Anxiety about Foreign Language Learning among High School Women

Anxiety about Foreign Language Learning among High School Women LEONORE GANSCHOW RICHARD SPARKS Department of Educational PqchorogY Miami Univm.9, wid, OH 45056 EMad: [email protected]

Departmat of Education College of Mt. St. J q h Mt. St. Joseph, OH 45233 EMail: richard-Spanks@mad. m.sj.edu

This study examined the relationship between anxiety and native language skill and foreign language aptitude measures among 154 high school foreign language learners. Three levels of anxiety were identified using the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale or FLCAS (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Low Anxiety (LO-ANX) students were expected to have significantly stronger native language skills and foreign language aptitude than High Anxiety (HI-ANX), students and significantly higher foreign language grades. Aver- age Anxiety (AVE-ANX) students were expected to score somewhere in-between. Findings showed overall significant differences among the groups on nine variables, including measures of native language phonology/orthography, semantics, and verbal memory; foreign language aptitude; eighth-grade English grade; and end-of-year foreign language grade. On measures of phonology/orthography, eighth-grade English, and foreign language grade, LO-ANX and AVE-ANX students outperformed HI-ANX students. On a foreign language aptitude measure and foreign language grade, LO-ANX students outperformed both AVE- and HI-ANX students. On measures of verbal memory and reading comprehension, LO-ANX students outperformed HI-ANX students. Discriminant analysis results showed that all test measures but one were significant in distinguishing the three groups. Among others, implications include the suggestion that skill in one’s native language and aptitude for learning a foreign language may affect anxiety level and that the FLCAS may provide an early indicator of basic language problems.

FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS FOREIGN LAN- guage educators have hypothesized that anxiety impacts on foreign language learning.’ In the 1970s and 1980s researchers examined students’ self-reports of anxiety in relation to language skill measures, such as final course grades (Cur- ran, 1976; Guiora, 1983; Stevick, 1980). Stein- berg and Horwitz (1986) studied the effect of environmentally induced anxiety on oral communication in a foreign language and found that students experiencing an anxiety-producing situation attempted to convey more con- crete messages than those in a non-anxiety- producing setting. Krashen (1982) hypothe-

The Modern Language Journal, 80, ii (1996)

“1996 The Modern Language Journal 0026-7902/96/199-212 $1.50/0

sized that anxiety contributes negatively to an “affective filter,” which makes an individual less responsive to language input.

While many scholars have studied general language anxiety (For a review of this research, see Horwitz & Young, 1991), Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) were the first to suggest that foreign language research had neither defined anxiety that is specific to foreign language learning nor described the effects of anxiety on foreign language learning in classroom settings. They hypothesized that anxiety specific to foreign language learning parallels three related performance anxieties: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Horwitz et al. further speculated that foreign language anxiety was not simply the combination of the three performance anxieties but was a “distinct complex of self-

200

perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the (foreign) language learning process” (p. 128). They hypothesized that performance difficulties in a foreign language may be due, in some measure, to anxiety.

In connection with their work with college students enrolled in foreign language courses, Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope developed the For- eign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). The FLCAS is a 33-item, forced choice format question- naire that asks questions reflective of the three performance-related activities (communication apprehension, test anxiety, fear of negative evaluation), but its questions apply specifically to foreign language learning. In their initial studies with the instrument, the authors found that foreign language anxiety was experienced by many students in at least some aspects of foreign language learning. Horwitz (1991) conducted research to verify the reliability and construct validity of the FLCAS and reported a significant negative correlation between anxiety and foreign language grades. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991a) supported Horwitz et al.’s findings by suggesting that foreign language proficiency increases as anxiety decreases. However, they raised the question of causality: Does anxiety interact with pre-existing language ability, which, in turn, impairs foreign language performance or does poor foreign language performance lead to anxiety as a consequence? In general, they have taken the posi- tion that language anxiety can play a significant causal role in individual differences in learning a foreign language, and they place language anxiety under the broader category of social anxiety (MacIntyre, 1995; MacIntyre & Gard- ner, 1991b).

We (Sparks, 1995a; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1995a) have suggested that theories that propose affective difference as causal factors in foreign language learning must be approached with caution because of the possible confounding effects of language variables. Using the FLCAS as an example, we examined each of the 33 questions on the scale and estimated that 60% of the questions involved comfort level with expressive or receptive language. Several additional questions (15%) involved verbal memory for language and speed of language processing (12%). We noted that Horwitz et al. had failed to use a comparison group in their research, and they did not assess the students’ native language skills or foreign language apti-

The Modern Language Journal 80 (1996)

tude to determine if highly anxious students had overt or subtle native language learning problems or weak foreign language aptitude. Au (1988) suggested that failure to control for the level of language proficiency in research studies investigating second language learning is a se- rious methodological weakness. We (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a) speculated that failure to control for first and second language skill in studies involving affective variables does not allow researchers to determine whether students with low levels of language skill might be experiencing high anxiety or low motivation, or whether high anxiety or low motivation might affect students with higher and lower levels of language skill differentially. To date, proponents of the anxiety hypothesis have not published research that explores the relationship among native language skills, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language anxiety.

LINGUISTIC CODING PROBLEMS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ANXIETY

In 1991 we introduced the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis into the foreign language literature. Recently, we changed the term “Defi- cit” to “Differences” in order to highlight the idea of individual differences in basic language skills, to clarify that language performance ex- ists on a continuum, and to emphasize our hypothesis that there is not a distinct entity such as a “foreign language learning disability” (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a). Initially, the hypothesis was introduced in the learning disabilities literature to describe difficulties that this population has learning a foreign language (Sparks, Ganschow, & Pohlman, 1989). How- ever, many students without learning disabilities have been found to have similar difficulties with foreign language learning (see Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorsky, Skinner, & Patton, 1994; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993a,b; Sparks, Ganschow, Flu- harty, & Little, 1996; Sparks, Ganschow, Ja- vorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992a). The Linguis- tic Coding Differences Hypothesis is derived from native language research, especially the work of Vellutino and Scanlon (1986), who found that poor readers and writers primarily had problems with the structural (phonological/orthographic and syntactic) but not meaning (semantic) aspects of language. Poor readers have been found to have specific difficulty with the phonological/orthographic, or sound and sound-symbol, “code” of language

