Home | Organization | Map | Events and Discussions | Resources | Standards and Frameworks
- © Copyright 1997 California Foreign Language Project. All rights reserved
The student and parent questionnaire was distributed twice -- the first time in 1993 and again in 1995. A total of 1,217 students and 1,577 parents participated in the survey. An important aspect of this data collection effort is that we were able to match 555 students and parent questionnaires. In the student data, 178 questionnaires were collected from elementary school students, 18 from middle school students, and 1,021 from high school students. There were 648 male and 560 female students and 9 respondents did not report their gender. Student data were collected from 666 students enrolled in Japanese language programs, 187 from Chinese (either Cantonese or Mandarin), 195 from Korean, and 169 from Russian programs. Students' ethnic heritage language background information was also collected. 382 students reported that the language they were studying was their ethnic heritage language and 74 students described themselves as mixed-heritage, which meant that one of their parents was an ethnic heritage parent. 743 students reported that they were not ethnically related to the language they were studying. 18 did not provide ethnic heritage information. Table 8 summarizes students' ethnic background information by language program type. The table shows that the highest percentage of ethnic heritage students were enrolled in the Chinese (56%) and Korean (93%) programs.
In the parent questionnaire data, 652 respondents were elementary school parents, 19 were middle school and 906 were high school parents. There were 546 fathers or male guardians and 979 mothers or female guardians. 52 parents did not report their gender. A total of 929 were from parents of children who enrolled in Japanese programs, 257 in Chinese, 211 in Korean, and 180 in Russian programs. Among the respondents, 1109 parents answered in the questionnaire in English, 34 in Spanish, 123 in Japanese, 101 in Chinese, and 210 in Korean. Parents' ethnic heritage background information is shown in Table 9. Parents of elementary school students between Kindergarten and 3rd grade were added to the parent data set since these parents were more likely to be ethnic parents. This is why the percentages of ethnic parents for the Japanese and Chinese programs is larger for parents than for students.
Data collected from both students and parents were first analyzed by means of factor analysis which is a statistical procedure that permits the user to examine the communality between items to determine whether items can be grouped into meaningful clusters or scales. Factor analysis allows the user to cluster items based on statistical properties that indicate that the items measure a common underlying characteristic such as motivation to learn a new language. Once a common cluster of items is identified statistically through factor analysis, then the items can be organized into scales for the purpose of contrasting different groups of respondents on the cluster in question. The technique allows the user to gain greater understanding of diverse items on a questionnaire than can be done if each item is treated separately and then comparisons made on each item. The method of principal components with varimax rotation with missing data deleted was used in all factor analyses discussed in this report. The results of the factor analyses will first be presented, followed by group comparisons on the different scales that emerged from the factor analyses.
The questionnaire data was factor analyzed using a varimax rotation procedure to examine the communality of items. A factor analysis was first computed on Part 1 -- the "Instrumental/Integrative Motivation" scale for studying the LCTLs. The results of the factor analysis revealed that the 8 items loaded onto a single factor (see Table 10). The eigen value for this single factor was 2.93 and the computed Cronbach alpha was 0.83, indicating that the scale possessed internal consistency with the student population. The percent of total variance explained by this single factor was 36.62%. Importantly, the result of the factor analysis in this study did not confirm the original Gardner (1985) analysis which showed that the 8 items consisted of two separate clusters of 4 items each: one for instrumental motivation and the other for integrative motivation. The findings suggest that the students in the present study made no distinction between instrumental and integrative motivation for learning a LCTL. Part 2 of the student questionnaire consisted of 14 items having to do with "Reasons for Studying These Specific Languages". The analysis revealed that a three-factor solution was best for these items. One item was dropped from the final analysis since it did not load on any single factor. Table 11 shows the results of the factor analysis. Five items which loaded on Factor 1 constitute a subscale of motivation based on students' Ethnic Heritage (e.g., "It is my heritage language"). One item was not about their own heritage, but their friend's language. Factor 2 consisted of three items which are School-Related items pertaining to what students have heard about the language class, teacher, or peers taking the language class. Factor 3 is composed of five items that describe Personal Interests in studying the LCTLs (e.g., "I want to study in a foreign country as a study abroad student"). The eigen values for the three factors were respectively 3.205, 1.640, and 1.808. Cronbach alphas were also respectable: .78 for Factor 1 ("Ethnic Heritage Factor"); .77 for Factor 2 ("School-Related Factor"); and .69 for Factor 3 ("Personal Interests Factor"). The total variance explained by the three factors was 45.64%.
