Cover Page and Directory
Home | Organization | Map | Events and Discussions | Resources | Standards and Frameworks
- © Copyright 1997 California Foreign Language Project. All rights reserved
High school students who participated in the questionnaire survey were available from all four language programs: Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Korean and Russian. A total of 1,021 high school students responded to the student questionnaire survey among whom 555 students were from seven Japanese language programs, 102 students were from two Mandarin Chinese programs, 195 students from one Korean program and 169 students from four Russian programs. There were 568 male and 446 female students and 7 students did not report their gender. It was also found that 382 students reported that their ethnic background matched the language they were studying. Another 37 students came from mixed ethnic heritage families, with one parent from the language background. Finally, 689 students were non-heritage, meaning that their ethnicity did not match the language they were studying. Thirteen parents failed to report their ethnic background information. Table 15 summarizes the ethnic composition for each language program. High school students' responses were analyzed by language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background.
Instrumental/Integrative motivation. A significant language program type difference was obtained on the Instrumental/Integrative motivation to study the LCTLs, F (3, 1016) = 33.045, p < .0001. As can be noted in Figure 35, students in the Korean program (M = 4.712) had significantly higher Motivation than students in the other three language programs. On the other hand, students in Russian programs (M = 3.789) showed the least Motivation. Students in Japanese (M = 4.462) and Mandarin programs (M = 4.429) were similar in their motivation scores which differed significantly on paired comparison tests from students in the Russian programs, but were significantly lower than students in the Korean program. There were no gender nor ethnic heritage background differences in students' Instrumental/Integrative Motivation to study these languages among high school students. However, the interaction effect between language program type and ethnic heritage background, F (3, 963) = 2.362, p = .07, just missed being statistically significant. (For this analysis, the mixed-heritage group was deleted because of the small number of mixed-heritage participants in the Mandarin, Korean and Russian programs.) Figure 36 showed that the trend towards significance was due to the fact that ethnic heritage background was significant for the Mandarin Chinese program, F (1, 100) = 7.613, p = .007. In the Mandarin programs, ethnic heritage background students (M = 4.732) was significantly higher on Instrumental/Integrative motivation than were the non-ethnic students (M = 4.208), whereas there was no ethnic heritage background difference in any of the other programs. Although Figure 36 shows an apparent large difference between the ethnic heritage Russian students and their non-heritage counterparts, no test of significance was computed because there were 2 ethnic versus 163 non-heritage students.
Heritage-related motivation. Regarding heritage-related motivation to study the LCTLs among high school students, there was a significant difference by language program type, F (3, 1016) = 139.211, p < .0001; students' gender, F (1, 1011) = 8.010, p = .005; and ethnic heritage background information, F (2, 1005) = 565.856, p < .0001. As noted in Figure 37, high school students in the Korean program (M = 3.431) showed the highest heritage-related motivation, followed by students in Mandarin programs (M = 2.455), and then Japanese programs (M = 1.549). Students in Russian programs showed the lowest heritage-related motivation (M = 0.852). Paired comparison tests between any two language programs resulted in significance (p < .0001). Female high school students showed significantly higher heritage-related motivation (M = 2.045) than their male counterparts (M = 1.762) (see Figure 38). On the other hand, ethnic heritage background students (M = 3.622) and mixed heritage students (M = 3.249) always showed a significantly higher motivation than did non-heritage students (M = 1.105). This significant difference by students' ethnic heritage background was obtained in all four language programs and with both male and female students (see Figure 39).
School-related motivation. Turning to School-related motivation, analysis revealed a significant gender difference, F (1, 1010) = 10.462, p = .001. As can be seen in Figure 40, high school male students (M = 2.494) had a significantly higher scores on School-related motivation than female students (M = 2.138). However, this significant gender difference was mainly due to the Japanese language program since there was a significant gender difference in School-related motivation for students in Japanese programs, F (1, 550) = 11.541, p = .001, whereas there was no gender difference for the other three language programs. There was also a significant interaction effect between gender and language program type, F (3, 949) = 2.923, p = .033. As can also be seen in Figure 40, female students in the Mandarin program showed higher scores than did the male students. This pattern was not observed in the other three language programs. Another significant difference on the School-related motivation factor was the relationship to ethnic heritage background students, F (2, 1004) = 5.542, p = .004. Ethnic heritage students (M = 2.565) showed a significantly higher School-related motivation to study the target language than did non-heritage (M = 2.278) or mixed heritage (M = 1.676) students. As can be seen in Figure 41, this finding was due to the Japanese program (dotted line) because there were no significant School-related motivation differences found in the other three language programs. (The mixed heritage group was not included in the Figure because there was a very small number of students in this group.)
Personal interest-related motivation. Unlike the heritage-related motivation, Personal Interest-related motivation to study the LCTLs gave somewhat different results. There was a significant language program type difference, F (3, 1016) = 22.186, p < .0001 (see Figure 42). Students in the Japanese language programs had the highest scores on Personal Interest (M = 3.867) when compared to students in the Korean (M = 3.544) and Russian (M = 3.002) programs. This means that students enrolled in Japanese programs chose to study Japanese because of personal interest considerations, rather than their heritage background. The mean motivation score of students in the Russian program was significantly lower (p < .01) than any other of the three language programs. Overall, a significant gender difference on the Personal Interest-related motivation, F (1, 1005) = 4.127, p =.042, was found with female students (M = 3.616) having significantly higher scores on Personal Interest than male students (M = 3.422). However, there was also a significant interaction effect between language program type and students' gender, F (3, 1005) = 3.170, p = .024 (see Figure 43). There was a different pattern of gender difference on the Personal Interest-related motivation scale. In the Japanese programs, male students had a higher motivation than female students, but in the other language programs, female students always had higher motivation scores than male students. No apparent reason is obvious for the gender differences on Personal Interest between the various language programs.