Leanore Ganschow and Richard sparks

(Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Stanovich, 1986,1988a; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).* In the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis we proposed that skills in one’s native language in the phonological/orthographic, syntactic, and semantic codes provide the basic foundation for foreign language learning. Further, we speculated that the majority of poor foreign language learners, or “underachievers” (see Pimsleur, Sundland, & McIntyre, 1964) have the most difficulty with the phonological/orthographic aspects of foreign language learning. In our 1991 article and more recently, in a response to Mac- Intyre on suspected causal factors in foreign language learning (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995a), we suggested that native language skill and students’ aptitude for foreign languages may confound findings about the role of anxiety when learning a foreign language in traditional classroom settings. In this view, students with subtle or overt differences in native language skill are thought to exhibit weaker performance in foreign language learning, which may or may not affect their attitude and motivation towards or anxiety about learning a foreign language. The critical point here is that one’s level of native language skill and aptitude for learning a foreign language should be considered when examining the role of anxiety in foreign language learning.

201

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIVE LANGUAGE SKILL AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE APTITUDE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Since the publication of our 1991 article, we and our colleagues have conducted a number of empirical studies on various facets of foreign language learning among good and poor foreign language learners. In general, results of our research have provided support for the Lin- guistic Coding Differences Hypothesis in that good foreign language learners have been found to exhibit significantly stronger native oral and written language skills and foreign language aptitude than poor foreign language learners. These differences have been demonstrated at both the secondary and postsecond- ary levels of education. All of the studies have used native language skill and foreign language aptitude measures to study differences in the skills of good and poor foreign language learners.3

Most germane to the present study was an investigation of the relationship between for-

eign language aptitude and native language skills and anxiety among low, moderate, and high anxious college foreign language learners who were identified through Horwitz’s FLCAS (Ganschow et al., 1994). In that study, significant group differences by anxiety level were found on measures of native language phonology/ orthography, overall reading, oral language, and foreign language aptitude. No differences were found among the three groups on semantic (vocabulary) and short-term verbal memory measures. High-anxious foreign language learners achieved relatively lower final grades in foreign language courses over two semesters than moderate and low-anxious learners. This study also provided empirical support for our conten- tion that language skills are likely to account for a significant part of the variance in foreign language learning and that in the examination of affective difference such as anxiety, one must consider the possible confounding effects of an individual’s basic language skills (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993d, 1995a).

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between anxiety and native language skill and foreign language aptitude measures among a population of high school foreign language learners. The study differed from the aforementioned related study (Ganschow et al., 1994) in that high school, rather than college students, were involved, and the present population was substantially larger, consisting of an entire class of first-year foreign language students at a private school for women. As in the previous study, students were divided into high anxious (HI-ANX), average anxious (AVE-ANX), and low-anxious (LO- ANX) groups based on their overall performance on the FLCAS (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). Drawing from the findings of the anxiety study on the college population, we hypothesized that there would be: (a) significant overall group differences by anxiety level on the testing measures used in the study (see descrip- tion of measures in the Appendix and under “Testing Instruments” in the “Methodology” section); (b) significant differences between HI-ANX and LO-ANX students on measures of native language phonology/orthography, reading comprehension, foreign language aptitude, eighth-grade English grade, and final foreign language grade-AVE-ANX students were expected to score somewhere in-between HI- and

202

LO-ANX students; and (c) no significant between-group differences on measures of native language vocabulary and verbal memory.

The Modern Language Journal 80 (19%)

validity and reliability studies on the FLCAS showing satisfactory reliability, internal consis- tency, construct validity, and test-retest reliability (Horwitz, 1991; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). They have reported that their measure is “. . . independent of the confounding effects of (general) test anxiety” (Horwitz, 1991, p. 39).

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Subjects were 154 females who attended a highly selective, single sex college preparatory high school and were enrolled in the first of a 3-year foreign language course sequence.*, 5

There were 143 ninth graders and 12 tenth graders.6 The mean age of the students was 14 years, 7 months, with an age range of 13 years, 7 months to 16 years, 0 months. Foreign languages included Spanish (N = 78), French (N = 52), German (N =16), and Latin (N = 8). Each student received parental permission to partici- pate in the study.

Testing Instruments

The test battery (dependent measures) included measures of phonology/orthography, semantics, verbal memory, and foreign language aptitude. Eighth-grade English and end- of-the year foreign language grades were also dependent measures. The test battery is described in the Appendix.

The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) was the independent measure used to classify the 154 students into one of three groups: HI-ANX, AVE-ANX, and LO-ANX. Stu- dents were grouped in order to compare their performance on the testing measures. (The procedure for forming groups is described below.) The 33-item instrument designed to measure foreign language anxiety includes such questions as: “I always feel that the other students speak the foreign language better than I do” and “It frightens me when I don’t under- stand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language.” Its authors have conducted several

TABLE 1

Procedure

Classroom teachers administered the FLCAS during a class period at the beginning of the fourth quarter of the school year. We wrote out directions for completing the FLCAS for the teachers. The students recorded their answers on scantron sheets that were read into a data base.

Upon administration and scoring of the FLCAS, we divided and classified the 154 students into three groups according to their scores on the FLCAS. Because the FLCAS does not have a standard scoring procedure, we devised a standard and consistent method for determining group membership. We accom- plished this procedure by using an “ideal answer” for each of the 33 questions, calculating the group’s sample mean for the 33 questions, and determining the degree to which students deviated from the sample mean. An “ideal” answer was either “strongly agree/agree” or “strongly disagree/disagree,” depending upon the direction of the question. Students scoring one or more standard deviations above the overall sample mean were identified as LO- ANX; those between +.99 and -.99 standard deviations from the sample mean were identified as AVE-ANX; and those one or more standard deviations below the sample mean were identified as HI-ANX. Table 1 presents the number and percent of students identified in each ANX category and the Mean anxiety level and range for each identified group.’

