five teachers that participated, there were 326 students in the classes. All of these students were given permission slips and given ample time to return them. Out of the 326 students, 181 students returned the permission slips, and thus, 181 students took the questionnaire. This represents a return rate of 56%. However, due to erroneous marks on the questionnaire and non-native English speakers, only 169 scan-tron sheets were used. The Affective Fiher As stated in previous chapters, the Affective Filter Hypothesis states that when anxiety is high, motivation is low, and self-confidence is low, students will be unable to acquire language. The questionnaire contains sections that measure all of the three attributes of the Affective Fiher Hypothesis. As stated in Chapter 4, motivation and self-confidence were not related to success. However, anxiety did show a relationship. There is a connection between anxiety and grades. The level of anxiety in a classroom can affect the grades of a student; as anxiety levels increase, grades decrease. The other areas of the Affective Filter Hypothesis showed no effect on grades. Although only one area of the Affective Filter Hypothesis demonstrated an effect, the null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 69

60 Since motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety are not directly related, it is conceivable that one area could have an effect and the others not. It is possible for a highly motivated, self-confident person to experience anxiety. Therefore, for the participants in this study, motivation was not a factor in determining success, nor was self-confidence. Only anxiety was a factor that affected the grades of the students. The results of this study do not attempt to diminish the importance of the Affective Filter Hypothesis. These resuUs imply that motivation and selfconfidence need to be addressed more fully to understand how these two areas affect the foreign language learner. Anxiety, however, did show a relationship to grades. Thus, in order for grades in the foreign language classroom to improve, it will be necessary to lower the levels of anxiety a student might experience. The Output Hypothesis The Output Hypothesis states that when students engage in meaningful communication, they acquire language; input is not sufficient. In this study, the Output variables showed no relationship to grades. That is to say that the four tenets of the Output Hypothesis, language production, learning from language production, hypothesis testing, and feedback, do not affect the students' grades or level of success in the foreign language classroom. It would appear that when students engage in output, the level of success in the foreign language classroom is not affected. Again, this does not mean to imply that the benefits of output in the foreign language classroom will have no effect on language acquisition. The

PAGE 70

only interpretation from this study is that grades are not impacted by output in the foreign language classroom. As with the Affective Filter, it would appear that grades are not indicators of acquisition. Discussion Although only one of the null hypotheses was rejected in this study, the importance of these two hypotheses in second language acquisition should not be disregarded. The students in this study demonstrated that ahhough output, motivation, and self-confidence did not affect their grades, there could be other factors not accounted for that did. This study only demonstrated if there was or was not a relationship between grades and the Affective Filter variables and the Output variables. No cause for the existence or non-existence of a relationship was stated or implied. One conclusion that might be made is that grades and language acquisition are not related. It is possible that success in the foreign language classroom is not an indicator of language acquisition. Maybe the tests, quizzes, and participation grades do not reflect acquisition as defined by Krashen. Perhaps the grading policies of the teachers in the study only reflect the students' ability to succeed on a numerical scale that was established by teachers; this scale (grading scale) probably does not measure language acquisition, but rather the ability of a student to take a test or memorize vocabulary lists and grammatical paradigms. It would appear that the A and D/F students, while significantly different for the teachers' measures, are not different for this study with respect to language acquisition.

PAGE 71

62 Another conclusion related to the one above might be that output is not an indicator of success as well. Perhaps the students' output is not a reflection of their grades. According to Swain, when students engage in output, several processes take place that enable the student to acquire a second language. Therefore, perhaps grades in these classrooms do not reflect language acquisition. Also, although difficuh to imagine, motivation and self-confidence are not related to grades either. In Chapter 2, there is a discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The understanding was that when students are intrinsically motivated, they perform better. However, the results showed that there was not a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and success. Possibly students were not provided the necessary levels of self-determination and freedom from controls and punishment to achieve adequate levels of intrinsic motivation. Possibly, the more intrinsically motivated students have better learning strategies than the other students, but this is not reflected in their grades. Also, it is possible that the performance indicators do not adequately capture the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Several different performance indicators would show a different profile of the students and their various levels and degrees of motivation. As for self-confidence, the results are counter intuitive. It is difficult to imagine that self-confidence has no role in success. Conceivably, as with motivation, the performance indicators did not capture and accurate profile of the students with regards to their levels of selfconfidence.

