Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorshy, Skinner, Patton -Differences in Language Performance Among High, Average, And Low Anxious College Foreign Language Learners

8/12/2019 Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorshy, Skinner, Patton -Differences in Language Performance Among High, Aver…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ganschow-sparks-anderson-javorshy-skinner-patton-differences-in-language 1/16

Differences in Language Performance among High-, Average-, and Low-Anxious CollegeForeign Language LearnersAuthor(s): Leonore Ganschow, Richard L. Sparks, Reed Anderson, James Javorshy, SueSkinner and Jon Patton

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 41-55Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329251 .

Accessed: 14/04/2013 20:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/329251?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/329251?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black



Differences n

Language

Performanceamong High-,Average-,

and

Low-Anxious

College

Foreign

Language

Learners

LEONORE

GANSCHOW

Departmentf

ducational

Psychology

Miami

University

Oxford,

H 45056

RICHARD L.

SPARKS

Education

epartment

College

f

MountSt.

Joseph

5701 Delhi

Road

Cincinnati,

H 45051

REED

ANDERSON

Department

fSpanish

nd

Portuguese

Miami

University

Oxford,

H

45056

JAMES

JAVORSHY

Department

f

ducational

tudies

Purdue

University

W

Lafayette,

N

47907

SUE SKINNER

Graduate

rogram

Department

f

ducational

Psychology

Miami

University

Oxford,

H

45056

JON

ATTON

Application

onsultant

Miami

University

Oxford,

H

45056

FOREIGN

LANGUAGE

(FL)

TEACHERS AND

special

educators

have

long

been

puzzled

by

findings

hat some

students

re

able

to

learn

a

foreign

anguage

with

relative ase

while others

have

repeated

failuresor

learn

only

with

great

difficulty.1

mong

FL

educators,

otherwise uc-

cessful

tudents

who

have

difficulty

ith

FLs are

often

referred

o as

underachieversor

as

lack-

ing

motivation

22;

24; 25;

44;

47).

In

special

education

many

of

these at-risk L

learners

are

identifiedas

having

anguage

learning

disabil-

ities

(LLD),

and

this

dentification

ometimes

occurs

only

after

a student

has

experienced

repeated

failures n FL

courses in

college

(20;

35;

48).

A

number

of

explanations

have been

offered

to

account for

why

students

have

difficulties

with

FL

as

it

is

typically

aught

in

school

set-

tings.

ntelligence,

for

the most

part,

has

been

ruled

out

as

having

much

significance

n

the

determination

of

FL

learning potential

(4;

26;

The

Modern

anguage

ournal,

8,

(1994)

0026-7902/94/41-55

$1.50/0

?1994

The

Modern

anguage

ournal

46).

However,

other

factorssuch

as

affective

variables

(motivation, attitudes,

anxiety)

and

native

language

skills

(oral

and written

an-

guage,

listening,

speaking)

are said

to

influ-

ence FL

learning.Among

theaffective

xplana-

tions,

recent

attention

has been

given

to

the

role of

anxiety

30;

31;

34;

37;

49).

Proponents

of

the

anxiety

hypothesis

suggest

that

FL

learners

have

a

mental

block,

similar

o that

ex-

perienced by

some

students

in

math,

test-

taking,

and

speech-making.

As for

the

native

language

factors

hat

may

affect

earning

a

FL,

difficulties

with

phonology

and

syntax,

rather

than

with semantics

of the

language

(vocabu-

lary

nd

reading

comprehension,

n

particular),

have been found

to

differentiate

ood

and

poor

FL learners

(18;

55;

56).

A

recent

theory

that

postulates

a

relationship

between

problems

n

oral and written

performance

in

native

lan-

guage

and

problems

with

the

acquisition

of

a

second

language

is called

the

Linguistic

Cod-

ing DeficitHypothesis 57; 59).

In a

previous

paper

Sparks

and

Ganschow

(57)

proposed

the

possibility

hat

there

may

be

a

confounding

nteraction

etween

anxiety

nd

receptive/expressive

anguage

skills.

They sug-







42

The

Modern

anguage

Journal

78

(1994)

gested

that

many

f

the

questions

on

the

Foreign

Language

Classroom

nxiety

cale

(FLCAS) (31)

involve

anguage

skills.

Over

eighty-seven

er-

cent of

the

questions (twenty-nine

ut of

thirty-

three)

were found to

involve

problems

typically

associated withdifficultiesn listening, peak-

ing,

reading,

writing, memory

for

language,

and

speed

of

language

processing.

They

urged

FL

educators to

investigate erformance

n

na-

tive oral

and written

anguage among

students

who

experience difficulty

n

FL

learning

as

an

alternative

xplanation

to

affective ariables.

FL

educators have stated the need to

explore

systematically

he

relationship

between

anxiety

and

language learning

(49).

Horwitz,

Horwitz,

and

Cope

suggest

that

there is

likely

to

be a

strongnegativecorrelationbetweenFL anxiety

and measures of

FL

proficiency,

.e.,

less anxi-

ety

is

associated

with

higher grades

and

vice

versa.

They

cite

listening

and

speaking, espe-

cially

mpromptu peaking,

s the main sources

of

anxiety.

The

relationship

between

anxiety

and

FL

proficiency

s

unclear,

however.

MacIn-

tyre

nd Gardner

(39)

suggest

that s

FL

profi-

ciency

ncreases,

nxiety

decreases,

thus

raising

the

question

of

causality;

.e.,

does

anxiety

nter-

fere

with

pre-existing language)

ability

and

impair

FL

performance,

r does

poor

FL

per-

formance ead to anxiety s a consequence?

To

date,

the

relationships

mong

native an-

guage

skills,

FL

aptitude,

and

FL

anxiety

have

not

been

explored empirically.

his

exploration

is difficultwithout

ppropriate

instruments

o

measure these

relationships. Though

the au-

thors

of

the

FLCAS

have

published

reliability

and

validity

nformation on

their instrument

(29),

they

have

not

validated

it on

large

num-

bers of

students,

nor

have

they

provided

a

sys-

tem

for

determining

what constitutes

high

or

low

anxiety

levels. Standardized

measures

do

existformeasuringnativeoral and written an-

guage

skills

in

college

learners.2

Likewise,

though

dated,

the Modern

anguage

Aptitude

est

(MLAT)

(6)

provides

a method

for

determin-

ing

a student's

ptitude

for

earning

a

FL.

The

present

study

was

designed

to

explore

systematically

L

classroom

anxiety

n

relation

to native

ral

and

written

anguage

and

to

FL

aptitude.

To do

this

the authors

developed

a

scoring

system

orthe

FLCAS

using

ocal norms

and devised

a

battery

fnative

anguage

instru-

ments based on earlier studies theyhad con-

ducted

with at-risk L learners.

In

this

paper

they

examine

the native

oral

and

written an-

guage

and

FL

aptitude performance

of stu-

dents

with differentevelsof

anxiety.

They

be-

gin

with a brief

review

of

the

literature

n

the

effects f

anxiety

nd

of

native

language

skills

on

FL

learning.

Then

they

describe methodol-

ogy

and

results

of

the

study

they

conducted

using

the

FLCAS

(for

which

they

devised

a

method ofclassifyingtudents ntoanxiety at-

egories),

plus

a

variety

f

native oral and writ-

ten

language

measures

and a measure of FL

aptitude-the

MLAT

Last,

they

make recom-

mendations

for

esting

nd

accommodating

tu-

dents who

exhibit

high

levels

of

anxiety.

EFFECTS

OF

ANXIETY

ON FL

LEARNING

Over the

past

few

years

FL

educators have

hypothesized

hat

nxiety

plays

role

in

success

or failure n theFL classroom.A recentbodyof

research

suggests

hat

high

evels

of

anxiety

an

interfere

with FL

learning

(31;

37;

38).

FL

re-

searchers

have

speculated

that

nxiety

n

the FL

classroom is

specific

to

language learning

and

have

proposed

that

language nxiety

s

distinct

from

other forms

of

anxiety

31;

37).

Daly,

for

example,

describes

language

in

termsof com-

munication

apprehension,

or

the

fear that

an

individual has

about

oral

communication.

Hor-

witz

t

al.

(31)

and

Young

(68)

suggest

hat nxi-

ety

in

the

FL

classroom occurs

primarily

be-

cause the studenthas tospeak theFL infront f

a

group.

MacIntyre

and Gardner

(40)

distin-

guish

between

general

anxiety

nd

communica-

tive

anxiety.

MacIntyre

and

Gardner

(39)

also

propose

that

nxiety

plays

ittle

part

n

the

earner's

first

experiences

with he

FL

and that

anguage

apti-

tude and motivation

re the dominant factors

in

the

early

stages

of FL

learning.

FL

anxiety

develops

if

the student's

subsequent experi-

ences withthe

FL

are

not

positive.

Poor

FL

per-

formance,

n

turn,

einforces

L

anxiety.

Other

studies (e.g., Gardner,Smythe,Clement, and

Gliksman)

have

suggested negative

correla-

tions

between

language

classroom

anxiety

nd

second

language

proficiency.

Recently,

Horwitz, Horwitz,

and

Cope

devel-

oped

a

self-report

nstrument,

he

Foreign

an-

guage

Classroom

Anxiety

cale

(FLCAS).

The

thirty-three

tems

in

their

instrument

nclude

questions

about

test

anxiety,

communication

apprehension,

and fear

of

negative

evaluation

in

the

FL classroom.When the

instrumentwas

administered

o

students

n FL

classrooms,

he

findingssuggested

that FL

anxiety

is

experi-

enced

by many

tudents n various facets

ofFL

learning.

FL

anxiety appears

to be

negatively

correlated

withFL

grades

(29).