The results of the factor analysis on the "Language Learning Strategies" scale (Part 3 of the student questionnaire) showed that again a three-factor solution was best for these items (see Table 12). Two items were dropped from the final analysis since they did not load on any single factor. The eigen values for the three factors were respectively 3.807, 1.002, and 0.579. Seven items which loaded on Factor 1 constitute a subscale of Innovative Learning Strategies which consisted of creative and active classroom activities ("acting out", "making sentences with new words", "creating original dialogues"). Factor 2 consisted of four items which are strategies of Outside Classroom Language Use/Practice such as "watching movies in the language", and "writing a letter". Factor 3 was composed of two items that describe Translation Strategies. The percent of total explained variance contributed by the three factors was 41.45%.
The results of the factor analysis on the "Parental Involvement in Foreign Language Study" scale (Part 4 of the student questionnaire) showed that all 9 items loaded onto a single factor (see Table 13). The eigen value for the student data was 4.73 and the Cronbach alpha was .89. The percent of total variance explained by the single factor for students was 52.55%.
Parent Questionnaire
A factor analysis procedure was also used with the parents' responses to "Attitudes toward Foreign Language Learning" (Part 1 of the parent questionnaire). The analysis revealed that all 9 items loaded onto a single factor (see Table 14). The eigen value for this single factor was 3.54 and the Cronbach alpha was highly reliable (.86). The percent of total variance explained by this scale for attitudes toward foreign language study was 39.33%.
All 9 items in the second part of the parent questionnaire regarding "Parental Involvement" in their child's foreign language study also loaded onto a single factor (see Table 11 again). The eigen value for the parent data was 4.412 and a check for internal consistency using the Cronbach alpha (.90) showed that this scale was highly reliable. The percent of total variance explained by the single factor for parents was 49.03%.
Instrumental/Integrative motivation. Using the new scales created from the student data to the questionnaire, we then set out to examine whether differences existed on the various scales by school level, language program type, and gender. First, we found that the instrumental/integrative motivation scale adapted from Gardner was significantly different by school level, F (2, 1212) = 10.974, p < .0001. As can be seen in Figure 5, elementary (M = 4.662) and middle school students (M = 5.176) showed significantly higher motivation to learn the LCTLs that they were studying than did high school students (M = 4.395). A significant difference on motivation also appeared when the four language programs were compared, F (3, 1211) = 35.590, p < .0001. Students in the Russian programs (M = 3.789) showed significantly lower motivation than students in any of the other language programs (see Figure 6). On the other hand, students in the Korean language program showed the highest motivation score (M = 4.712) which was significantly higher than students in Japanese programs (M = 4.511, p = .037) and also higher (not significantly though) than students in Chinese programs (M = 4.525). Female students possessed higher motivation (M = 4.501) than their male counterparts (M = 4.398), but the difference was not statistically significant. However, there was a significant gender difference found among students in the Korean program. Female students in the Korean program (M = 4.786) were significantly more motivated than males (M = 4.640), p < .0001.