PAGE 72

Anxiety was the only area of the analysis that is supported by the research discussed in Chapter 2. The analysis revealed that as students' levels of anxiety increased, their grades decreased. Not only is this finding in agreement with other research, it is logical: as students became more anxious in the foreign language classroom, their grades went down. Further Research As stated before, this study only investigated if there was a relationship between success in the foreign language classroom and variables of the two theories in second language acquisition. This study found a relationship for only one of the variables, anxiety, as described by the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Therefore, the following areas should be further examined to understand what effects the two theories have on students' success: 1 . How are tests designed in the foreign language classroom, and what do they actually measure. Tests currently in use in most foreign language classrooms might only test memorization of vocabulary and simple grammatical paradigms. 2. How motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and output affect success in the foreign language classroom. Do these constructs affect performance and if so, how? 3. How the social environment of the classroom affects the two theories discussed in this study. Does the interaction between students and teachers (as well as among students) affect the constructs of anxiety, motivation, self-

PAGE 73

64 confidence, and output? And if these various forms of interaction do affect the success of a student, how? 4. Are the output activities similar to test activities? If students are permitted to engage in communicative activities, sections of the tests and quizzes should be similar. It seems that it would not be appropriate to have students acquire language through communicative activities, and then rate their success not on their ability to communicate but rather their ability to perform on a standardized test. 5. What can teachers do in the foreign language classroom to reduce the levels of anxiety among students. Also, how can teachers recognize anxiety in the students and at what level. 6. The research on intrinsic motivation is substantial. More research on intrinsic motivation in the foreign language classroom needs to be addressed. 7. The students' self-confidence in the foreign language classroom needs to examined more closely. Which classroom activities foster self-confidence and which ones do not? 8. Do grades reflect acquisition? A qualitative study on acquisition in the classroom and how it is measured for purposes of grading should be conducted. 9. How do acquisition and learning apply to other fields? Should these concepts be applied to other fields in education? And if so, what would be the application?

PAGE 74

65 Conclusion This study examined variables from two theories in second language acquisition and how they relate to success in the foreign language classroom. The two theories were the Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Output Hypothesis. According to the data analysis, the Output Hypothesis variables showed no effect on grades. Only one variable of the Affective Filter Hypothesis, anxiety, proved to have a effect on grades. As stated before, these conclusions do not attempt to diminish the significance of the two theories. There are additional studies that show that affective variables and output variables significantly improve a student's ability to communicate in the target language. The salient conclusion for this study is that although grades may be an indicator of success in an academic setting, they are not an indicator of acquisition. Further studies on grading and acquisition need to be performed.

PAGE 75

APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 1 . What foreign language class are you enrolled in? A) Spanish B) French C) German 2. In what year of foreign language study are you? A) 1 St B) 2nd C) 3rd D) 4th E) 5th 3. Is English your native language? A) yes B) no 4. What grade are you in? A) 8th B)9th QlOth D)llth E) 12th 5. What is your sex? A) Male B) Female 6. What is your current grade in this class? A) A B)B C)C D)D E)F For the following statements, use the guide below: A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 7. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my foreign language class. 66 I

PAGE 76

A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 8. I don't worry about making mistakes in the language class. 9. I tremble when I know that I'm going to be called on in language class. 10. It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language class. 11. It wouldn't bother me at all to take more foreign language classes. 12. During language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course. 13. I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am. 14. I am usually at ease during tests in my foreign language class. 15. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in language class. 16. I worry about the consequences of failing my foreign language class. 17. I don't understand why some people get so upset over foreign language classes. 18. In language class, I can get so nervous I forget things I know. 19. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my language class. 20. I would not be nervous speaking the foreign language with native speakers. 21 . I get upset when I don't understand what the teacher is correcting. 22. Even if I am well prepared for language class, I feel anxious about it. 23. I often feel like not going to my language class. 24. I feel confident when I speak in foreign language class. 25. I am afraid that my language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.

PAGE 77

A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 26. I can feel my heart pounding when I'm going to be called on. 27. The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get. 28. I don't feel pressure to prepare very well for language class. 29. I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do. 30. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the foreign language in front of other students. 3 1 . Language class moves so quickly I worry about getting left behind. 32. I feel more tense and nervous in my language class than in my other classes. 33. I get nervous when I don't understand every word the language teacher says. 34. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak a foreign language. 35. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the foreign language. 36. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of the foreign language. 37. I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I haven't prepared in advance. 38. When I am on my way to language class, I feel very sure and relaxed. 39. I get nervous when I don't understand every word the language teacher says. 40. I like new and challenging material. 41. The foreign language class is too demanding , and the challenges are beyond me. 42. I study because I am curious about how the foreign language "works."