Other

studies,







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd

Patton

43

however,

have not shown

a

relationship

be-

tween

anxiety

nd

specific

aspects

of FL

learn-

ing. Although

he

did

not referto

studies

that

used

specific

measures

of

language anxiety,

Scovel found the results of

studies he

reviewed

on thesubjectofanxiety obe equivocal. Young

(69)

found

nonsignificant

orrelations

between

the

results

f

a

practice

(unofficial)

Oral

Pro-

ficiency

ndex

(OPI)

and

anxiety

measuresand

concluded that

ability

n

the

FL

may

have

been

a

more

important

variable.

She states that

test

anxiety

would most

likely

ffect hose with

ow

levels

of

oral

proficiency

more

than those with

high

levels

of

proficiency,

nd she

further

ug-

gests

thattest

nxietymay

need to

be viewed

n

conjunction

with

an

individual's

anguage pro-

ficiency. parks and Ganschow (57) have sug-

gested

that

affective

ifferences,

uch as

anxi-

ety,

might

be

the

consequence

f FL

learning

problems,

which

themselvesbear a

strong

rela-

tionship

to a

student's

problems

n

his/her

na-

tive

anguage.

Support

for

his

peculation

s

ex-

amined

next.

EFFECTS

OF NATIVE

LANGUAGE

SKILLS

ON FL

LEARNING

The

impact

of

native

language

on FL

learn-

ing was examined in the 1960sbyJohnCarroll

and

by

Paul

Pimsleur,

who

speculated

that suc-

cess or

failure n FL

learning

was

primarily

he

result

of

language-based

difficulties.

hrough

factor

analytic

studies,

Carroll

(5)

found

four

variables

related to

language

to

be

important

for FL

learning: phonetic

coding,

grammatical

sensitivity,

nductive

anguage

learning

ability,

and

rote

memory.

imsleur

46)

studied FL un-

derachievers,

tudents

who did

less

well

in

a

FL

than n

their

ther

courses. He

found

that udi-

tory

problems,

hat

s,

difficulty

ith

the

sound

discrimination and

sound-symbol

aspects

of

language,

were

largely

esponsible

for

those FL

learning

problems

which

were

not

explainable

by

low

intelligence

or

poor

motivation.

Both

Carroll

and

Pimsleur

developed

tests f FL

apti-

tude,

the

Modern

anguage

Aptitude

est

MLAT)

(6)

and

the

Language

Aptitude

Battery

LAB)

(45),

which

contained

items

measuring

these

language-based

skills.

The

relationship

between FL

learning

and

dyslexia

a

formof

learning

disability)

was

first

alluded to in 1971when Kenneth Dinklage, a

counselor

at

Harvard,

reported

his

conclusions

from

extensive

interviews

he had

conducted

over the

years

with

studentswho

experienced

FL

learningproblems.

Dinklage

ruled out

affec-

tive

differences

uch as low

motivation s

causal

factors

nd instead

suggested

that

these

bright

students

had

problems

similar

to

dyslexia,

or

reading

disabilities,

n that

they

had

difficulties

with

auditory

discrimination

of sounds

and

sound-symbolearning. n a recentarticleCar-

roll

(3)

also

mentions

that students

with

FL

learning

problems

may

experience

difficulties

similar

to

students

with

dyslexia

who have

par-

ticular

difficulty

ith

phonetic

coding

in

their

native

language.

In an examination

of

physi-

ological,

social,

cultural,

and other

factors

f-

fecting

L

learning,

Spolksy

ites

dyslexia

s

an

example

ofa

physiological,

.e.,

language,

vari-

able.

Skehan

suggests

that ndividuals

who

de-

velop quickly

n theirnative

anguage

have

rela-

tivelyhigh levels of FL aptitude and suggests

that

FL

learning aptitude

is the second

or

for-

eign

language equivalent

of a first

anguage

learning capacity

(pp.

200-201).

In 1987

Gajar

reported

the first

empirical

study

of

aptitude

for FL in students

with

and

without

earning

disabilities

LD).

As

might

be

expected,

she found

significant

ifferences

e-

tween

the

two

groups'

scores

on the

MLAT;

stu-

dents

withLD scored

especially

poor

on

sub-

tests

nvolving

he

syntactic

nd rote

memory

aspects

ofFL

learning.

Ganschow,Sparks, nd colleagues (17; 18; 21;

33;

54;

55;

56)

have carried

out

a number

of

studies

on

high

school and

college

students

withFL

learning problems

whowere

having

se-

rious

difficulty

ith native

anguage

learning.3

Analyses

of

these studies

have led

them to

pro-

pose

the

Linguistic

Coding

Deficit

Hypothesis

(LCDH) (57;

59).

In their

LCDH,

derived

from

the work

f

Vellutino

nd

Scanlon with

hildren

who have

reading

disabilities,

he authors

pec-

ulated

thatFL

learning

problems

are

linked

to

native

anguage learning

difficulties

n

master-

ing

the

phonological, syntactic,

nd/or

seman-

tic

codes

of

language.

Vellutino

and

Scanlon

found

that

poor

readers

have

particular

diffi-

culty

withthe

phonological

and

syntactic,

ut

not

semantic,

codes

of

language.4

Empirical

data have

been

generated

o

support

he

LCDH.

For

example, significant

ifferences

ave

been

found

between

the

native

anguage

phonologi-

cal

skills

f

good

and

poor

FL

learners,

whereas

these

learnershave

not

exhibited

semantic

dif-

ferences

on testsof

native

anguage

vocabulary

or reading comprehension(17; 55; 56).5 Some-

times

syntactic

differences

between

these

learners

have been

found as

well

(17).

Sparks

and Ganschow

(57)

have

speculated

that

the

affective

differences

e.g.,

lack

of

motivation,







44

The

Modern

anguageJournal

8

(1994)

anxiety)

proposed

by

FL

educators as a cause of

FL

learning

problems

may

nstead

be the result

of native

language learning problems.

n

their

work with

students

with and

without

earning

disabilities,

Javorsky,

parks,

and Ganschow

found that studentswith LD were ust as moti-

vated

to

learn a

FL

as were their nondisabled

peers.

In

a

recently

ompleted study

with ow-

and

high-risk

tudents and students with LD

(52),

the same

authors found that all three

groups

experienced

equal

amounts

of

anxiety

when

taking

FL

classroom

tests.As a result of

their

early

studies,

Sparks

and Ganschow have

developed

a

language-based

model

of assess-

ment

for FL

learning

problems

16;

53; 56;

59)

that includes the

administration

of

both oral

and writtennative

language

measures and

FL

aptitude

tests

to evaluate students'

phonologi-

cal,

syntactic,

nd semantic skills.

PURPOSE

OF

STUDY

In this

tudy

he

authorsexamine

differences

in

FL

anxiety

nd native

oral and written an-

guage

skills,

and

FL

anxiety

and

aptitude

for

learning

a

FL

among college

students

iden-

tified as

high-anxious

(HI-ANX),

average-

anxious

(AVE-ANX),

and

low-anxious

(LO-

ANX) in FL classes. A battery of oral and

written ative

anguage

instruments

measuring

phonological,

syntactic,

nd semantic

skills is

used

to determine

students'

native

language

skill

evels.

New to their

native

anguage

battery

are

a

test

of oral

language,

the Test

f

Language

Competence-Expanded

dition

TLC-E)

(65),

and a

basic

memory

test,

the

Memory

for Sentences

subtest

of

the

Woodcock-Johnson

sycho-Edu-

cational

Battery:

Memory

Cluster

WJPB)

(67).

These

tests

were

added because

of the

body

of

literature

indicating

that

poor

language

learners (such as poor and disabled readers)

have

verbal

memory

and oral

language prob-

lems. The

MLAT

(6)

is used

to measure

apti-

tude

for

earning

a FL and

the FLCAS

(31)

to

identify

nxiety

evels.

n order to

quantify

nx-

iety

evels,

the authors

of this

study

devised a

scoring

method

for he

FLCAS,

described

in

the

Method

ection. Overall

correlations

mong

the

measures

are

determined.

Average

FL

grades

are included

in the correlation

matrix.6

The

followinghypotheses

re

based

on

pre-

vious

studiesof at-risk

L

learnersand

the au-

thors'

peculation

that tudents

with

high

evels

ofFL

anxiety

have relatednative

anguage

diffi-

culties and

weaker

aptitude

for

learning

a

FL

than students

with low levels

of FL

anxiety.7

They

hypothesized

hatHI-ANX

studentswould

perform significantly

more

poorly

than LO-

ANX students n

several

oral

and written ative

language

measures: all

of

the

phonological

measures,

one semantic measure

(oral

lan-

guage), and the written anguage measures.

They

also

predicted

that therewould be

signifi-

cant differences

etween

HI-

and LO-ANX

stu-

dents

on

the measure

of

FL

aptitude

(MLAT)

and the verbal

memory

ubtest.On

the

seman-

tic

measure

of

reading

comprehension,

how-

ever,

the authors

anticipated

that

there

would

be

no

differences,

s

several

previous

studies

have shown that hismeasure does not

discrimi-

nate

between

good

and

poor

FL

learners.

In-

cluded

in

their

ubject sample

was an AVE-ANX

group,

which

was

expected

to score somewhere

in

between

the HI-

and

LO-ANX

groups.

n the

correlation

matrix,

they

hypothesized

that

there would be

a

significantnegative

correla-

tion between

average

FL

grades

and the

FLCAS,

as

previous

tudies

by

Horwitz

29)

have

shown

that

higher

evels

of

anxiety,

s measured

by

the

FLCAS,

are associated

with ower

grades.

METHOD

Subjects.

ubjects

were

thirty-sixollege

stu-

dents (ten males and twenty-sixfemales)

enrolled

in

introductory panish

classes

at a

medium-sized

midwestern

university.

rior to

the

selection

of

subjects

for the

study,

the

FLCAS

was administered

during

the

seventh

and

eighth

weeks

of

the

semester

o 501 volun-

teers

n

twenty-twopanish

classes

during

their

scheduled

instructional

hour.8

In

order to

make

an accurate

estimate

of the students'

nx-

iety

evels,

ocal

norms were

established

for

the

FLCAS.