During the first 2 to 3 weeks of the school year we administered the tests designed for

Number and Percent of Students Identified in Each Anxiety Category and Mean Anxiety Level and Range

Anxiety Category Number Percentage Mean Range LO-ANX 29 18.8 +1.56 +1.08 to +2.79 AVE-ANX 98 63.7 -.18 -0.89 to +0.95 HI-ANX 27 17.5 -1.16 -1.02 to -1.42 Note. Students deviating one standard deviation or more above the Mean were identified as LO-ANX; those between +.99 and -.99, AVE-ANX; and those one standard deviation or more below the Mean, HI- ANX.

Lmnore Ganschow and Richard spanks

group administration in the students’ classrooms. Group testing took about one hour and 30 minutes.8 We conducted individual testing with assistance from other examiners and special education majors who had been trained by the authors prior to this study.9 Individual testing took approximately 30 minutes per student.10 We completed individual testing by the end of the first quarter of the school year. We obtained end-of-year foreign language grades from the foreign language teachers upon com- pletion of the school year and eighth-grade English grades from school records.

203

dicted to be in a given anxiety risk group and the predicted error rate.

Analysis $Data

We used a MANOVA procedure to determine whether there were overall significant differences among HI-ANX, AVE-ANX, and LO-ANX students on the nine variables. In the event that the MANOVA was significant, we performed univariate ANOVAs to determine whether the three groups differed significantly from each other on each of the variables. We used a Scheffe procedure to determine which of the groups differed from each other on a given variable and a pvalue of p < .05 as the level of significance .

We used a Discriminant Analysis procedure to determine which tests best discriminated the three groups. Based on the test performance, we determined the number of students pre-

RESULTS

The MANOVA procedure showed overall significant differences among the three groups on the nine measures in the study [ Wilks’ Lambda = .645; F(18,286) = 3.90; p = .001, and Pillai Trace = .268; F(18,286) = 2.46; p = .001]. Because of the unequal sample sizes, a Box’s M test was performed. The results showed that there was insuf- ficient evidence (at the .05 significance level) to indicate that the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was violated [Box’s M = 126.5, F(90,14,597) = 1.22; p = .08].

We ran group comparisons using an ANOVA procedure on the individual measures and performed multiple comparisons on the individual measures using Scheffe’s correction. Means and standard deviations of each group on each of the measures are reported in Table 2. Between- group differences on each of the 13 measures are reported in Table 3. We discuss findings here on group comparisons and the discriminant analysis.

Group cmparism On the phonology/orthography measures,

results showed significant between-group differences on all of the measures, which included WRAT SP, F(2,151) = 9.61; p = .0001, PHON DEL,

TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations on Test Measures by Anxiety Level

Test LO-ANX AVE-ANX HI-ANX ( N = 27) ( N = 98) (N= 29)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

PHONEME DELETIONa 17.4 2.7 17.0 2.3 15.4 3.4 WRAT SPELL 113.6 8.0 112.8 7.6 105.8 9.5 WRMT BASIC SKILLS 108.1 9.7 103.8 8.1 100.6 10.5

NELSON READING 121.5 9.0 116.6 10.6 111.1 11.9 PEABODY VOCAB 114.0 11.7 111.8 11.4 107.9 11.1

PHONOLOGY/ORTHOGRAPHY

SEMANTICS

MEMORY WJ MEMORY CLUSTER 113.9 13.9 109.7 12.3 105.0 11.9

FL APTITUDE MLAT LONG FORMb 1 12.7 11.5 105.2 11.0 97.9 12.2

ENG 8 GRADEc 3.6 0.4 3.5 0.6 3.1 0.9 FL GRADEc 3.4 0.5 3.0 0.7 2.1 0.9 a raw score b Permission from Psychological Corporation was obtained to convert raw scores into standard scores. c Grades were converted in a point-value scale, as follows: A+ = 4.33; A = 4.00; A- = 3.67; B+ = 3.33; etc.

204

TABLE 3 Significant Differences Between Groups by Anxiety Level


Measure LO-ANX LO-ANX AVE-ANX VS. AVE-ANX VS. HI-ANX VS. HI-ANX

PHONOLOGY/ORTHOGRAPHY PHONEME DELETION * * WRAT SPELL * * WRMT BASIC SKILLS *

SEMANTICS NELSON READING * * PEABODY VOCAB

MEMORY MEMORY CLUSTER *

FL APTITUDE MLAT LONG FORM * * *

ENG 8 GRADE * * FL GRADE * * * *p = < .05

F(2,151) = 5.16; p = .007, and WRMT BSC, F(2,151) = 5.05; p = .008. On WRAT SP and PHON DEL, LO-ANX and AVE-ANX outperformed HI-ANX. On the WRMT BSC, LO-ANX outperformed HI-ANX; we found no differences between LO-ANX and AVE-ANX or between AVE-ANX and HI-ANX. The hypothesis that there would be significant differences between LO-ANX and HI-ANX students on measures of phonology/orthography was partially supported.

On the measures of semantics, which included PPVT-R and NELSON, we found significant differences on one measure, NELSON, F(2,151) = 6.78; p = .002. Here, LO-ANX and AVE-ANX outperformed HI-ANX. We found no differences on the PPVT-R. The hypothesis that there would be no differences among the groups on the vocabulary measure was supported, as was the finding of significant differences on the reading comprehension measure.

On the measure of verbal memory, WJMC, we found a significant difference favoring LO- ANX between LO-ANX and HI-ANX, F(2,151) = 3.51; p = .03. This finding was contrary to expectation.

On the measure of foreign language aptitude, MLAT LF, we found significant differences among the three groups, with LO-ANX outperforming both AVE- and HI-ANX, and AVE-ANX outperforming HI-ANX, F(2,151) = 12.08; p = .0001. This finding was in accordance with expectation of the hypothesis.

On the eighth-grade English grade, we found significant differences among the three groups,

in accordance with our expectation, F(2,151) = 6.00; p = .003. Here LO-ANX and AVE-ANX outperformed HI-ANX; there were no differences between AVE-ANX and LO-ANX.