PAGE 78

69 A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 43 I study to get good grades and teacher approval. 44. Foreign languages are interesting to me. 45. I am only taking this class to fulfill a requirement. 46. I prefer to figure out homework assignments on my own. 47. I prefer that the teacher help me with homework assignments. 48. I know when I have succeeded or failed on assignments before I get resuhs fi-om the teacher. 49. I only know the results of test or homework assignments when I get them back from the teacher. 50. I often know what to do in class (assignments, activities, etc.). 51. I need the teacher to tell me what to do and how to do it (assignments, activities, etc.). 52. I often get to speak in the foreign language class. 53. I get to express verbally and in written form what I know in the foreign language. 54. When I speak or write in the foreign language, I know when I make a mistake. 55. Sometimes when I speak or write in the foreign language, and I realize i make a mistake, I know how to correct the mistake. 56. I learn best when I speak or write in the foreign language. 57. When I am not sure how to state something in the foreign language, I try the best I can. 58. I use what information I have to express an idea or answer a question in the foreign language.

PAGE 79

70 A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 59. The teacher's responses to what I say in the foreign language help me better my foreign language skills. 60. When I speak in the foreign language, the teacher responds in the foreign language. 61 . I review corrected written assignments. 62. I spend a lot of time daydreaming. 63. I'm pretty sure of myself 64. I often with I were someone else. 65. I'm easy to like. 66. My parents and I have a lot of fun together. 67. I never worry about anything. 68. I find it very hard to talk in fi-ont of the class. 69. I wish I were younger. 70. There are lots of things about myself I'd change if I could. 71 . I can make up my mind without much trouble. 72. I'm a lot of fijn to be with. 73. I get upset easily at home. 74. I always do the right thing. 75. I'm proud of my school work.

PAGE 80

A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 76. Someone always has to tell me what to do. 77. It takes me a long time to get used to anything new. 78. I'm often sorry for the things I do. 79. I'm popular with kids my own age. 80. My parents usually consider my feelings. 81. I'm never unhappy. 82. I'm doing the best work that I can. 83. I give in very easily. 84. I can usually take care of myself 85. I'm pretty happy. 86. I would rather play with children younger than me. 87. My parents expect too much of me. 88. I like everyone I know. 89. I like to be called on in class. 90. I understand myself 91 . It's pretty tough to be me. 92 Things are all mixed up in my life. 93. Kids usually follow my ideas. 94. No one pays much attention to me at home.

PAGE 81

A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 95. I never get scolded. 96. I'm doing as well in school as I'd like to. 97. I can make up my mind and stick to it. 98. I really don't like being a boy/girl. 99. I have a low opinion of myself. 100. I don't like to be with other people. 101 . There are many times when I'd like to leave home. 102. I'm never shy. 103. I often feel upset in school. 104. I often feel ashamed of myself 105. I'm not as nice looking as most people. 106. If I have something to say, I usually say it. 107. Kids pick on me very often. 108. My parents understand me. 109. I always tell the truth. 1 10. My teacher makes me feel I'm not good enough. 111. I don't care what happens to me. 112. I'm a failure. 113. I get upset easily when I'm scolded.

PAGE 82

A) Strongly agree B) Agree C) Neither agree nor disagree D) Disagree E) Strongly disagree 114. Most people are better liked than I am. 115. I usually feel as if my parents are pushing me. 116. I usually feel as if my parents are pushing me. 117. I always know what to say to people. 118. I often get discouraged in school. 119. Things usually don't bother me. 120. I can't be depended on.

PAGE 83

APPENDIX B SAMPLE QUIZZES AND TESTS This appendix gives a sample of the quizzes that were used by the teachers in this study. The selections below were taken from various quizzes that were given throughout the school year. This is meant to give an idea of how the teachers tested the students' knowledge. Teacher lA.l This is a sample of a quiz this teacher gave to Spanish 2 students. I. Fill in each blank with the correct preterit form of the verb in parentheses. 1 . Felipe y yo (comer) a las siete. 2. ^Ya tu (recibir) la carta? 3. ^Cuando (subir) Ud. al quinto piso? 4. Uds. (prometer) mandar los discos. 5. Yo (correr) demasiado ayer. 6. Ellos (decidir) no comprar el coche. II, Complete the dialogue below by filling in each blank with the correct word fi-om the word bank. a proximo no de 1. i que es? Parece de seda. Y es muy caro. 2. importa. Lo llevo. 3. i quien le compras un regalo tan caro? 4. El lunes es el compleanos de mama. 74