This

procedure

involved

determining

the extent

o

which

a

given

student's core

devi-

ated from n ideal anxiety ANX) score. The

ideal

ANX

score was

determined

by

counting

up

the

ideal answers

for

each

question

on the

FLCAS

and

calculating

the

ideal

average

(mean)

for the

501

Spanish-enrolled

students.

The

FLCAS has

thirty-three

tems

and

uses a

five-point

ating

cale and a

forced-choice,

al-

anced

design

format;

the student

responds

to

each

question

with a

single

answer:

strongly

agree;

agree;

neither

agree

nor

disagree;

dis-

agree; strongly

isagree.

The ideal

answerwas

either strongly gree/agree

or

strongly

is-

agree/disagree,

dependilg

upon

the direc-

tion

of the

question.

(See

note

9 for llustrative

examples.)

Students

whose

mean score

wasone

or more standard

deviations below

the mean







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

45

TABLE

I

Number

nd Percent f

Spanish-Enrolled

tudents n Three

Anxiety

ategories

Anxiety ategory

Male Female Total

Percent*

High

Anxiety

HI-ANX)

48 58 106

30%

AverageAnxietyAVE-ANX) 82 69 151 43%

Low

Anxiety

LO-ANX)

45

48 97

27%

TOTAL

175 179

354**

*

roundedoff

o

nearestwhole number

**

This total

represents

nly

tudents

whose

ANX score

fell nto the three

nxiety

ategories.

t

does

not

nclude tudents

whose cores

fellbetween

.5 to

+.99 or -.5 to -.99

(N=147).

TABLE

II

SATs,

Overall

GPAs,

nd

Cognitive

cores

by

Anxiety

evel

Group

N

SAT Overall

GPA

Cognitive

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

HI-ANX

15 1075 119.7

3.0

8.3 117

8.6

AVE-ANX

10

1069 106.5

2.8 8.2

116

9.5

LO-ANX

11

1140

88.8

3.2

4.5

123

6.8

were

udged

to

be

HI-ANX;

those

whose mean

score was

.5 below the mean to .5 above

the

mean were

udged

to be

AVE-ANX;

those

whose

mean score was

one

or

more standard

devia-

tions above the

mean were

udged

to

be

LO-

ANX.

Three hundred and

fifty-four

panish-

enrolled studentswere identified n the three

anxiety

categories

(Table I).

Letters were sent to all

of

the HI-ANX and

LO-ANX students and to a random

sample

of

one hundred

of

the AVE-ANX

students.10

e-

cause of the extensive ime commitment

three

and one-half o fourhours

per

student)

and the

nature

of the

study

a

testing

ituation),

t

was

difficult to obtain

volunteers;

only

about a

dozen

students

responded

to the initial written

invitation.

Follow-up

phone

calls

to

about

two

hundred students resulted

in

thirty-six

olun-

teerswho offered to participatein the study:

fifteen students identified as HI-ANX

(mean

age

=

nineteen;

five

males,

ten

females);

ten

students identified as AVE-ANX

(mean

age

=

nineteen;

three

males,

seven

females);

and

eleven

students dentified

as LO-ANX

(mean

age

=

nineteen;

two

males,

nine

females).

Mean

anxiety

level for HI-ANX

was

-1.58

(range

=

-1.03 to

-2.40);

for

AVE-ANX,

.16

range

=

-.49

to

+.46);

and for

LO-ANX,

+1.19

range

=

+1.08

to

+1.45).

Table

II

shows

demographic

nforma-

tion on each

group, including

SAT

scores,overall

college

GPAs,

and scores on a

general

measure of

cognitive

bility

IQ),

the Woodcock-

Johnson

sycho-Educational

atteryWJPB):

Brief

Scale

Cognitive

Cluster.

A

Multiple Analysis

of

Variance

(MANOVA)

procedure

showed

no

sig-

nificantdifferences

mong

HI-ANX,

AVE-ANX,

and

LO-ANX

groups

on

the three measures

(Wilks's

Lambda

=

.827;

F(6,62)

=

1.03;

p

=

n.s.).

Instruments.

ral and written ative

anguage

instruments ncluded measures

of

phonology,

syntax, semantics, and verbal memory.The

measure

of FL

aptitude

was the

MLAT

The

measure

of

FL

performance

was the

students'

overall

average

of their

FL

grades.

A brief de-

scription

of each

of

these nstruments nd what

they

measure is found

in

Figure

I.

The

measure

of

anxiety

was the FLCAS

(31),

one

of

two nstruments

pecifically esigned

to

measure

FL

anxiety

34).11

tems include

ques-

tions such as

I

always

feel

that

the

other stu-

dents

speak

the

foreign

anguage

better

than

I

do and

It

frightens

me

when

I

don't under-

stand whatthe teacher s saying n theforeign

language.

Its

authors

have conductednumerous

validity

nd

reliability

tudieson the

nstrument

(29; 31).

They

indicate that

pilot

studies show

satisfactory

eliability,

nternal

onsistency,

on-

struct

validity,

nd test-retest

eliability.

urther-

more,

they

have found that

their

measure

ap-

pears

to

be

.

.

.

independent

f

the

confounding

effects f

(general)

test

nxiety

29:

p.

39).

For

purposes

of

this

study,

he

students'

ndi-

vidual risk

factor scores

(overall

range

=

2.40

standard

deviations

below mean to

1.45

stan-

dard deviations

above

mean)

were

used.

(See

Subjects

or

explanation

of

how risk

factorswere

derived and

range

and mean

by

group.)

Procedure.

esting

was

conducted

individually







46

The

Modern

Language

Journal

78

(1994)

FIGURE I

Alphabetical isting

f

nstrumentsnd What

They

Measure

Modern

Language Aptitude

Test

MLAT)

(6):

tests

oreignanguage ptitude

n

simulated

ormat;

as five

ubtests: art

(Number earning);

art

I

(Phonetic

cript);

art II

(Spelling

lues);

Part V

(Words

n

Sentences);

ndPartV

(Paired

Associates).

Parts

II,

IV,

nd V

comprise

he Short orm nd

Parts

-V,

he

Long

Form.The

Long

Form s used

in

this

tudy.

Nelson

Denny

Reading

Test

N-DEN)

(2):

Comprehension

ubtest: ests ilent

eading omprehension

n a timed est

ormat.

Test

ofLanguage Competence-Expanded

dition

TLC-E) (65):

tests ral

expressive

nd

receptive

anguage

proficiency;

wo ubtests sed

in

this

tudy

re

Recreating

Sentences

RS),

an

expressive

anguage

est,

nd

Figurative

anguage

FS),

a

receptive

anguage

est;

together

hey ive

Screening omposite

core.

RS

and FS are used

in

this

tudy.

Wide

Range

Achievementest-Revised

WRAT-R)

Spelling)

(32):

tests tudents'

erformance

n

writing

ords

rom

ictation.

Woodcock-Johnson

sycho-Educational

attery

WJPB)

67):

Memory luster: estsmemoryor anguage ndnumbers;wo ubtestsreMemoryor entencesMS)

and Numbers eversed

NR);

together hey ive Memory

luster core.

Only

MS

is

used

in

this

tudy.

Woodcock

eading

Mastery

est-Revised

WRMT-R)

(66):

tests tudents'

eading bility;

wo ubtests sed

in this

tudy

re

Word

Attack

WA),

which

ests

performance

n

reading seudowords,

nd Word dentification

WI),

which ests

bility

o read

single

words;

ogether

hey

ive

Basic

Skills

Cluster

BSC)

score.

WA nd WI are used in this

tudy.

Writing

ample*:

T-units

TU):

counts otalnumber

f

main clauses

plus

attached

r

embedded ubordinate lauses

(27).

Contextual

tyle

CS):

tests umber f

punctuation

r

capitalization

ulesused

according

o

a

maturityating

cale devised

y

the uthors f the Test

f

Written

anguage-2

TOWL-2)

28).

*

Writingample

esults

re

not ncluded n the MANOVA

r in

Table

II,

as one

subject

ailed o

complete

he

writing

ample.

Results re

described

eparately

n

note twelve.

or

in

groups

of twoor three tudents

depending

upon

the

test)

over

a three nd one-half

o

four

hour

period

by

the authors.

The

subjects

were

invited

o

take

breaks

between ests

s needed.

A

light

snack

was

provided

and

each

student

re-

ceived

a

ten

dollar

gift

ertificate

pon comple-

tion of the

testing.

Grades were

obtained

by

per-

mission f the student

hrough

his/her

ecords.

Analysis

f

Data.

A

Multiple

Analysis

of

Vari-

ance

(MANOVA)

procedure

was

used to deter-

mine whether there would be overall differ-

ences

in

group

performance

among

the

eight

variables,

which included:

a)

Test

of Language

Competence-Expanded

dition,

TLC-E

(Recreating

Sentences

[RS]

and

Figurative

Language

[FL]

subtests);

b)

Nelson

Denny

Reading

Test, N-DEN;

c)

Wide

Range

Achievement

Test-Revised,

WRAT-R

(Spelling

only);

d)

Woodcock

Reading

Mastery

Test-Revised,

WRMT-R

(Word

Identification

[WI]

and

Word

Attack

[WA]

subtests);

e)

Woodcock-Johnson

sycho-Educational

Battery,

WJPBMemory for Sentences [MS] subtest);

and

f)

the

Modern

Language Aptitude

Test,

MLAT

(Long

Form). (See

Figure

I

for

explanation

of

instruments.)

n

the

event

that the

MANOVA

was

significant,

one-way

Analysis

of Variance

(ANOVA)

procedure

was used

to

compare

HI-

ANX, AVE-ANX,

and LO-ANX

groups

on the

variables.

A

level

of 05 was used

as the criterion

of

significance.