On the end-of-year foreign language grade, the hypothesis was supported, with LO-ANX outperforming both AVE-ANX and HI-ANX and AVE-ANX outperforming HI-ANX, F(2,151) = 26.90; p = .0001. Using a chi-square statistic, we performed a cross tabulation between end- of-year foreign language grades and the level of anxiety experienced by subjects in this study. The results showed a dependency between end- of-year grades and students’ level of anxiety on the FLCAS (S with 6 df= 21.12; p = .002).

Results of the discriminant analysis showed that all testing measures but the PPVT-R were significant in discriminating the anxiety risk groups. Table 4 shows the percent of students correctly classified in each anxiety risk group and the overall error rate. As the table indicates, the analysis correctly classified 60% of the low- risk, 35% of the average, and 63.3% of the high- risk groups. Total error rate was .47.

DISCUSSION

In this study we were interested in determining the relationship between anxiety level and measures of native language skill, foreign language aptitude, and foreign language grades among a population of high school women enrolled in first-year foreign language classes. We speculated that when grouped by anxiety level on the FLCAS (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,

Leonwe Ganschow and Richard Sparks

TABLE 4 Percentage of Students Classified into Risk Groups

205

measured by the FLCAS. Another subgroup ex- pressed low anxiety but found foreign language learning quite difficult.

As in a previous study on anxiety and language skills among college students (Ganschow et al., 1994), a general finding of this study was that the overall Mean score of HI-ANX students was in the average to above-average range on all the measures, whereas the overall Mean score for LO-ANX students was in the above average to superior range. This finding suggests, in general, that it is not that the HI-ANX students had particular difficulties with language but, rather, that the LO-ANX students had specific language strengths that made foreign language learning perhaps easier and, judging from performance on the FLCAS, less anxiety-producing for them. Humes-Bartlo (1989) also found that poor foreign language learners showed mild deficits in their native language when compared to good foreign language learners. Although the poor foreign language learners in her study scored significantly below the good foreign language learners on language skill tasks, their scores were not far below the mean of the test. Humes-Bartlo suggests that “low, but not pathologically low scores on L1 tasks suggest a language processing system which is ade- quate for L1 but is overloaded by L2” (p. 51).

In the current study, students’ language “strengths” were particularly evident in their basic “aptitude” for learning a foreign language, as measured by the MLAT LF, where LO- ANX students scored almost one standard deviation higher than HI-ANX students (M = 112.7 vs. M = 98.6). Strength in foreign language aptitude, as measured by the MLAT LF, was also reflected in students’ end-of-the-year foreign language grades, where LO-ANX students scored 1.3 quality points higher than HI-ANX students (M= 3.4 vs. M = 2.1). The finding that the mean English grade, too, was in the superior range for LO-ANX students (3.6 on a 4.0 scale) but in the average range for HI-ANX students (3.1) supports the inference. In several studies we and our colleagues have found that the MLAT LF distinguished good and poor foreign language learners (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Ganschow et al., 1991, 1994; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, in press; Sparks et al., 1992a, b, 1996) and that the MLAT LF is a good predictor of first-year foreign language grade (Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton, 1995). In a recent study, Ehrman and Oxford (1995) found that the MLAT LF showed strong correlations with foreign language speaking and reading in a large

ANXIETY RISK GROUPS LOW AVERAGE HIGH

LOW 60 24 37 (N= 25) AVERAGE 28 35 37 (N = 100) HIGH 16.6 20 63.3 (N= 29)

Error Rate = .47 No&. Italic numbers indicate anxiety risk groups correctly classified.

1986), low-anxious students would perform better than high-anxious students on measures of native language skill in the phonological/ orthographic domain, on a measure of foreign language aptitude (MLAT), and on end-of-year foreign language grade. Findings clearly supported our speculations. We found overall differences among women classified in HI-, AVE-, and LO-ANX groups on eight of the nine variables, seven of which had been hypothesized to have significant differences. We found the greatest differences on native language phonology/orthography (PHON DEL, WRAT SP, and WRMT BSC), foreign language aptitude (MLAT LF), and end-of-year foreign language grade, with students found to be LO- and AVE- ANX scoring significantly higher than HI-ANX on most measures.

Findings of the discriminant analysis were particularly interesting because of the relatively low percentage of students correctly classified into anxiety risk groups by the testing measures and the large error rate in classifying subjects (47%). The highest rate of misclassification occurred in the Average group, where only 35% were correctly classified. The other two groups had at least 60% of the students correctly classified. These results suggest that even though, in general, the more anxious students have lower native language skills, foreign language aptitude, and end-of-year grades, there is inconsis- tency and variability among the anxiety groups. This point is illustrated in a recent paper on anxiety and foreign language learning, in which we speculated that the relationship between anxiety and language skills is not clear-cut (Ganschow et al., 1994). In the present study we noted that a small subgroup of highly anxious students found the study of foreign language easy but were nevertheless highly anxious, as

206

sample of adults in intensive training with the U.S. Department of State.

Another finding of the study was that among the native language “codes” (phonology/ orthography, semantics), differences among the groups were best noted on tasks measuring phonological/orthographic skills. On the phonology/orthography tasks, LO-ANX students outperformed HI-ANX students on all three tasks (WRAT SP, PHON DEL, and WRMT BSC). This result is consistent with studies conducted by Sparks, Ganschow, and their colleagues in which phonological/orthographic tasks have discriminated able from less able foreign language learners (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Ganschow et al., 1991, 1994; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, in press; Sparks et al., 1992a, b, 1996). In a study that attempted to predict English learning by Finnish children over a three-year period, Service (1992) found that phonological/orthographic tasks-pseudoword repetition and pseudoword copying- along with the ability to compare syntactic- semantic structures, predicted English learning, and that the phonological/orthographic repetition and copying tasks were specifically related to language learning. She concluded that the ability to represent unfamiliar phonological material in working memory underlies the acquisition of new vocabulary items in foreign language learning. Other researchers, such as Pimsleur (1966), Carroll (1962), and, more recently, Skehan (1986) and Spolsky (1989), also have stressed the importance of this skill in learning a foreign language.