PAGE 84

75 Teacher IB 1:2:3 These teachers often used the same tests. Below is a sample from this school. I. Continua las conjugaciones. 1. Yo (to look for) 2. Vosotros (to punish) 3 . Tu (to carry) 4. Ellas (to enter) 5. Uds. (to complete) II. Translate. 1 . I look for him. 2. We carry it (the table). 3. They need them (the pens). 4. I invite you (pi. m ). III. Mark the following statements True of False. 1 . Muchos de los hispanohablantes que viven en NY vienen de Puerto Rico. 2. San Juan es la capital de Cuba. 3. Caracas es la capital de Venezuela. 4. En los paises hispanos, la familia es muy unida. IV. Give the meaning of the following Spanish words. 1 . el arbol 2. mandar 3 . el gato 4. segundo 5. menor 6. a menudo 7. decir

PAGE 85

Teacher IC.l I. Choose the correct answer. 1 . La leche es una a) banana b) bebida c) fresa d) papa 2. Una hormiga es un a) credito b) curso c) insecto d) mosquito e) pico 3. Un hombre se afeita la a) uva b) sal c) mostasa d) ceja e) barba II. Translate. 1 . a residence hall 2. an interviewer 3. the boss 4. the saleswoman

PAGE 86

APPENDIX C THE PERMISSION SLIP May 6, 1996 Dear Parent: My name is Victor McGlone, and I am a graduate student a the University of Florida in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum. As part of my doctoral research, I need to gather information on foreign language acquisition. I will need to administer a questionnaire, and I am asking your permission for your child's participation. The questionnaire will take approximately 45 minutes to complete and will take place during your child's foreign language class. The questionnaire addresses three areas in the foreign language classroom: 1) attitude, 2) motivation, and 3) self-confidence. Your child may choose not to answer any question or may choose not to complete the questionnaire at all. Also, you or your child has the right to withdraw permission for participation at any time without any penalty. Students choosing not to participate during the questionnaire may remain in the class and read or study a lesson of his/her choosing. Your child's foreign language teacher has agreed to administer the questionnaire. Your child's participation or refusal to participate will NOT affect your child's grade in any way. There will be no risks or discomforts to the students involved in the study. Benefits gained from the study may improve techniques in foreign language acquisition/learning. Also, the questionnaire does not ask for names of the participants; therefore, individual results will be anonymous. There will be no compensation for the participants. Any further questions can be addressed to me at the address/phone number above. Questions or concerns about the research participants' rights can be directed to the UFIRB Office, PO Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 3261 1-2250 I have read the described procedure above. I voluntarily agree to allow my child, , to participate in Mr. McGlone's questionnaire study, and I have received a copy of this description. Parent/Guardian Date 2nd ParentAVitness Date 77

PAGE 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horowitz, Horowitz, and Cope's construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal. 78. 155-167. Blascovich, J. & J. Tomaka. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds ), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115-119). San Diego, CA: Academis Press. Brown, H.D., Yorio, C.A., & Crymes, R.H. (Eds ). (1977). Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice . Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Brown, R. (1973). A first language . Cambridge: Harvard Press. Bruner, J.S. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finicchiaro, M. (Eds ). (1977). Viewpoints on English as a second language . New York: Regents Publishing Company. Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1974). Global and local mistakes. In J.H. Schumann & N. Stenson (Eds.) (pp. 71-80), New frontiers in second language learning . Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 . 1-47. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of svntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1957). Syntactic structures . The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton and Company. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem . San Francisco: Freeman. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R.W. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language Learning 41 . 469-512. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 78

PAGE 88

79 Deci, E.D., «& Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in Human ' behavior . New York, NY: Plenum Press. Demo, D.H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoev. 48 . 1490-1502. de Villiers, P. & de Villiers, J. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.2 . 267278. Domyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal.78 . 273-284. Dulay, H. «& Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Lanugage Learning. 24 . 37-53. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro (Eds ), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 95-126). New York: Regents. Dweck, C.S., &Elliot, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed ), Handbook of child psychology (Vol 4) (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Edwards, A.L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories . NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed ), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Ervin-Trip, S. (1973). Some strategies for the first and second years. In A. Dil (Ed ), Language acquisition and communicative choice (pp. 204-238). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fabris, M. (1978). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly. 8 . 482. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning . Rowley, MA: Newbury House. , Smythe, P. C, Clement, R., & Glicksman, L. (1976). Second language learning: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review. 32 . 1 98-2 13. j it i