To reduce the

possibility

of

Type

1 error,

Scheffe

procedure

was used

in

comparing

the ndividual

group

differences.

o

handle

the unbalanced

design

due to

unequal

group

sizes,

the General

Linears Models

pro-

cedure

in

SAS was used.

Because

of

missing

data from one

subject,

the measures of

syntax-a writing

sample

scored for

T-units

TU)

and Contextual

Style

(CS)-were

removed

from the

MANOVA.

A

briefdiscussion

of

separate

ANOVA

findings

n

these measures

s

provided

n

note

twelve.

Pearson

Product Moment

correlations were

used

to

examine

the

degree

of the

relationship

among

all

the

variables.

Of

particular

nterest

here

was the

correlation between

average

FL

grade

and

the

FLCAS.

RESULTS

Results

of the

MANOVA

procedure

showed

overall

significant

ifferences

mong

HI-ANX,

AVE-ANX,

and

LO-ANX

groups

on

the vari-

ables

(Wilks'

Lambda

=

.243;

F(20,46)

=

2.37;







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

47

TABLE

III

Means

and Standard

Deviations n

Language

and

Memory

ests nd FL

Aptitude

y

Anxiety

evel

Tests nd Subtests

HI-ANX

AVE-ANX

LO-ANX

Mean

S.D.

Mean S.D. Mean

S.D.

Semantic

TLC-E

Recreating

entences

10.0

1.5 8.7

1.9

13.0

2.0

Figurative

anguage

11.2

1.9 10.5 1.9

13.1

1.0

N-DEN 106.9 13.8 102.0 10.8

113.5 7.6

Phonological

WRAT-R

Spelling

107.5

10.0 107.3 7.3

112.1

7.5

WRMT-R

WordAttack

98.3 9.4

99.9 9.3

110.3

3.5

Word dentification

100.6 6.8 97.4 10.8 109.0

6.4

Memory

WJPB

Memory

or

entences

104.1 10.4

104.2

16.3 114.0

14.5

FL

Aptitude

MLAT:

Long

Form

103.2 12.7

109.0

24.5

117.4

11.3

p

<

.008).

Groups

comparisons

were then run

on

the individual measures.

Table

III

presents

means and standard devia-

tions on measures of oral

and writtennative

language

(phonology

and

semantics),

memory,

and FL aptitude.Resultson testsofnative an-

guage

skills how

significant

ifferences

mong

HI-ANX, AVE-ANX,

and LO-ANX

groups

on

both subtestsof the TLC-E:

RS,

F(2,33)

=

16.61,

p

<

.0001 and

FL,

F(2,33)

=

6.71,

p

<

.004.

On these measures both HI-ANX

and AVE-

ANX

subjects

scored

significantly

ower

than

LO-ANX

students. No

differenceswere noted

between

HI-ANX

and AVE-ANX

subjects.

No

significant

differences were

found on

the

measure of

reading comprehension,

N-DEN:

F(2,33)

=

2.68,

p

<

.08.

Findings

support

the au-

thors' hypothesisthat significantdifferences

would exist

between

HI-

and LO-ANX

students

in

oral

language

but

not

n

reading

comprehen-

sion.

These

findings

were

expected,

in

light

of

research on

other

at-risk

language

populations,

in

particular, poor

readers,

which

has shown

that

tudentswith

phonological

difficulties

may

also have

subtle

(or

overt)

difficulties with

speech

perception

and

production.'3 Findings

are also

consistent

with

research on

FL

learning

which

uggests

hatoral

communication,

n

par-

ticular,poses problems

for at-risk

tudents;

HI-

ANX

and

AVE-ANX

students n

this

study

had

relatively

weaker oral

expression

and

listening

comprehension

skillsthan

LO-ANX

students.

Phonological

measures reveal

significant

if-

ferences

among

HI-ANX, AVE-ANX,

and

LO-

ANX students n both

subtests

f

the

WRMT-R:

WA,

F(2,33)

=

7.64,

p

<

.002;

and

WI,

F(2,33)

=

6.08,

p

<

.006.

No

differences ere notedon

the

spelling

measure,

WRAT-R,

F(2,33)

=

1.12,

p = n.s. In all cases,both HI-ANXandAVE-ANX

subjects

scored

significantly

ower than LO-

ANX

subjects.

Findings

partially upport

the

au-

thors'

hypothesis

hat

there

would be

significant

differences n measures of

phonology,

n

that

students

differed n

the basic skillsof

phonetic

analysis

of

words,

measured

by

the

WRMT-R.

This

finding

s similar

o

previousfindings

with

at-risk

L

learners

n

high

school

(55;

56)

and

both

general

at-risk

nd

FL-at-risk earners

in

college

(17;

59).

However,

he

finding

of a

lack

of a

significant

ifference

n

spelling

was unlike

previous

studies

showing

that

spelling

lags sig-

nificantly

ehind in

at-risk

ollege

learners

17;

27;

64).

Results on

the

memory

measure

indicate no

significant

differences

on the

WJPB:

MS,

F(2,33)

=

2.03,

p

=

n.s. This

finding

does not

support

the authors'

hypothesis.

ased on

their

studies of

high

school

at-risk

native

language

learners,

the

authors

had

expected

to

find

sig-

nificantdifferences

n

verbal

memory.

On

the

foreign

anguage

aptitude

measure

(MLAT: Long Form), results show significant

differences:

(2,33)

=

4.07,

p

< .03. HI-ANX

sub-

jects

scored

significantly

ower than

LO-ANX

subjects.

No

differenceswere

found

between

AVE-ANX

and HI-ANX

and

between

AVE-ANX







48

The

Modern

anguage

ournal

78

(1994)

TABLE

IV

Correlations

mong

Measures n

the

Study

TLC-RS

TLC-FL

ND

TU

CS WRAT

WA

WI

MEM

GRADE

MLAT

FLCAS

TLC-RS

x

TLC-FL .49 x

(.002)

ND

.44

.42

x

(.007)

(.01)

TU

.23

.15

.11 x

(NS)

(NS)

(NS)

CS -.03

-.21

.04

.22

x

(NS)

(NS)

(NS)

(NS)

WRAT

.31 .07

.61

.12

.13

x

(NS)

(NS) (NS)

(NS)

(NS)

WA .45 .26 .38 .15 .005 .49 x

(.005)

(NS) (.02)

(NS)

(NS)

(.002)

WI

.62

.42

.56 .08 -.01

.50

.70

x

(.000)

(.01)

(.000) (NS)

(NS)

(.003)

(.000)

MEM

.20

.39

.08

-.13

.06

-.02

.28

.27

x

(NS)

(.02) (NS)

(NS)

(NS) (NS)

(NS)

(NS)

GRADE

.37 .11

.27

-.01

-.09 .31

.43

-.25

-.15

x

(.03)

(NS) (NS)

(NS)

(NS) (NS)

(.01) (NS)

(NS)

MLAT

.54

.12

.55

.07

-.03 .59 .50

.50 .10

.47 x

(.000)

(NS) (.000) (NS)

(NS) (.000)

(.002) (.002)

(NS) (.004)

FLCAS -.40

-.32

-.08 -.17

.09

-.13 -.45

-.27

-.16 -.36

-.43

x

(.02) (.06) (NS) (NS) (NS) (NS) (.006) (NS) (NS)

(.03) (.008)

For

explanation

f each Testor

Subtest,

ee

Figure

.

TLC-RS

=

Test

of

Language

Competence-Expanded

dition

Subtest:

Recreating

entences

TLC-FL

=

Testof

Language

Competence-Expanded

dition

Subtest:

igurative anguage

ND

=

Nelson

Denny

TU

=

Writing

ample,

T-units

CS

=

Writing

ample,

Contextual

tyle

WRAT

=

Wide

Range

Achievement est:

Spelling

WA

=

Woodcock

ReadingMastery

est-Revised:WordAttack ubtest

WI

=

Woodcock

Reading

Mastery

est-Revised:Word

dentification ubtest

MEM

=

Woodcock-Johnsonsycho-Educational

attery:Memory

or entences

ubtest

GRADE

=

averageforeign anguagegrade

MLAT= ModernLanguage Aptitude est,LongForm

FLCAS

=

Foreign anguage

Classroom

Anxiety

cale

and LO-ANX. This

finding upports

he authors'

hypothesis

hattherewould be

significant

iffer-

ences

between

HI-

and LO-ANX

students

n

apti-

tude

for

earning

FL

and

is similar o

findings

n

other t-risk

opulations

17;

55; 56;

59).

Pearson Product Moment correlations were

run

among

all the

variables

(Table IV).

The

finding

of

particular

nterest o this

study

was

the significantly egative correlation between

anxiety

and

FL

grades.

Horwitz

(29)

found

a

significant negative

correlation of

r

=

-.49,

p

<

.003,

N

=

35,

for

beginning Spanish

classes

and

r

=

-.54,

p

<

.001,

N

=

32,

for

beginning

French classes. The correlation

n

this

tudy

was

somewhat

lower,

though

still

significant

r

=

-.36,

p

<

.03,

N

=

35).

Here

the overall

average

of

FL

grades

over

the

students' entire

college

FL

history

(mean

=

2.25

courses,

range

=

1-3

courses)

was used as the

basis for

the

correla-

tion,

rather

than

one end-of-semester

final

grade

as in

the Horwitz

study,

which

may

have

accounted for the lower correlation. Other

studies,however,

ave

shown considerable vari-

ation

in

the correlationbetween

anxiety

nd

FL

grades

(37;

40).

The authors noted

that

n

the

present tudy,

f

the

total number of

FL

grades







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

49

(over

several

emesters)

mong

the HI-ANX

sub-

jects, twenty-eight

ercent

eight

out

of

twenty-

nine

grades)

were

Ds, Fs,

nd

withdrawals,

s

com-

pared

to eleven

percent

three

ut

of

twenty-seven

grades)

of

the AVE-ANX

ubjects

and four

per-

cent (one out of twenty-fiverades) of the LO-

ANX

subjects.