Heritage-related motivation. There was a significant school level difference on heritage-related motivation to study the LCTLs, F (2, 1212) = 89.279, p < .0001. Like the Gardner's motivation scale, students from elementary (M = 3.430) and middle school (M = 4.097) showed significantly higher heritage-related motivation than did high school students (M = 1.884), p < .0001 (see Figure 7). A significant difference of heritage-related motivation was also noticed among the four language programs, F (3, 1211) = 127.900, p < .0001. Heritage-related motivation was significantly different between any of the two language programs (see Figure 8). Students in the Korean program (M = 3.431) showed the highest heritage-related motivation, followed by students in Chinese programs (M = 3.010), then Japanese program students (M = 1.848). Students in Russian programs scored lowest on the heritage-related motivation scale (M = 0.852). As noted in Figure 9, female students showed higher heritage-related motivation (M = 2.341) than their male counterpart (M = 1.974) and the difference was statistically significant, F (1, 1204) = 14.783, p < .0001. Regarding the heritage-related motivation scale, analyses were also conducted by students ethnic heritage background. Students were divided into three group: Heritage Language Background, Mixed Heritage [which meant one parent was of the same heritage as the target language], and Non-Heritage related groups. A significant difference was found on the heritage-related scale, F (2, 1195) = 671.216, p < .0001 (see Figure 10). Ethnic Heritage (M = 3.717) and Mixed Heritage students (M = 3.546) recorded significantly higher motivational scores on this variable than did Non-Heritage students (M = 1.202). Significant differences by ethnic heritage were found across all four language programs and also when similar analyses were computed for gender. That is, female and male Ethnic Heritage (and Mixed Heritage) students scored higher on ethnic heritage motivation than female and male students who were not of the target language heritage.
School-related motivation. There was a significant difference between elementary and high schools on school-related motivation, F (2, 1210) = 7.104, p = .001 (see Figure 11). Elementary students showed a significantly higher school related-motivation (M = 2.850) than did their high school counterparts (M = 2.335). Middle school students recorded a very high mean score (M = 2.896) on school-related motivation, but since the variance of the group was very large with a small sample size, significant differences were not found when compared to elementary or high school students. There was no language program type difference in school-related motivation, but there was a significant gender difference, F (1, 1202) = 6.040, p = .014. Interestingly, male students (M = 2.536) showed significantly higher school-related motivation than did female students (M = 2.285). However, there was a significant interaction effect between students' gender and language program type, F (3, 1196) = 3.015, p = .029 (see Figure 12). The interaction effect was due to male students' higher school-related motivation scores in all the programs, except for the Chinese programs. However, in the Chinese language programs, female students showed higher school-related motivation than males.
Personal interest-related motivation. Like the other motivation scales, personal interest-related motivation to study these LCTLs among high school students (M = 3.652) was significantly lower than elementary (M = 3.963) or middle school students (M = 4.050), F (2, 1213) = 5.090, p = .006 (see Figure 13). There was also a significant language program type difference, F (3, 1212) = 24.971, p < .0001. As can be seen in Figure 14, students in the Japanese programs recorded the highest personal interest-related motivation score (M = 3.902) and those in the Russian programs showed the lowest score (M = 3.002). There was no gender difference on personal interest-related motivation.
Language learning strategies. Regarding learning strategies, there was a significant difference on the first strategy (Innovative Strategies) by school level, F (2, 1204) = 3.610, p = .027 (see Figure 15). Middle school students (M = 4.581) expressed that they used significantly more innovative learning strategies such as active and creative classroom activities than did students at the elementary (M = 3.769) or high (M = 3.864) schools. Analysis of the second strategy (Outside Classroom Language Use) resulted in a significant program type difference, F (3, 1208) = 21.755, p < .0001 (see Figure 16). Students in the Korean program (M = 4.555) showed significantly higher scores on the learning strategies involving outside classroom language practice than did students of the other three programs. On the other hand, students in Russian programs said that their use of outside classroom language practice strategies (M = 3.483) was significantly lower than the other three programs. There was also a gender difference in the second learning strategy, F (1, 1201) = 8.543, p = .004 (see Figure 17). Female students (M = 4.143) said that they used outside classroom language strategies significantly more than male students (M = 3.916) and the female students' higher use of this learning strategy was found in every school level and also in every language program. As for Translation Strategies, there was no school level difference nor gender difference. However, there was a significant language program type difference, F (3, 1201) = 2.682, p = .046 (see Figure 18). Tukey HSD multiple comparisons revealed that a significant difference was found only between students in the Chinese and Russian programs. Translation strategies were reported significantly more often by students in the Chinese programs (M = 4.541) than by students learning Russian (M = 4.199).