PAGE 89

80 Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds ). (1985). Input in second language acquisition . Rowley, MA; Newbury House. Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics. 5 . 79-100. Guiora, A. (Ed.) (1984). An epistemologv for the language sciences . Detroit, MI: University of Michigan. Guralink, David B. (Ed ). (1976). New world dictionarv . Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing. Harter, Susan. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: motivational and informational components. Developmental Psvchologv.17 . 300-312. Harter, S., & Connell, J. P. (1984), A comparison of alternative models of the relationships between academic achievement and children's preceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. NichoUs (Ed.), The development of achievement-related cognitions and behaviors . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hatch, E. (1978), Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp.40 1-43 5). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hopkins, W. (1992). The acquisition of foreign languages as a national priority for America. Foreign Language Annals.25 . 147-154. Horowitz, E , Horowitz, M. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal. 70 .125-132. Kessler, C . & Idlar, I. (1977). The acquisition of English syntactic structures by a Vietnamese child . Paper presented at the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Forum, UCLA. Kleinmuntz, B. (1977). Personality measurement . Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . New York: Pergamon Press. . (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning . Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S . & Pon, P. (1975). An error analysis of an advanced ESL learner. Working Papers on Bilingualism.7 . 125-129.

PAGE 90

81 Krashen, S , Scarcella, R.C., & Long, M.H. (Eds ). (1992). Child-adult differences in second language acquisition . Rowley, MA; Newbury House Publishers. Makino, T. (1980). Acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese adolescents . Tokyo: Shinozaki Press. McAlpine, D., Ervin, B.L., & Ging, D. (Eds.). (1989). Defining the essentials for the foreign language classroom . Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teaching . London: Allen and Unwin. Munsell, P., & Carr, T.H. (1981). Monitoring the monitor: A review of second language acquisition and second language learning. Language Learning. 31 . 493-502. Omaggio, A C. (1986). Teaching language in context . Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement . London, England: Pinter Publishers. Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal. 78 . 12-28. Pica, T , Holliday, L , Lewis, N. «fe Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 11 . 63-90. Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed ), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, New South Wales: National Curriculum Resource Centre. Rivers, W. (1979). Foreign language acquisition: Where the real problems lie. A pplied Linguistics. 1 . 48-57. Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Deci, E.L., (1985). A motivational analysis of selfdetermination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R E. Ames (Eds ), Research on motivation in education: the classroom milieu . New York: Academic Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Maden (Eds ), Input in second language acquisition . Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers -. (1974). French immersion programs across Canada: research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review. 31 . 117-129.

PAGE 91

82 . (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modem Language Review. 50 . 158-64. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 16 . 371-391. Taylor, J.B., & Reitz, W. E. (1968). The three faces of self-esteem . (Res. Bull. No. 80). Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Thomas,,!. (1980). Agency and achievement: self-management and self-regard. Review of Educational Research.50 . 213-240. Van Tuinen, M. & N.V. Rananaiah. (1979). A multimethod analysis of selected selfesteem measures. Journal of Research in Personality. 13 . 16-24. Yorio, C. (1978). Confessions of a second language speaker/learner . Paper presented at 12th annual TESOL convention, Mexico City, April 1978.

PAGE 92

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jon Victor McGlone was bom in Huntington, West Virginia, on June 17, 1960. He grew up in Columbus, Ohio, and South Florida. He graduated from Marshall University in 1983 with a B.A. in Spanish. He attended graduate school at The Ohio State University and the University of Florida. All other graduate degrees were awarded at the University of Florida: M.A., 1988, Spanish literature; Ed.S., 1991, foreign language education; Ph.D., 1996, foreign language education. Victor McGlone has taught as a graduate teaching associate at The Ohio State University and at the University of Florida and was also a teacher in Clay County Schools. He was also awarded a U.S. Department of Education Bilingual Fellowship in 1995. 83

PAGE 93

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. lemens L. Hallman, Chair Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. M. David Miller Associate Professor of Foundations of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Igene A. Todd Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Danling Fu ' Assistant Professor of Instruction and Curriculum

PAGE 94

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fiilly adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Arthur J, T^ewman Professor of Foundations of Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1996 ^arjea<,^^ (jl%?r^)^.y. b^an, College'of^ucation Dean, Graduate School