See

Table

V forFL

GPAs

by

anxi-

ety

evel.)

As

withdrawals

ere not

counted

n

the

overall

GPA,

he

2.5

GPAfor

he

HI-ANX

tudents

may

be

somewhat

nderstated.

TABLE V

FL GPAs

by

Anxiety

evel

GPA

HI-ANX

AVE-ANX

LO-

ANX

(N=15) (N=10) (N=11)

A

4.0 4.0 4.0

4.0

4.0 4.0

4.0

4.0

3.7

3.5

3.5 3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

B

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

C 2.5

2.5

2.5 2.5

2.5

D

1.7

1.5

2.0

.5

F/Withdraw

0

0

W

DISCUSSION

Findings

of

this

study

end

support

to the

au-

thors'

overall

hypothesis

hat here

would be

dif-

ferences in native oral and written anguage

and FL

aptitude

performance

mong

students

with

different

evels

of FL

anxiety.

Though

HI-

ANX,

AVE-ANX,

and LO-ANX

students

had

similar

SAT

scores,

overall

grades,

and

cognitive

ability,

heir

performance

differed n

tests

mea-

suring

oral

language

(listening

and

speaking),

phonological

processing phonetic

analysis,

in-

gle

word

recognition),

and

aptitude

for earn-

ing

a

FL.

In

general,

LO-ANX

studentsdemon-

strated

superior

native

language

skills

and FL

aptitude;

HI-ANX

students

exhibited

averageskills n thesesame

measures.

n

this

study

tu-

dents

were

grouped

solely

on

the

basis of anxi-

ety

level.

Yet,

among

the HI-ANX

group,

lan-

guage

differences

were

noted

that

were

similar

to

previous

studies

in which students

were

grouped

according

to their

history

f uccess

or

failure n FL classes

(51;

54; 55; 56;

59).

What

s

interesting

bout these

findings

verall

s that

t

is

language

variables -native

oral and

written

language and FL aptitude-that discriminate

HI-

from O-ANX

subjects,

espite

imilarities

n

cognitive bility

nd in overall cademic

perfor-

mance in

college.

The

findings uggest

hat

HI-

ANX students

o not have

weak

(poor) language

skills,

s their

performance

n native

anguage

and

FL

aptitude

measures

waswellwithin

he

ver-

age range.

Rather,

O-ANX

students look

rela-

tively

trong

ecause

their verallnative

ral

and

written

anguage

and FL

aptitude

kills ie in

the

above

average

to

superior

ange.

Previous

studies have

shown that at-risk L

high

school and

college

students,

including

those

with dentified

anguage

learning

disabil-

ities

(LLD),

have

particular

problems

with

the

phonological

code of

language.

The

present

study

hows hatHI-ANXstudents

lso

differen-

tiated themselvesfrom LO-ANX

students on

phonological

tasks.

Upon

closer

examination

of

the HI-ANX

population,

however,

he

authors

found

that a number

of these students

per-

formedwell

on the

phonological

tasks

nd

also

did well

in FL classes.

In order to explore thisfindingfurther,he

authorsof the

present study

decided

to

exam-

ine

more

closely

the

relationship

between

pho-

nological

performance

and

grades.

To do

so,

they

regrouped

the

subjects

according

to

their

WRMT-R:

Basic Skills

Cluster

(BSC)

score

(a

combination of two

phonological

measures)

and then

compared

FL

grades.

Two

groups

were formed:

those with

BSC

scores <

100

(N

=

13)

and

those with

BSC

scores

=

>

100

(N

=

23).

Their

rationale

for

using

the

phonol-

ogical

measurewas

that n

previous

studies

at-

riskstudents cored

particularly

oorly

on this

measure

(17;

51; 54;

55;

56).

Having

grouped

subjects

n this

manner,

he

authors

now

found

significant

differences

between

HI- and

LO-

BSC

groups

on

SAT

scores,

F(1,34)

=

7.31,

p

<

.01,

but

not

on

overall

college

GPA,

F(1,34)

=

1.35,

p

=

n.s.

Importantly, ignificant

differences

were

found

in

the

FL

GPAs of

the

two

groups,

F(1,34)

=

8.21,

p

<

.007. Mean FL

grade

of

the

LO-BSC

group

was

2.2

(range

=

0

to

4.0);

of

the

HI-BSC

group,

the mean FL

gradewasa fullpoint higher, .3 (range= 1.7to

4.0).

The

mean BSC

standard

score of theLO-

BSC

group

was

94.3,

over

one standard

devia-

tion

(nineteen

standard score

points)

below

their

mean

cognitive

performance

mean

cog-







50

TheModern

anguageJournal

8

(1994)

nitive score

=

113,

S.D.

=

5.8,

range

=

105-126).

The

finding

hat

tudentswith

elatively

ow

pho-

nology

scores

tend

to

do more

poorly

in FL

courses ends

further

upport

to

earlier

findings

on

the

mpact

of

phonology

n FL

performance.

In this

study

he authorsaddressan area not

previously

xamined

in

their

research on

FL-

oral

language.

HI-ANX

and LO-ANX

students

were

found

to

exhibit

ignificant

ifferences n

oral

language,

as

measured

by

the TLC-E.

Again,

it

should be

emphasized

that the

group

differences re accounted for

by

the

superior

performance

of the LO-ANX

students,

n con-

trast o the

average performance

f

the

HI-ANX

students.

A

differenceof one

standard devia-

tion

(fifteen

standard

score

points)

on

the

TLC-E: ScreeningCompositewas seen between

the two

groups.

Evidence reviewed

arlier

from

native

anguage reading

iterature

uggests

hat

early

difficulties

n

the

primary

grades

with

phonology

may

have

long-term

ffects n the

skills

underlying

fficient ral

language

perfor-

mance

(listening

and

speaking).

This

phenom-

enon

has

been

termed Matthew

Effects

i.e.,

rich

get

richer,

oor

get

poorer )

(62).

Here

it

describes

a

set of circumstances

n which

less

skilled readers

do not read

as

much

as

skilled

readers,

thereby essening

their

xposure

to

vo-

cabulary, grammar,and general knowledge.

This

lack

of

exposure,

n

turn,

eads

to

less well-

developed

skills

n

oral

expression

nd

listening

comprehension,

which are

important

killsfor

FL

learning.

FL

researchers have

speculated

that

students come

to the

task

of

FL

learning

with

preconceived

beliefs about

how to learn a

language

and thatthese beliefs

can affect stu-

dent's achievement

n the FL

classroom

(30).

However,

a

proponent

of

the

phenomenon

of

Matthew

ffectswould

suggest

that

the

precon-

ceived beliefs

about

language learning

of a less

skilled student

entering

a FL classroom have

some

basis

in

fact;

that

s,

the

beliefs

have been

acquired

because the student's

elatively

eaker

oral and

written ative

anguage

skillshave not

permitted

him/her

to achieve as well

in school

as

his/her

peers

who have

stronger

native an-

guage

skills.

(Their

beliefs

about

language

learning

may

often be

reinforced

by

lower

grades.)

The

findings

f this

tudy

lso

suggest

thatthe

higher

FL

anxiety

evels

of theHI-ANX

and

AVE-ANX

groups may

be related

to their

relativelyweakeroral language skills.

In order to

analyze

and

describe

further he

relationship

between

anxiety

and

FL

grades,

the authors

displayed

the

grades

of the three

ANX

groups

subjectby subject

(Table V).

This

examination

of

individual

FL

profiles

of sub-

jects

shows that

among

the HI-ANX

students,

over half

received

average

FL

grades

in

the A

and

B

ranges.

The

finding uggests

that

n

this

study

ome of

the

HI-ANX

students,

whose over-

all

cognitive,

native

anguage,

and FL

aptitude

scores

were

in

the above

average range,

were

good

language

learners.

Given he

above

findings,

he

authors

peculate

that

there

might

be a

new and different

ay

to

explain

the role of

anxiety

n FL

learning.

How-

ever,

hiswould

require

eferring

ack

to the

origi-

nal

sample

of

students ho took the

FLCAS.

What

follows ere is

a

description

f our

speculations

derived rom

he

original

data used to screen

the

population

for

he

present

tudy.

In a previous tudyGanschow and Sparks 18)

had

found student

perceptions

of ease of

learning

a

FL

to

be one of

the

best

questions

for

discriminating

HI-risk from LO-risk

FL

learners on a

screening

nstrument

evised

for

identifying

L

learning problems.

n the

pres-

ent

study

he authorswere able to examine the

interactionbetween ease of

learning

a

FL

and

anxiety

because

they

had

included

along

with

the

FLCAS several

background questions,

one

of

which

was

a

request

for information bout

the student's

perceived

difficulty

with FL

courses. In order to examine the relationship

between

ease of

earning

a FL and

anxiety, hey

referred ack

to

their

riginal

pool

of

501 iden-

tified

HI-, AVE-,

and LO-ANX students.

From

this

pool,

they

first liminated

all

of

the AVE-

ANX

students

n

order to select

only

those stu-

dents at

HI-

and LO-ANX

extremes.Then

they

identified tudents

who

indicated

on the

ease

of

learning

a

FL

question

(a

one

to

five

point

scale)

that the

learning

was either

very

to

somewhat

asy

or somewhat

o

very

ifficult,

i.e.,

those students at

high

and low ease

of

learning

extremes.Of the initial 501 students,

174 fit the criteria

of

being

identified

s

HI-

or

LO-ANX

and as

finding

L either

relatively

asy

or

relatively

difficult.

Findings

(see

Table

VI)

show

that

close

to

seventy

percent

of the

students

who were

identified as either

HI-

or

LO-ANX

responded

as

one

might

xpect

on the

ease

of

earningquestion:

those with

high

anxi-

ety

found the

course difficult

N

=

61)

and

those with ow

anxiety

foundit

easy

(N

=

59).