The hypothesis that the three ANX groups would distinguish themselves by eighth-grade English grade is consistent with the speculations of foreign language researchers, who have found that end-of-year grade in a foreign language relates to students’ previous grades in English courses {e.g., see Currall & Kirk, 1986). The results are also consistent with a prediction study that found learners’ eighth-grade English grade to be one of the best predictors of final foreign language grade in two different groups of first-year, secondary-level foreign language learners (Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton, 1995).

The lack of a significant difference on the PPVT-R, a measure of receptive vocabulary, supports previous studies showing that scores on semantic measures usually do not differenti- ate able from less able foreign language learners (Ganschow & Sparks, 1995; Ganschow et al., 1991,1994; Sparks & Ganschow, in press; Sparks et al., 1992a,b, 1996). Findings of significant dif-


ferences on the reading comprehension test (NELSON) support comprehension differences found in a related study by the authors on anxiety among college foreign language learners (Ganschow et al., 1994). In the present study the authors speculate that the significant difference between LO-ANX and HI-ANX students on the NELSON test may have occurred for two reasons.ll First, the NELSON is a timed test, and HI-ANX students may have been slower readers. Second, students who received lower foreign language grades had significantly poorer phonological/orthographic skills, which are used in reading (decoding) words. Studies in native language research have shown that poor readers may comprehend less than good readers because poor readers do not read as fast as good readers, often because of their poor phonological/orthographic processing skills. (For a review of research that explains these differences between skillful and less skillful readers, see Stanovich, 1986).

Verbal memory scores favored LO-ANX students over HI-ANX students, contrary to our previous related study on college learners, which showed no memory differences among the anxiety groups (Ganschow et al., 1994). However, it is important to note that the scores here of the LO-ANX group were in the above average range (M = 113.9), whereas the HI-ANX students still scored in the average range (M = 105.0). Carroll (1962) hypothesized that rote memory is an important variable in foreign language learning, and he included memory tasks on the MLAT. Recently, Skehan (1986) suggested that students may have problems with speed of language processing and with storing information. Gathercole and Baddeley (1993) hypothesized that “working memory,” or the short-term memory system involved in the tem- porary processing and storage of information, could play an important role in the processing of language, including areas such as vocabulary acquisition, speech production, reading development, and language comprehension. In native language research, findings suggest that the verbal memory problems of less able readers may be related to less proficiency in using the phonological/orthographic code (Rapala & Brady, 1990). In this study, though HI-ANX students scored in the average range on phonological/orthographic measures, they performed significantly less well than both LO- and AVE- ANX students on two of the three phonological/orthographic measures.

The finding of large and significant differ-

h m e Gansdunu and Richard Spaarks

ences in foreign language grades by ANX level is consistent with findings by some foreign language researchers, who have examined the correlation between grades and the FLCAS. Hor- witz, for example, found a strong negative correlation between foreign language anxiety and measures of foreign language proficiency (Horwitz et al., 1986). Research reviewed by Gardner (1991) supports Horwitz’s study. Table 5 presents a breakdown of end-of-year foreign language grades by anxiety level. Generally, LO- ANX students achieved grades of A and B (89%) with the mode at A; AVE-ANX students achieved grades of B and C (67%) with the mode at B; and HI-ANX students achieved grades of C and D/F (69%) with the mode at C. How- ever, almost one third of the HI-ANX students achieved grades of D and F (31%). These findings are not surprising, given that the LO-ANX students demonstrated significantly stronger native language skills and foreign language aptitude than the HI-ANX students. The findings lend support to our hypothesis that native language skills may serve as the foundation for success in the foreign language classroom and that students’ level of anxiety (or motivation) about foreign language learning may be associated with the strength of one’s language skills (Sparks, 1995a; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993d, 1995a).

Our more recent speculations about the role of anxiety in foreign language learning are that anxiety, in and of itself, may be difficult to study because basic language skills may confound the assumption that anxiety experienced by foreign language learners causes their learning difficulties (Sparks, 1995a; Sparks 8c Ganschow, 1995a). Au (1988) has suggested that failure to control for language proficiency in research studies involving affect (e.g., motivation) is a significant methodological weakness. We con- cur and propose that once basic language ability is factored in or out as a variable, then infer-

207

ences about anxiety might be examined because the effects of language skill are no longer a confounding variable.

In general the findings of this study support our Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis, which suggests that language variables differen- tiate good and poor foreign language learners and that high, average, and low levels of anxiety may be a consequence of these language skill differences (Sparks, 1995a; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993d, 1995a). The results also reinforce findings of a previous study on anxiety conducted with a substantially smaller population of college foreign language learners (Ganschow et al., 1994).

TABLE 5 Distribution of Grades by Anxiety Level

IMPLICATIONS

A major implication of this study is that foreign language educators might consider alter- natives other than affective variables, such as anxiety, in examining reasons for the relatively weaker performance of some of their students in foreign language classes. Though it is possible that anxiety could be responsible for poor performance in the foreign language classroom, other variables are also likely to be involved. In particular, the foreign language educator might consider variables such as the student’s basic native language ability, as measured by his/her performance on measures that test the language codes of phonology/orthography, syntax, and semantics, and a measure of foreign language aptitude such as the MLAT. (For a battery of testing instruments that can be used to measure native language skills and foreign language aptitude, see Ganschow & Sparks, 1993; Sparks, 1995b; Sparks 8c Ganschow, 1993a, c; and Sparks, Ganschow, 8c Javorsky, 1992).

A second implication is that the FLCAS may be a useful and quick measure for identifying early in the course those students who may have

LO-ANX AVE-ANX HI-ANX (N= 27) (N= 98) (N= 29)

Grade N Percentage N Percentage N Percentage A 15 56 28 29 2 7 B 9 33 43 44 7 24 C 3 11 23 23 11 38 D/F 0 0 4 4 9 31 Note A chi-square analysis showed a dependency between end-of-year grades and students’ level of anxiety on the FLCAS (S with 6 df = 21.12; p = .002).