Parental involvement. As for students' perception of their parents' involvement in their language study a significant difference was found by school level, F (2, 1207) = 78.035, p < .0001. Elementary (M = 4.714) and middle (M = 5.314) school students reported that their parents were involved in their language study much more than was true for high school students (M = 3.303), as can be noted in Figure 19. There was also a significant program type difference on students' perception of parental involvement, F (3, 1206) = 25.680, p < .0001 (see Figure 20). Students from Korean (M = 4.042) and Chinese (M = 3.893) programs said that their parents were involved in their language study significantly more than did students in Japanese (M = 3.498) and Russian (M = 2.717) programs. The difference between students learning Japanese and Russian was also statistically significant, p < .0001. There was a significant gender difference on perception of parental involvement, F (1, 1199) = 9.616, p = .002 (see Figure 21). Female students (M = 3.692) indicated that their parents were much more involved in their language study than did male students (M = 3.406).
Parent Questionnaire
Attitudes toward foreign language learning. Parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning was significantly higher among parents of elementary (M = 5.265) and middle (M = 5.450) school language programs than parents of high school students (M = 5.013), F (2, 1563) = 22.942, p < .0001 (see Figure 22). There was also a significant difference of parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning by language program type, F (3, 1562) = 6.206, p < .0001. Figure 23 showed that parents of students learning Russian (M = 4.906) recorded significantly lower scores on attitudes toward foreign language learning than parents of students in the other three programs (mean scores were 5.131 for Japanese, 5.193 for Chinese, and 5.189 for Korean programs). Gender difference was also noted on parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning, F (1, 1520) = 8.268, p = .004 (see Figure 24). Mothers (M = 5.169) showed significantly more positive attitudes toward foreign language learning than did fathers (M = 5.052). Detailed analysis (two-way ANOVA for language program type and parents' gender) resulted in a significant gender difference only among parents of students learning Japanese. Results also revealed a difference in parents' attitudes depending on their ethnic heritage background, F (2, 1532) = 9.779, p < .0001. As noted in Figure 25, parents whose ethnic background was related to the language that their child was learning showed significantly higher attitudes toward foreign language learning (M = 5.214) than non-ethnic parents (M = 5.047).
Parents' involvement in language study. Regarding parents' reported involvement in their child's language study indicated that there was a significant difference by school level, F (2, 1563) = 32.919, p < .0001 (see Figure 26). Middle school parents showed the highest involvement in their child's foreign language study (M = 5.638), then elementary parents (M = 5.058), followed lastly by high school parents (M = 4.67). Paired comparisons of all language level combinations were significant. There was also a significant difference of parental involvement by language program type, F (3, 1562) = 62.762, p < .0001. As can be seen in Figure 27, parents of Russian language programs (M = 4.034) showed significantly lower scores on parental involvement than those of the other three programs and parents of both Chinese (M = 5.118) and Korean (M = 5.269) programs showed significantly higher parental involvement than did parents of students learning Japanese (M = 4.835). Regarding parental involvement, mothers (M = 4.881) generally reported higher involvement than fathers (M = 4.792), but the difference was not statistically significance. Parents' ethnic heritage was related significantly to the factor of parental involvement, F (2, 1531) = 73.194, p < .0001 (see Figure 28). Heritage language background parents (M = 5.179) and mixed parents (M = 5.106) were significantly more involved in their child's language study than were non-ethnic parents (M = 4.569).
Elementary school students who participated in the questionnaire survey were available for only two language programs, Japanese and Cantonese Chinese language programs. A total of 178 elementary school students responded to the student questionnaire survey among whom 111 students were from two Japanese language programs and 67 students were from one Cantonese program. There were 74 male and 102 female students and two did not report their gender. Among the elementary school respondents, 82 students answered that they were ethnically related to the language they were studying, 37 students reported as mixed-heritage, 54 were non-heritage related students, and five did not report their ethnic heritage information. Elementary school students' responses were analyzed by language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background information.
Instrumental/Integrative motivation. Language program type difference, F (1, 160) = 5.683, p =.018, and students' gender difference, F (1, 160) = 5.259, p = .023, were found to be statistically significant for instrumental/integrative motivation to study these less-commonly taught languages. Figure 29 showed that Japanese elementary school students (M = 4.777) had significantly higher motivation than students in the Cantonese program (M = 4.360) and female students in both Japanese and Cantonese programs (M = 4.769) consistently reported being more highly motivated than did male students in the same programs (M = 4.368). There was no ethnic heritage background difference in students' instrumental/integrative motivation to study these languages. Also no interaction effects between language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background were found.