However,

a number of students

(twenty-three

percent,N = 40) foundthe courseeasybut were

still

nxious,

and some

(7.5%,

N

=

14)

found the

course difficult

utwere

relatively

ow

in anxi-

ety.

n

examining

the four

quadrants

in Table

VI the authors

peculate

that

the ndividuals

n







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

51

TABLE VI

Relationship

etweenEase of

Learning

FL and

Anxiety

N

=

174)*

Ease

of

Learning

Anxiety

evel

HI

ANX

LO-ANX

(= /> -1.00) (= /> +1.00)

N

Percent

N Percent

very

o

somewhat

asy

40

23 59

34

somewhat o

very

ifficult 61

35 14

7.5

*The

ease

of

earning

cale

had

a

five-pointange:

1)

very asy;

2)

moderatelyasy;

3)

average;

(4)

somewhat

ifficult;

5)

very

ifficult. tudentswho

reported

(3)

on ease of

earning

were

eliminated

rom

his

part

of

the

study,

s were

students hose

nxiety

coreswere n the

AVE-ANX

range.

Of

the

nitial

01

students,

hen,

74fit

he

criteria

or

nclusion

n

this

data set.

the

upper

left

quadrant-the twenty-three

er-

cent

of

the

174

who

found

the

course

easy but

are

nevertheless

anxious-may

be the most

likely

to

benefit

from

the

anxiety

reduction

seminars advocated

by

Horwitz

and

her

col-

leagues

(29-31, 34).

Those

who found

learning

a

FL

difficult and were

also

highly

anxious

(thirty-five

ercent

of

the

174)

may

be the

stu-

dents for

whom

psychoeducational

and lan-

guage

assessments

may

be

appropriate

before

proceeding

with further

L

study.

SUMMARY

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

In

this

paper

the

authors xamine

differences

in FL

anxiety,

ative

oral

and written

anguage,

and

aptitude

for

learning

a FL

among

three

groups

of

college

learners:

HI-, AVE-,

and LO-

ANX

students.

They

speculate

thatHI-ANX

stu-

dents

may

xhibit

poorer

language

skills

nd

FL

aptitude

than

LO-ANX

students.

Results

sup-

port

this

hypothesis.

LO-ANX

learners

as a

group

had

above

average

to

superior

language

skills

and

FL

aptitude,

with

mean

standard

scores

ranging

from

109

to 118. n

contrast,

HI-

ANX students'mean scores,

though

still n the

average

range,

were

substantially

ower,

anging

from97

to 107.

Significant

ifferences

etween

HI-

and LO-ANX

studentswere

found

in

oral

language,

two

phonological

tasks,

nd

FL

apti-

tude.

Despite

these

significant

ifferences,

t is

clear

that there are

highly

nxious

FL

learners

whose

language

skills are

commensurate with

their

verall

ntellectual

bility.

wenty-five

er-

cent

of

the

HI-ANX

learners

in

this

study

re-

ceived

an

A

average

in FL

classes. There

are

others, however,

whose

language skills are not

commensurate

with heir

ntelligence,

nd

most

of

these

students

tend to

do

poorly

in FL

classes.

Among

the

HI-ANX

group, twenty-

eight

percent

of

the FL

grades

were

Ds,

Fs,

or

withdrawals.

When

subjects

were

compared

ac-

cording to theirperformanceon tests of pho-

nology,

FL GPAs

of the

HI-phonology group

were found

to be

significantly igher

han

those

of the

LO-phonology

group.

The mean

phonol-

ogy

score of

the

LO-phonology

group

was

over

one

standard

deviation lowerthan

theirmean

cognitive bility

core. Level of one's

perceived

difficulty

ithFL

study

lso

appeared

to be

re-

lated

to

anxiety.

Since

the

subject

sample

was

small

and

representative

f a

population

of

stu-

dent volunteers

at

only

one

university,

nfer-

ences

must

be

interpreted

autiously.

However,

based on the present findings and results

of

previous

studies,

the

authors make

two

recommendations.

First,

student

who

expresses

anxiety

about

FL

learning

and

experiences persistent

diffi-

culty

n

passing

FL courses

should be

referred

for a

psychoeducational

evaluation,

which

should

include tests of oral

and

written

native

language

(phonology, syntax,

and

semantics)

and FL

aptitude.

Generally,

he

Office

of

Hand-

icapped

Student

Services,

the

Developmental

Office,

or the

Student

Learning

AssistanceCen-

terhas a

specialist

who can assist hestudent n

theevaluation

process.

Should a

comprehensive

language

evaluation be

advised,

instruments

that

measure oral

language

(oral

expression

and

listening

comprehension)

also

should

be

considered.

Sample

testbatteries

may

be

found

in

Figure

I of

this

article and in

other

publica-

tions

(16;

17;

51; 53;

54; 55;

56;

59).

Second,

an

examination

of

possible

reasons

for FL

difficulty

ill

result

n

different

ecom-

mendations for

remediation/compensation.

Studentswithhigh anxiety nd intact anguage

skills

may

be

candidates

for

an

anxiety

upport

group

of the

type

Horwitz,

Horwitz,

and

Cope

recommend.

Students with

high anxiety

and

subtle or

overt

anguage

skill

difficulties

may

be







52

The

Modern

Language

Journal

78

(1994)

candidates for

compensatory

approaches,

such

as

those offered to

students

with

LD.

Modest

accommodations

include

untimed

tests,

mod-

ifications

in

the

kinds of tests

administered

(e.g.,

written instead of oral or

vice

versa),

and

allowances for

poor

pronunciation,

spelling,

or

grammar.14

More

extreme

accommodations

in-

clude

provision

of

special

classes for

students

(10;

12; 16;

58)

or

FL

course

waivers/substi-

tutions

(11;

14;

19;

43).

The

use

of

multisensory

structured

language

approaches focusing

on

di-

rect

teaching

of the sounds and

symbols

of

the

foreign

language

is one

modification that has

shown

positive

results

in

preliminary

research

on its

effectiveness,

in

particular,

for

students

with weak

phonological

skills

(51;

54;

58).

The findings from this study suggest that for

at least some

students,

FL

anxiety may

be re-

lated to relative weaknesses

in

understanding

and

applying

the

systems

of

linguistic

codes,

and

in

particular,

the

phonological

code. These

phonological

problems

may

be

subtle,

and stu-

dents

may

be able to

compensate

well for them

when

performing

tasks

in

their native

language.

However,

when asked to

learn

a new

phonologi-

cal

system

(a FL),

compensatory

mechanisms

may

break down.

Furthermore,

these subtle

phonological

difficulties

may

also

have

a

nega-

tive impact on the students' ability to listen to

and

speak

the FL.

In

addition to the

negative

cognitive

effects of the

phonological

difficulty,

poor performance

in

the

FL

classroom could

lead to motivational and

anxiety

spin-offs,

caus-

ing

even more

difficulty

with

FL

learning.

While students with

FL

learning problems

may

indeed have

high

levels

of

anxiety

or hold

nega-

tive beliefs about their

language

learning

or

ability

to

learn a

FL,

this

study

provides support

for the

notion that such affective differences

may

be due to a

history

of

and current

difficulty

with the

language

codes.

The

present

study

provides

alternative

spec-

ulations

to

existing

hypotheses

about the com-

plex

relationship

between

anxiety

and

foreign

language performance.

It

suggests

the

possi-

bility

of

identifying subtypes

of anxious

learners-students

who are anxious

and do well

in

FL and students

who

are anxious and do

poorly

in

FL.

In

general,

it would

appear

that

higher

FL

ability

is related to lower

anxiety.

For

those students who

are anxious and do

poorly

in FL classes, furtherexploration into their ba-

sic

language

skills,

in

particular,

the

phonologi-

cal

code,

is

in

order.

NOTES

1

The first two

authors,

Ganschow

and

Sparks,

made the most ubstantial ontributions othe manu-

script

and

contributed

qually

in

the

preparation

of

this

manuscript.

2

For

tandardizedmeasures f

native ral and written

language

used

with

ollege

earners,

ee Ganschow

nd

Sparks

16)

and

Sparks,

Ganschow,

nd Pohlman

59).

3

For

anecdotal

reports

about students

with

LD

who

have

FL

learning

difficulties,

he reader is re-

ferred

to

Ganschow and

Sparks

(20;

21),

Lefebvre,

Levine,

and

Pompian

and Thum.

4

A

discussion of the

phonological

difficulties f

poor

readers and

the

ack of semanticdifficulties

may

be

found,

for

xample,

n

Stanovich nd

in

Spear

and

Sternberg.

5

The term

phonology

oes not

primarily

efer o the

ability

o

pronounce

words

n

either he native or for-

eign language.

It

may

nclude

pronunciation,

ut

spe-

cifically

efers

o

the

ability

o discriminate etween

speech

sounds,

earn

sound/symbol

orrespondences,

and

identify

ound

segments phonemes)

in

words.

The

ability

o make

explicitreports

bout sound

seg-

ments

n

words s called

phonemic

awareness.

t

in-

volves a meta-awareness of

language

because one

must

be able

to

segment

he

phonemes

within word

(e.g.,

the word

plant

has five

phonemes,

p-l-a-n-t).

6

Because one

subject dropped

the class before re-

ceivinga FL grade, FL gradeswere not included in

the overall

analysis

(MANOVA

and

individual AN-

OVAs).

Average

FL

grades

are included

in

the correla-

tion matrix nd are discussed

in

relation to

findings

by

Horwitz

and her

colleagues

(29; 31).

7

The reader is referred to references

17, 55-57,

and

59.

8

Sections

from wo

different

panish

courses were

used for

this

study.

panish

101 is an

elementary

language

course which s coordinated

among

all sec-

tions,

using

a common

textbook,

common

syllabus,

and with the

exception

of a fewminor

quizzes,

com-

mon examinations

and a uniform

pproach

to

grad-

ing.