208

relative difficulty with learning a foreign language. That is, performance on the FLCAS (and, perhaps, other affective measures) may reflect students’ levels of native language skill and foreign language aptitude. In this study the instrument was used with an entire school sample of first-year foreign language students, and the students’ scores on the FLCAS were reflective of their anxiety about their performance in the foreign language course up to the date that the FLCAS was administered (fourth quarter of the school year). By determining the degree of deviation from a sample mean, the authors were able to identify which students were most anxious, and only 17.5% were determined to be at least one standard deviation away from the sample mean (Table 1). Within this population, the average end-of-the-year foreign language grade fell only slightly above a C, suggesting that there does appear to be a positive relationship between low anxiety and strong performance in foreign language classes. Sim- ilarly, there would appear to be a negative relationship between high anxiety and weaker performance in foreign language classes. Thus, affective measures, in some cases, could be indi- rectly “measuring” students’ levels of native language skill and foreign language aptitude.

A third implication of this study is that the MLAT might also be a useful instrument for discriminating students who have differing levels of anxiety about learning a foreign language. In this study all of the groups differenti- ated themselves on the MLAT. It may be that a language aptitude instrument such as the MLAT might predict anxiety about language learning just as well as an affective instrument such as the FLCAS.12 Foreign language researchers might undertake further research to examine the relationship between foreign language aptitude measures and students’ motivation for, attitudes toward, and anxiety about learning a foreign language.

A fourth implication is that the study lends further support to the notion that foreign language differences are likely to be a result of differences in basic language competence in the three codes of language- phonology/ orthography, syntax (not assessed here), semantics-and perhaps verbal short-term memory. In particular, phonological/orthographic skills are thought to best distinguish good from poor foreign language learners. In this study, highly anxious students had significantly lower scores than low anxious students on language measures, especially the phonological/orthographic


measures. Although there can be students who exhibit strong native language skills and high foreign language aptitude but whose foreign language learning difficulties are directly related to, for example, high levels of anxiety or low motivation (Ganschow et al., 1994; Sparks, 1995a; Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993a, d, 1995a), the authors suggest that anxiety in foreign language classrooms may be a result, rather than a cause, of a significant number of foreign language learning problems and that further research is needed to determine the complex relationship between native language skills and foreign language learning.

Last, because of the ambiguity inherent in the anxiety construct, where anxiety is thought to help, hinder, or both help and hinder learning, we question the use of this variable either to predict one’s degree of success in foreign language learning or to suggest that foreign language learning problems are due directly to high levels of anxiety. In our view, it is more likely that the effect of anxiety is indirect, as stronger language skills usually (but not always) allow the foreign language learner to experience the foreign language learning environment in a more positive fashion; stronger language skills and a positive foreign language learning experience usually result in stronger achievement. The finding that the discriminant analysis correctly identified over 60% of the high-risk group suggests that the anxiety measure might help identify students who are likely to perform poorly and might therefore be can- didates for language intervention.

Undoubtedly, affective variables, including anxiety, are important for foreign language learning. For some time now, affective variables such as motivation and anxiety have been held in high regard by foreign language educators. However, research has not been forthcoming to show that affective variables are more important for foreign language learning than for any other academic task. Until foreign language researchers rule out the variable of possible language aptitude differences in their subject pop- ulations, it will be difficult to determine the importance of affect as a contributing or inter- fering variable in the performance of students who have difficulty learning a foreign language.

Furthermore, one’s basic linguistic competence is an important variable to consider, generally, in the examination of foreign language learning potential. To paraphrase the words of foreign language educator Dolly Young (1995), foreign language educators might want to begin

Leonore Ganschow and Richard Sparks

to use “systems thinking” to integrate disci- plines in order to use “. . . a wider angle of focus” . . . when working with students who experience problems learning a foreign language. Linguistic competence is an integral part of the picture.13

209

grade. One student had not taken a foreign language in the ninth grade.

The procedure used to identify the sample Mean is similar to that described in Ganschow et al., 1994. In that study, however, not all subjects were included in calculating the sample Mean. The difference occurred in the AVE-ANX range, which included only those students with scores between +.49 and -.49. In the present study, the AVE-ANX range includes students with scores between +.99 and -.99.

The MLAT LF, which took approximately one hour to complete, and the NELSON and WRAT SP, which took approximately 30 minutes to complete, were given in separate sessions.

The authors thank Sue Aielli, Sue Jarvis, Jane Pohlman, Mikki Springer, Kim Stevens, Mary Thomp- son, and Connie Yoho, who assisted in administering and scoring the battery of tests.

lo The authors thank Shirley Speaks, Mary Sies, and their staff for making this study possible. Their patience and understanding were greatly appreciated by the authors. Thanks are also extended to Joanne Brewer, Carol Dettenwanger, and Marilyn Herring for their untiring participation and patience. A special note of gratitude is offered to Kim Icsman for his vital role as both facilitator and school liaison in this study.

l1 The authors note that the NELSON is not a pure measure of semantics. In order to comprehend written language, a student must also decode the words (phonology/orthography) and use syntactic (gram- mar) skills. In addition, the test is timed, which intro- duces a speed component to the task.

12 Some foreign language educators (e.g., Krashen, 1982) have argued that foreign language aptitude, as embodied by the MLAT, is relevant only for formal, conscious learning-based situations (e.g., classrooms). Skehan (1986), however, indicates that there has been little or no research to validate this claim and argues that aptitude is an effective predictor of language learning success in either formal or informal settings. Other foreign language educators (e.g., Oxford, 1990) have suggested that foreign language aptitude tests such as the MLAT “focus on analytical and analogical skills and not on the student’s potential for the development of more global skills needed for communication” (p. 68). However, Stanovich (1988b) has argued that the procedures used to un- cover or diagnose explanations for performance in a learning skill are not necessarily the same procedures used to facilitate performance of that skill in a learning environment.

l3 The authors thank Jon Patton for his assistance in the statistical aspects of this study.

NOTES

The authors contributed equally in the prepara- tion of this manuscript.

Phonological coding refers to the sound and sound-symbol system of language. Phonemic awareness refers to the ability to identify sound segments (phonemes) within words. It involves a “meta- awareness” of language because one must be able to identify and segment the phonemes within a word (e.g., slap has four phonemes, s-1-a-p). Orthographic coding refers to the “visual representation of a language and can be defined as the written patterns of a language and their mapping onto phonology and meaning” (Aaron & Baker, 1991, p. 13).

