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
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 2/16
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-
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 3/16
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,
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 4/16
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,
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 5/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 6/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 7/16
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;
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 8/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 9/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 10/16
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-
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 11/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 12/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 13/16
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
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 14/16
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.
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 15/16
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.
This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:11:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 16/16
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.