Spanish

111 (an intensivereview of first-year

Spanish

taken

mainlyby

freshmen)

uses a common

textbook

in

all

sections,

but

does not coordinate

other

aspects

of the course.

Testing

and

grading

in

Spanish

111

may

therefore eflect

range

of

instruc-

tional

approaches

and

emphases,

with some

instruc-

tors

favoring

graded

oral activities

nd

written

ro-

duction of

the

language,

while others

favor a

more

traditional

emphasis

on

patterned

practice

for

mas-

teringgrammatical

tructures

nd

vocabulary.

Since

grades

are later

nalyzed

n

this

tudy, general

word

of

explanation

is

necessary.

At

best,

foreign anguage

classroom

grades

represent

n

instructor's

valuation

of

many

different

actors,

ome of them as

subjective

as the

quality

f classroom

participation

nd

effort.

9

Examples

fromthe

FLCAS

that illustrate

bal-

anced

design

include the

following:

I never feel







Ganschow,

parks,

Anderson,

avorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

53

quite

sure

of

myself

when

I am

speaking

in

my

for-

eign language

class

(STRONGLY

DISAGREE/

DISAGREE

is

the

ideal

answer);

I

don't

worry

bout

making

mistakes

in

language

class

(STRONGLY

AGREE/AGREE

is the

ideal

answer).

10Since there was a larger number of AVE-ANX

students han HI-

or LO-ANX

students n the

subject

pool, only

100

AVE-ANX

studentswere

randomly

e-

lected to

receive

information

bout

the

study.

11

The other

instrument

designed

specifically

to

measure

FL

anxiety

s

Robert

Gardner's French

Class

Anxiety

cale

(39).

12

On

the

syntactic

measures

(derived

from

the

writing

sample;

see

Figure

I),

results of

individual

ANOVAs show no

significant

ifferences

mong

HI-

ANX,

AVE-ANX,

nd

LO-ANX

subjects

on

numberof

T-units

(TU),

F(2,32)

=

.642,

p

=

.53,

or on

CS,

F(2,32)

=

.481,

p

=

.62.

Based

on

previous

findings

n

good and poor FL learners n college (17; 18),signifi-

cant

differences

etween

HI-

and

LO-ANX

subjects

on both

measures were

anticipated.

13

Evidence for

subtle or overt

difficulties with

speech

perception

and

production

among poor

readers

may

be

found,

for

example,

in

Catts,

Crain,

and

Mann et

al.

(41;

42).

14Other

ideas

for

accommodations

may

be

found

in

such

references as

Bilyeu,

Fisher,

Ganschow and

Sparks

(16),

and

Sparks

et al.

(53).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Bilyeu,

E.

E.

Practice

Makes

Closer to

Perfect:Al-

ternative

echniques

for

Teaching

Foreign

Lan-

guages

to

Learning

Disabled

Students

in

the

University.

und

for the

Improvement

f

Post

Secondary

Education

Project

#116CH

10305.

Ellensburg:

Central

Washington

Univ.,

982.

2.

Brown,

J.,J.

M.

Bennett

& G.

Hanna.

Nelson-Denny

Reading

Test.

Chicago:

Riverside,

1981.

3.

Carroll,

John.

Cognitive

Abilities

n

Foreign

Lan-

guage

Aptitude:

Then and

Now.

Language

Ap-

titude

econsidered.

d.

Thomas

Parry

&

Charles

Stansfield.EnglewoodCliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

1990:

1-29.

4.,

.

Twenty-Five

ears of

Research

on

Foreign

Language

Aptitude.

Individual

Differences

nd

Universals

n

Language

Learning

Aptitude.

d.

Karl

C.

Diller.

Rowley,

MA:

Newbury

House,

1981:

83-117.

5.

-

.

The

Prediction of

Success in

Intensive

Foreign

Language

Training.

Training

nd

Re-

search n

Education. Ed.

Robert

Glaser. Pitts-

burgh:

Univ.

of

Pittsburgh

ress,

1962: 87-136.

6.

-

&

Stanley

Sapon.

Modern

Language

Aptitude

Test

MLAT)

Manual.

San

Antonio,

TX:

Psycho-

logical

Corp.,

1959.

7.

Catts,

Hugh.

Speech

Production/Phonological

Deficits n

Reading

Disordered

Children.

Jour-

nal

of

Learning

Disabilities 9

(1986):

504-08.

8.

Crain,

Stephen.

Why

Poor Readers

Misunder-

stand

Spoken

Sentences.

Phonology

nd

Read-

ing

Disability:

Solving

the

Reading

Puzzle.

Ed.

Donald

Shankweiler

&

Isabelle Liberman.

Ann

Arbor:

Univ.

of

Michigan

Press,

1989:

133-65.

9. Daly,John. UnderstandingCommunication- p-

prehension:

An

Introduction

for

Language

Ed-

ucators.

LanguageAnxiety:

rom

Theory

nd

Re-

search

to Classroom

mplications.

Ed.

Elaine

Horwitz

&

Dolly Young. Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

1991:

3-13.

10.

Demuth,

Katherine

&

Nathaniel

Smith. The

For-

eign

Language Requirement:

An

Alternative

Program. Foreign

Language

Annals20

(1987):

67-77.

11.

Dinklage,

Kenneth.

Inability

o Learn

a

Foreign

Language.

Emotional

roblems

f

he tudent.

d.

Graham Burt

Blaine & Charles C.

McArthur.

NY: Appleton-Century,971:185-206.

12.

Downey,

Doris

M.,

Karen

Bever

&

Barbara

Hill.

Foreign

Language

Modification

Program.

Paper,

Orton

Dyslexia

Society

Annual

Meeting,

Portland,

November,

991.

13.

Fisher,

Elissa.

Learning

Disability

Specialist

Looks

at

Foreign

Language

Instruction.

Hill-

topSpectrum

(1986):

1-3.

14.

Freed,

Barbara.

Exemptions

from

the

Foreign

Language

Requirement:

A Review

of

Recent

Literature,

roblems

and

Policy.

ADFL

Bulletin

18,

i

(1987):

13-17.

15.

Gajar,

Anna.

Foreign

Language

Learning

Dis-

abilities: The Identification of Predictive and

Diagnostic

Variables.

Journal

of

Learning

Dis-

abilities

0

(1987):

327-30.

16.

Ganschow,

Leonore

& Richard

Sparks.

'Foreign'

Language

Learning

Disabilities:

Issues,

Re-

search,

and

Teaching

Implications.

Success

or

College

Students

with

Learning

Disabilities.

Ed.

Susan

Vogel

&

Pamela

Adelman.

New

York:

Springer,

993:

283-322.

17.

-

,

Richard

Sparks,

JamesJavorsky,ane

Pohl-

man

&

Angela

Bishop-Marbury.

Identifying

Native

Language

Difficulties

among

Foreign

Language

Learners n

College:

A

'Foreign'

Lan-

guage

Learning

Disability? Journal

f

Learning

Disabilities

4

(1991):

530-41.

18.

& Richard

Sparks.

A

Screening

Instru-

ment

for

the

Identification

of

Foreign

Lan-

guage

Learning

Problems.

Foreign

Language

Annals

24

(1991):

383-98.

19.

-

,

Bettye

Myer

&

Kathy

Roeger.

Foreign

Language

Policies and

Procedures for

Students

with

Specific

Learning

Disabilities.

Learning

Disabilities

ocus

5

(1989):

50-58.

20.

&-

Richard

Sparks.

The

Foreign

Lan-

guage

Requirement.

Learning

Disabilities

ocus

2

(1987): 116-23.

21.

&-

Richard

Sparks.

Learning

Disabilities

and

Foreign

Language

Difficulties:

Deficit in

Listening

Skills?

ournal

f

Reading,Writing,

nd

LearningDisabilities

nternational

(1986):

306-19.







54

The

Modern

Language

Journal

78

(1994)

22.

Gardner,

Robert

C.,

N.

Lalonde,

R. Moorcroft

&

F

T. Evers.

Second

Language

Attrition:

The

Role of

Motivation and Use.

Journal

of

Lan-

guage

and Social

Psychology

(1987):

29-47.

23.

-

,

R.

Clement,

P. C.

Smythe

& C. L.

Smythe.

TheAttitude/Motivationest attery:evisedMan-

ual.

Research Bulletin

15.

London,

Ontario:

Language

Research

Group,

Univ. of Western

Ontario,

1979.

24.

-

,

P.

C.

Smythe,

R.

Clement

&

L.

Gliksman.

Second

Language

Learning:

A

Social

Psycho-

logical Perspective.

Canadian Modern

anguage

Review

2

(1976):

198-213.

25.

-

& Wallace

Lambert. Attitude nd Motiva-

tion

n Second

Language

Learning.

Rowley,

MA:

Newbury

House,

1972.

26.

Genesee,

Fred. The Role of

Intelligence

n

Sec-

ond

Language Learning.

Language Learning

26 (1976): 267-80.

27.

Gregg,

Noel.

College

Learning

Disabled

Writers:

Error Patterns nd Instructional

Alternatives.

Journal

fLearning

isabilities 6

(1983):

334-38.

28.

Hammill,

Donald &

Stephen

Larsen. Test

f

Writ-

ten

Language-2

TOWL-2).

Austin,

TX:

Pro-Ed,

1988.

29.

Horwitz,

Elaine.

Preliminary

Evidence for the

Reliability

nd

Validity

f

a

Foreign

Language

Anxiety

Scale.

Language

Anxiety:

rom

Theory

and Research o Classroom

mplications.

d.

Elaine

K. Horwitz &

DollyJ.

Young. Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

1991: 37-39.

30. . Attending o the AffectiveDomain in

the

Foreign Language

Classroom.

Shifting

he

Instructional ocus to the

Learner.

Ed.

Sally

S.

Magnan. Middlebury,

VT: Northeast Confer-

ence,

1990: 15-33.

31.

-

,

Michael

B.