For more detailed information, the reader is re- ferred to the following studies: (1) native language skill and foreign language aptitude differences (Ganschow & Sparks, 1991, 1995; Ganschow, Sparks, Javorsky, Pohlman, & Bishop-Marbury, 1991; Gan- schow et al., 1994; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, in press; Sparks & Ganschow, 1993a,b; Sparks, Ganschow, Ja- vorsky, Pohlman, & Patton, 1992a,b; Sparks, Gan- schow, Pohlman, Artzer, & Skinner, 1992c; Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, & Little, 1996). (2) foreign language grades (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b, in press; Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton, 1995; (3) factor analyses (Ganschow et al., 1992; Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton; 1995); (4) students’ self-perceptions (Javorsky, Sparks, & Ganschow, 1992; Sparks, Ganschow, & Ja- vorsky, 1993); ( 5 ) teachers’ perceptions (Sparks & Ganschow, in press); (6) parents’ perceptions (Sparks & Ganschow, 1995b); and (7) foreign language proficiency (Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, & Patton, in press).

4 The entire freshman class of 171 students served as the subjects for this study. However, 17 students were removed because of missing data.

5 Other unrelated studies that used data collected from this subject pool are either in process, in press, or published. They include a study on predictors of student performance in first-year high school foreign language courses (Sparks, Ganschow, & Patton, 1995) and results of a survey of teachers’ perceptions about students’ foreign language academic skills and affective characteristics (Sparks & Ganschow, in press).

Six of the 10th graders had previously failed a foreign language in the ninth grade and two had dropped a foreign language course in the ninth grade. Three of the 10th-grade students passed a foreign language course in the ninth grade but had transferred to a different foreign language in the 10th

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G., & Baker, C. (1991). Reading disuabilities in collt.ge and high school: Diagnosis and management. Parkton, MD: York Press.

210

Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social-psychological theory of second-language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38. , 75-100.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and 74115012 in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Brown, J., Bennett, J., & Hanna, G. (1981). Nelson-Denny reading test. Chicago: Riverside.

Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Tm’ning and wseurch in educutiun (pp. 87- 136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). M o d a language aptitude test (MLAT) m u n d . San Antonio, TX: Psy- chological Corp.

Currall, S., & Kirk, R. (1986). Predicting success in intensive foreign language courses. Modern Lan-

Curran, C. (1976). Counseling-learning in second lan- guap. Apple River, I L Apple River Press.

Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Pealmdy picture vocabulary t e s t 4 . Circle Pines, MN: American Guid- ance.

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. M o d a Language Journal, 79, 67-89.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1991). A screening instrument for the identification of foreign language learning problems. Fweign Lan- Ann&, 24,

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1993). Foreign language learning disabilities: Issues, research, and teaching implications. In S. Vogel & P. Adelman (Eds.), Success fw c o k p students with hrning disabilities (pp. 283-320). New York: Springer- Verlag.

Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effects of direct instruction in Spanish phonology on the native language skills and foreign language learning aptitude of at-risk foreign language learners. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 28,107-120.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994). Differences in anxiety and language performance among high and low anxious college foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 78, 41-55.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., & Patton, J. (1992). Factors relating to learning a foreign language among high- and low-risk high school students and students with learning disabilities. A$$lied Language Learning, 3,37-63.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991). Identifying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A “foreign” language learning disability? Journal of Learning LXsabilities, 24,

Gardner, R. C. (1991). Second-language learning in adults: ,Correlates of proficiency. Applied Lan- guage Learning, 2,1-28.

guage Jo~rnal, 70, 107-113.

383-398.

530-541.

The M& Language Journal 80 (1996)

Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1993). W d n g m c m ~ y and hnguqt?. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guiora, A. (1983). The dialectic of language acquisition. In A. Guiora (Ed.), An eptstemology fw the hngwge sciences. Language Learning, 33,8.

Horwitz, E. (1991). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language anxiety scale. In E. Horwitz & D. Young (Eds.), Lan- guage anxiety: From thany and resemdr to clasrroom im@cations (pp. 37-39). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language

Horwitz, E., & Young, D. (Eds.) (1991). Language anxiety: Fnnn thcory and m r c h to clasrroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation in children’s ability to learn second languages. In K. Hyltenstam & L. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualrmr across th-e lifespan (pp. 41-54). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide mrp achieue- ment test-revised (WRATR). Wilmington, DE: Jas- tak Associates.

Javorsky, J., Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1992). Percep- tions of college students with and without learning disabilities about foreign language courses. LearningDisabilities: Research and Bate

Krashen, S. (1982). Prinei+ and pactices in second lan- guuge acquisition. NY Pergamon.

MacIntyre, P. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Gan-

MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1991a). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning: A review of the literature. M o d a Lan-

MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1991b). Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Lan- guage Learning, 41, 513-534.

Oxford, R. (1990). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude recon- sidered (pp. 67-125). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall.

Pimsleur, P. (1966). Testing foreign language learning. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 175-214). NY McGraw-Hill.

Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D., & McIntyre, R.(1964). Un- derachievement in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 113- 150.

Rapala, M., & Brady, S. (1990). Reading ability and short-term memory. Readingand Writing, 2,1-25.

Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of

Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language apti-

Joumnl, 70, 125-132.

7, 31-44.

schow. M o d a Language Journal, 7290-99.

g ~ g e J o u ~ , 41, 85-117.

Experimental P.+w&Y, 45, 21-50.

h o r e Ganschow and Richard +ads

tude in a model of school learning. hnguage

Sparks, R. (1995a). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of

Sparks, R. (1995b). Foreign language learning problems and the at-risk learner. Rcseonh and Teadring in DRlClopmental Education, 12, 39-53.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or native language aptitude differences? Moden Language

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language learning: Case study illustrations of the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis. Mod-

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). The effects of a multisensory structured language approach on the native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk learners: A follow-up and replication study. Annals of Llyslexia, 43, 194-216.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993~). Identifying and instructing at-risk foreign language learners in college. In D. Benseler (Ed.), Thedynamics ofhn- g u q z fmgratn develqbment (pp. 173-199). Boston: Heinle.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993d). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning. Moahn Language J o u d , 77,289-302.