Heritage-related motivation. Interestingly, the factor of Heritage-related motivation to study Japanese or Cantonese among elementary school students did not result in a significant difference between students in either of these programs. Also there was no difference between males and females on this comparison. However, there was a significant difference in Heritage-related motivation between heritage background and non-heritage students, F (2, 160) = 18.579, p < .0001 (see Figure 30). Ethnic heritage background students (M = 3.989) and mixed heritage students (M = 3.635) were significantly more motivated by heritage language considerations than were non-heritage students (M = 2.526).
School-related motivation. When analyses of variance were computed on the School-related and Personal Interest-related motivation for elementary school students, no significant differences emerged for any of the main effects: language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background. Moreover, no significant interaction effects were found in these analyses. Apparently, only the dimension of ethnic heritage background was meaningful for the elementary level students in reasons for learning the target language.
Language learning strategies. Among the identified learning strategy clusters that students use to learn the target language, only one strategy cluster proved to be significant and only when ethnic heritage and non-ethnic heritage students were compared. In this analysis, it was found that ethnic heritage students were more likely to use the strategy of outside classroom language practice, F (2, 170) = 3.797, p = .024. Figure 31 showed that ethnic heritage background students (M = 4.370) reported a significantly higher level of outside classroom language use than did non-heritage students (M = 3.664), p = .018. The outside classroom language use, not surprisingly, was due to the fact that the ethnic heritage students had parents and/or relatives who could assist with the language acquisition process.
Parental involvement. Elementary school students' perception of their parents' involvement in their language study was analyzed by language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background information. There was no significant difference in students' perception on parental involvement between Japanese and Cantonese programs, nor between male and female students. Interestingly, there was not a difference between heritage background and non-heritage students on their perception on parental involvement. However, there was a significant interaction effect by language program type and ethnic background information, F (2, 160) = 3.099, p = .048 (see Figure 32). While ethnic background students in Japanese programs perceived much higher parental involvement in their language study than did non-ethnic students, non-ethnic students in the Cantonese program perceived much higher parental involvement than did the ethnic heritage students.
Parent Questionnaire
Compared to the small number of elementary school students (N = 178), a large number of parents at the elementary schools (N = 652) participated in the questionnaire survey. The reason of the difference in number of participants was that only students who were in the 4th grade or higher participated in the survey while all parents whose child was from Kindergarten to 12th grade participated. Among the total of 652 elementary school parents, 469 were from Japanese, 157 from Cantonese and 26 from Russian programs. There were 202 fathers and 436 mothers. Fourteen parents did not specify their gender. 363 parents were ethnic heritage parents, 23 were mixed-heritage and 251 were non-heritage parents.
The information from parents of elementary school children who completed the attitudes toward foreign language learning and involvement was analyzed by language program type, parents' gender and ethnic heritage background. There was no significant difference for parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning by language program type, but there was a significant language program type difference on parental involvement, F (2, 646) = 26.124, p < .0001. As can be noted in Figure 33, parents of students in the Chinese programs (M = 5.309) showed the highest parental involvement, followed by parents of students in the Japanese programs (M = 5.027), while parents of students studying Russian (M = 4.085) recorded the lowest parental involvement. Paired comparisons between parents' scores in the various programs were all statistically significant at p < .001. However, there was no significant parent gender difference on either attitudes or involvement, indicating that mothers and fathers at the elementary school level had similar beliefs about learning a second language and involvement with their child's learn of a LCTL. Parents' ethnic heritage also influenced the extent of involvement in their children's language study, F (2, 633) = 6.271, p = .002 (see Figure 34). Ethnic heritage parents (M = 5.149) showed a significantly higher involvement in their child's language study than did non-heritage parents (M = 4.910). However, there was no difference on attitudes toward second language learning by parents' ethnic heritage, indicating that elementary school parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning was not influenced by their ethnic heritage.
Continuation of Chapter 5: Student and Parent Questionnaire Survey Results (Part B)
Home | Organization | Map | Events and Discussions | Resources | Standards and Frameworks