Horwitz &

Joanne Cope.

For-

eign Language

Classroom

Anxiety.

Modern

Language

Journal

0

(1986):

125-32.

32.

Jastak,

Sarah &

Gary

Wilkinson.

Wide

Range

Achievementest-Revised

WRAT-R).

Wilmington,

DE:

Jastak,

1984.

33.

Javorsky,ames,

Richard

Sparks

&

Leonore Gan-

schow.

Perceptions

of

College

Students

with

and without

Learning

Disabilities about For-

eign Language

Courses.

Learning

Disabilities:

Research

nd Practice

(1992):

31-44.

34.

Language Anxiety:

rom

Theory

nd Research to

Classroom

mplications.

d. Elaine

Horwitz

&

Dolly

J.

Young. Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-

Hall,

1991.

35.

Lefebvre,

R.

Craig.

A

Psychological

Consulta-

tion

Program

for

Learning

Disabled

Adults.

Journal of College

tudentPersonnel

5 (1984):

361-62.

36.

Levine,

Melvin.

Developmental

ariationnd Learn-

ing

Disorders.

ambridge,

MA:

Educators,

1987.

37.

Madsen,

Harold,

Bruce

Brown

&

Randall

Jones.

Evaluating

Attitudes oward

econd-Language

Tests.

Language Anxiety:

rom

Theory

nd Re-

search o Classroom

mplications.

d. Elaine K.

Horwitz

&

DollyJ.

Young. Englewood

Cliffs,

J:

Prentice-Hall,

991: 65-86.

38.

MacIntyre,

Peter & Robert C.

Gardner. Investi-

gating Language

Class

Anxiety Using

the Fo-

cused

Essay

Technique.

Modern

anguageJour-

nal 75 (1991):296-304.

39.

-

& Robert C.

Gardner.

Methods

and Re-

sults in

the

Study

of

Anxiety

and

Language

Learning:

A

Review of

the Literature. Lan-

guage

Learning

1

(1991):

85-117.

40.

-

&

Robert

C. Gardner.

Anxiety

nd Sec-

ond

Language

Learning:

Toward a

Theoretical

Clarification.

Language

Learning

32

(1989):

251-75.

41.

Mann,

Virginia,

Elizabeth

Cowin &

Joyce

choen-

heimer.

Phonological Processing, Language

Comprehension,

and

Reading Ability. Cogni-

tive nd

Behavioral haracteristics

f

Children ith

LearningDisabilities. d. Joseph Torgesen.Aus-

tin,

TX:

Pro-Ed,

1990: 59-87.

42.

-

,

Donald Shankweiler& Suzanne T. Smith.

The Association between

Comprehension

of

Spontaneous

Sentences and

Early

Reading

Abil-

ity:

The Role of Phonetic

Representation.

Jour-

nal

of

Child

Language

11

1984):

627-43.

43.

Philips,

Lois,

Leonore Ganschow

&

Reed Ander-

son. The

College Foreign Language Require-

ment:

An

Action Plan for Alternatives.

NACADA

(National

Academic

Advising

Associa-

tion)

Journal

1

(1991):

51-56.

44.

Pimsleur,

Paul.

Language

Aptitude

Testing.

Language Testing ymposium: LinguisticAp-

proach.

Ed.

Alan Davies.

New York: Oxford

Univ.

Press,

1968:

98-106.

45.

- . Pimsleur

Language

Aptitude

Battery

nd

Manual. New

York:

Harcourt, Brace,

1966.

46.

-

.

Predicting

Success

in

High

School

For-

eign Language

Courses.

Educational and

Psy-

chological

Measurement

(1963):

349-57.

47.

-

,

Donald M.

Sunderland

& Ruth

McIntyre.

Underachievement

in

Foreign

Language

Learning.

International eview

of Applied

in-

guistics

(1964):

113-50.

48.

Pompian,

Nancy

&

Carl Thum.

Dyslexic/

Learning

Disabled Studentsat Dartmouth Col-

lege.

Annals

of

Dyslexia

8

(1988):

176-84.

49.

Scovel,

Thomas.

The Effect f Affect n

Foreign

Language Learning:

A

Review of

the

Anxiety

Research.

Language Anxiety:

rom

Theory

nd

Research o Classroom

mplications.

d. Elaine

Horwitz &

DollyJ.Young.

Englewood

Cliffs,

J:

Prentice-Hall,

1991:

15-23.

50.

Skehan,

Peter. The Role

of

Foreign Language

Aptitude

n

a

Model of School

Learning.

Lan-

guageTesting

(1986):

188-221.

51.

&-

Leonore Ganschow.

The Effects of

Multisensory

tructured

Language

Instruction

on the Native and

ForeignLanguage Aptitude

Skills

of At-Risk

igh

School

ForeignLanguage

Learners:

A

Replication

and

Follow-Up

Study.

Annals

ofDyslexia

3

(1993):

194-216.







Ganschow,

Sparks,

Anderson,

Javorshy,

kinner,

nd Patton

55

52.

Sparks,

Richard,

Leonore Ganschow &

JamesJa-

vorsky.

Perceptions

of Low

and

High

Risk

Stu-

dents

and

Students with

Learning

Disabilities

about

High

School

Foreign Language

Courses.

Foreign

anguage

Annals

forthcoming).

53.

-

,Leonore Ganschow&JamesJavorsky.Di-

agnosing

and

Accommodating

the

Foreign

Language Learning

Difficulties f

College

Stu-

dents with

Learning

Disabilities.

Learning

Dis-

abilities: esearch nd

Practice

(1992):

150-60.

54.

-

,

Leonore

Ganschow,

Jane

Pohlman,

Mar-

jorie

Artzer & Sue Skinner. The Effects f a

Multisensory,

tructured

Language

Approach

on the Native and

Foreign Language Aptitude

Skills

f

High-Risk oreignLanguage

Learners.

Annals

of

Dyslexia

2

(1992):

25-53.

55.

-

,

Leonore

Ganschow,

JamesJavorsky,ane

Pohlman

&

John

Patton.

Identifying

Native

Language Deficits in High and Low Risk For-

eign

Language

Learners

in

High

School. For-

eign Language

Annals

25

(1992):

403-18.

56.

-

,

Leonore

Ganschow,

James

Javorsky,ane

Pohlman

&

John

Patton.

Test

Comparisons

among

Students

dentified as

High-Risk,

Low-

Risk,

and

Learning

Disabled

in

High

School

Foreign

Language

Courses. Modern

Language

Journal

6

(1992):

142-59.

57.

-

&

Leonore

Ganschow.

Foreign

Language

Learning

Difficulties:

Affective r Native

Lan-

guage

Aptitude

Differences? Modern

anguage

Journal

5

(1991):

3-16.

58. - , Leonore Ganschow,Silvia Kenneweg &

Karen

Miller. Use of

an

Orton-Gillingham

Approach

to

Teach a

Foreign

Language

to

Dyslexic/Learning

Disabled

Students:

Explicit

Teaching

of

Phonology

n a

Second

Language.

Annals

ofDyslexia

1

(1991):

96-118.

59.

-

,

Leonore

Ganschow

&

Jane

Pohlman.

Linguistic

Coding

Deficits in

Foreign

Lan-

guage

Learners.

Annals

ofDyslexia

39

(1989):

179-95.

60.

Spear,

Louise

& Robert

Sternberg.

An In-

formation-Processing

Framework

for

Under-

standing

Reading

Disability.,

Handbook

f

Cog-

nitive,Social,

and

Neuropsychological

spects f

Learning

Disabilities.

Ed.

Stephen

Ceci. Hills-

dale,

NJ:

Erlbaum,

1987:

3-31.

61. Spolsky,Bernard. ConditionsorSecondLanguage

Learning.

Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Press,

1989.

62.

Stanovich,

Keith. The

Right

and

Wrong

Places

to Look for the

Cognitive

Locus of

Reading

Disability.

Annals

ofDyslexia

8

(1988):

154-77.

63.

Vellutino,

Frank & Donna

Scanlon.

Linguistic

Coding

and

Metalinguistic

Awareness:

Their

Relationship

to Verbal and Code

Acquisition

n

Poor and Normal

Readers.

Metalinguistic

Awareness nd

Beginning

Literacy.

Ed.

Daniel

Yaden & Shane

Templeton.

Portsmouth,

NH:

Heinemann,

1986:

115-41.

64.

Vogel,

Susan

&

Mary

Moran. Written

anguage

Disorders in Learning Disabled College Stu-

dents:

A

Preliminary

Report. Coming f Age:

The Best

of

ACLD.

Ed.

William Cruickshank &

Janet

Lerner.

Syracuse:

Syracuse

Univ.

Press,

1982:

III,

211-25.

65.

Wiig,

Elisabeth

&

Wayne

Secord. Test

f

Language

Competence-Expanded

dition

TLC-E).

San

An-

tonio,

TX:

Psychological

Corp.,

1988.

66.

Woodcock,

Richard. Woodcock

eading

Mastery

Tests-Revised

WRMT-R).

Circle

Pines,

MN:

American

Guidance,

1987.

67.

-

&

M.

Bonner

Johnson.

Woodcock-Johnson

Psycho-Educational

attery WJPB).

Allen

Park,

TX: DLM Teaching Resources,1978.

68.

Young,Dolly.

Creating

a

Low-Anxiety

lassroom

Environment:

What Does

Language Anxiety

Research

Suggest?

Modern

anguage

Journal

5

(1991):

426-37.

69.

-

.

The

Relationship

between

Anxiety

nd

Foreign

Language

Oral

Proficiency

Ratings.

Language

Anxiety:

rom

Theory

nd

Research o

Classroom

mplications.

d. Elaine K.

Horwitz

&

Dolly

J.

Young.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-

Hall,

1991:

57-63.

Documents

Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorshy, Skinner, Patton -Differences in Language Performance Among High, Average, And Low Anxious College Foreign Language Learners