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995a). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Mod-

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995b). Parent perceptions in the screening for performance in foreign language courses. Fm’gn Language Ann&,

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (in press). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ foreign language skills and affective characteristics. Journal of Educa- rional Rescmch.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M., & Patton, J. (in press). Foreign langage proficiency of at-risk and not-at-risk foreign language learners over two years of foreign language instruction. Jour- nnl of h r n i n g Disabilities.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, K., & Little, S. (1996). An exploratory study on the effects of Latin on the native language learning skills and foreign language aptitude of students with and without learning disabilities. ClussicalJoud, 91,

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1992). Diag- nosing and accommodating the foreign language learning problems of students with learning disabilities. h i n g L X d & h s : Research and hactim, 7, 150-160.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1993). Per-

T ~ t i n g 3,188-221.

Dyslexia, 45, 187-219.

Joumol, 75, 3-16.

ern Language J m m l , 77, 58-74.

*i

972 L a w J m d , 79,235-244.

28, 371-391.

165-184.

211

ceptions of low and high risk students and students with learning disabilities about high school foreign language courses. Fweign Lan- guage Annals, 26, 91-510.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992a). Identifying native language deficits in high- and low-risk foreign language learners in high school. Forkgn Language Annals,

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Patton, J. (1992b). Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school foreign language courses. Modnn Language Journal, 76, 142-159.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Patton, J. (1995). Predic- tion of performance in first-year foreign language courses: Connections between native and foreign language learning. J o u m l ofEdurn-

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Lin- guistic coding deficits in foreign language learners. Annals ofr>rslenia, 39, 179-195.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Artzer, M., & Skinner, S. (1992~). The effects of a multisensory, structured language approach on the native and foreign language aptitude skills of high-risk foreign language learners. Annals of

Spolsky, B. (1989). conditions fmseamd hnguugehwning Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Stanovich, K. (1986). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals ofDyshxia, 36,67- 96.

Stanovich, K. (1988a). The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of reading disability. Annals ofL)yshia, 38,154-177.

Stanovich, K. (1988b). Science and learning disabilities. Journal ofL,eamingLlisabilities, 21, 210-214.

Steinberg, E, & Horwitz, E. (1986). The effect of induced anxiety on the denotative and interpre- tive content of second language speech. TESOL Quarterly, 20,131-136.

Stevick, E. (1980). Language teaching: A zy and ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1986). Linguistic coding and metalinguistic awareness: Their relationship to verbal and code acquisition in poor and normal readers. In D. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Mctalinguistic aumrenas and begznning liter- acy (pp. 115-141). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bullc- tin, 106, 192-212.

Woodcock, R. (1987). Wdcock Reading Mastery Test- Reuised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.

Woodcock, R., &Johnson, M. B. (1978). Woodcock- Johnson psycho-educational battery ( V B ) : Tests of achievement, cognitive ability. Allen Park, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

25, 403-418.

rional P s y h b a , 87,638-655.

Lly~hia , 42,25-53.

212

Young, D. (1995, March). Language anxiety in second language acguisitim: Using a wider an@ of fm. Pa- per presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable, Washington, DC.

The M&n Langwlge Journal 80 (1996)

posed of 20 items that test ability to delete an initial, final, or medial phoneme and form a spoken word (e.g., say &with the /d/; stick without the /ck/; j5og without the /r/).

Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, Spelling subtest ( WRAT sp)e:

This test measures performance on writing single words from dictation.

APPENDIX List and Descriptions of Testing Instruments

Fweign Language Screening Instrumat (FLCASY: The FLCAS (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1991) is an

instrument specifically designed to measure foreign language classroom anxiety. The 33 forced-choice items are said to be reflective of “communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation in the foreign language classroom” (p. 32).

M o d a Language Aptitude Tat, Long Form ( M A T LF)b: This test measures foreign language aptitude using

a simulated format to provide an indication of proba- ble degree of success in learning a foreign language; it includes five subtests: Part I: Number Learning; Part 11: Phonetic Script; Part 111: Spelling Clues; Part Iv: Words in Sentences; and Part V: Paired Associates.

Nelson-Denny Reading Tat (NELSON), Form E c :

This test consists of eight paragraphs that measure the ability to read and answer multiple-choice comprehension questions in a timed format.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Rewised (PPVTR), Form Ld: This test measures receptive vocabulary for Stand-

ard American English.

Phoneme Deletion (PHON DEL) This informal author-designed measure is com-

WOawch Reading Mastery Tat-Revised, Form G, Basic Skills Cluster ( WRMT BSC)?

This test measures two aspects of reading: Word Identification, or ability to read isolated words; and Word Attack, or ability to read nonsense (pseudo) words.

WOacock-Johnson Psychoedwational Battery, Memory Cluster

This test measures verbal memory and includes two subtests: Memory for Sentences, which tests ability to remember material presented auditorily; and Num- bers Reversed, which tests ability to hold a sequence of numbers in memory while reorganizing that sequence. ’ Note. The FLCAS was the independent measure in this study. The other measures were the nine dependent variables in this study. a FLCAS (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) b MLAT (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) c NELSON (Brown, Bennett, & Hanna, 1981) d PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) e WRAT SP (Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984)

g WJMC (Woodcock &Johnson, 1978)

( W C ) g :

WRMT-BSC (Woodcock, 1987)

ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Invites Papers-

THE ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON LAN- guages and Linguistics is a federally funded clearinghouse operated by the Center for Ap- plied Linguistics, a private nonprofit organiza- tion. The Clearinghouse provides a wide range of services and materials, most of them free of charge. These include two-page information digests and bibliographies, a semi-annual news- letter, a question-answering service, and com- puter searches of the ERIC database (for a nom- inal fee). Readers of the MLJ are invited to

submit papers, reports, curricula, or other materials for inclusion in the ERIC database, Sub- missions should be sent to:

Acquisitions Coordinator ERIC/CLL 118 22nd Street NW Washington, DC 20037 Tel: 202-429-9292 Email: [email protected]

Documents

Anxiety about Foreign Language Learning among High School Women