Language learning strategies. In an examination of students' language learning strategies, there was no significant difference found for the first learning strategy (use of innovative classroom activities) and third strategy (translation) by language program type, students' gender and ethnic heritage background. However, there was a significant difference on the second learning strategy (outside classroom language use) by language program type, F (3, 1014) = 22.332, p < .0001; by students' gender, F (1, 1003) = 8.668, p = .003; and by ethnic heritage background, F (2, 1003) = 31.170, p < .0001. As noted in Figure 44, students in the Korean program (M = 4.555) had the highest level of outside classroom language use, which was significantly higher than students in Japanese (M = 3.936) and Russian (M = 3.483) and higher than Mandarin students (M = 4.184), but this difference was not significant. Students in the Russian programs showed the lowest level of outside classroom language use and paired comparisons showed that the Russian program differed significantly from the other three language programs, at p < .0001. Female students (M = 4.174) recorded a significantly higher level of outside classroom language use than did male students (M = 3.881) and this gender difference was found in all four language programs (see also Figure 44). The significant ethnic heritage background main effect was due to the significant difference between the ethnic heritage group (M = 4.505) and non-heritage group (M = 3.796). This difference is due most likely to the fact that ethnic heritage students have more opportunities to use the target language outside of the classroom than did non-heritage counterparts.
Parental involvement. High school students' perception of their parents' involvement in their language study was significantly different by language program type, F (3, 1011) = 24.188, p < .0001 (see Figure 45). Students in the Korean program saw their parents as more involved (M = 4.042) than did students in the other three programs (M = 3.266 for Japanese programs, M = 3.046 for Chinese programs, and M = 2.717 for Russian programs). Paired comparisons showed that Korean language program students' perception of their parents' involvement in their language study was significantly higher than the other three groups. The difference between Japanese and Russian language students was also significant. There was also a significant difference on students' perception of parental involvement by their ethnic heritage background, F (2, 1000) = 43.165, p < .0001 (see Figure 46). Both ethnic heritage background (M = 3.964) and mixed heritage (M = 3.836) students reported that their parents were more involved in their language study than non-heritage students (M = 2.993) and this difference was statistically significant. Female students (M = 3.403) also reported higher parental involvement in their language study than did male students (M = 3.222), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Parent Questionnaire
Parents whose child was enrolled in one of the FLAAP-funded less-commonly taught language programs participated in the questionnaire survey. A total of 906 high school parents completed the questionnaire. 460 parents were from Japanese language programs, 81 from Mandarin, 211 from Korean and 154 from Russian programs. There were 339 fathers and 529 mothers, but 38 did not report their gender. Among parent respondents, 288 were ethnic heritage parents, 6 were mixed and 586 were non-ethnic parents, but 26 did not specify their ethnic background. Analyses for parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning and parental involvement were carried out for high school language program type, parents' gender and ethnic heritage background.
Parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning. There was a significant difference on parents' attitudes by language program type, F (3, 893) = 5.216, p = .001 (see Figure 47). Parents of students in the Korean language program (M = 5.189) showed the most positive attitudes toward foreign language learning, which was followed by parents of students in Mandarin (M = 5.005), Japanese (M = 4.983) and Russian (M = 4.864) programs. Paired comparisons indicated that parents of students in the Korean program were significantly higher on attitudes than parents in Japanese and Russian programs. Parents' attitudes were also significantly different between male and female parents, F (1, 864) = 8.917, p =.003, with mothers (M = 5.081) showing more positive attitudes than fathers (M = 4.912). There was no interaction effect between language program type and parents' gender. Parents' ethnic heritage background significantly influenced parents' attitudes toward foreign language learning, F (2, 876) = 9.716, p < .0001 (see Figure 48). Ethnic heritage parents (M = 5.187) showed significantly more positive attitudes than non-ethnic parents (M = 4.933).
Parents' involvement in language study. Parental involvement in their child's language study was significantly different by language program type, F (3, 894) = 43.695, p < .0001, with the highest level of parental involvement for parents of students in the Korean program (M = 5.269) and the lowest level of involvement for parents of students in Russian programs (M = 4.025) (see Figure 49). Involvement level of parents in the Japanese (M = 4.638) and Mandarin (M = 4.627) was similar, but significantly higher ( p < .0001) than that of Russian parents and significantly lower than that of Korean parents ( p < .0001). There was no significant gender difference in parental involvement, but parents' ethnic heritage influenced the level of parental involvement, F (2, 876) = 51.040, p < .0001 (see Figure 50). Ethnic heritage-related parents (M = 5.186) reported that they were significantly more involved in their child's language study than did non-heritage parents (M = 4.423). Involvement level of mixed-heritage parents (M = 4.741) fell midway between the other two parent groups, but there were no statistically significant differences.
Students' assessed proficiency in the target language as determined by teacher ratings using the Stanford FLOSEM at the end of the 1995-96 school year was analyzed by means of a stepwise multiple regression analysis procedure with the following factors entered as independent variables: motivation, language learning strategies, parental attitudes toward foreign languages, and parental involvement. The elementary and high school data was analyzed separately and the results of the elementary school data analyses will be reported first followed by the high school results. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was first conducted with only student variables (various kinds of motivation, learning strategies and their perception of parental involvement) and then re-computed by including both student and parent variables (parents' attitudes and involvement). The value of a stepwise multiple regression analysis is that it permits us to examine the importance of numerous variables all operating simultaneously on the dependent measure which in this case is the FLOSEM score achieved by students. An important part of a stepwise regression analysis is the ordering of variables that contribute to the dependent measure and the total percent of variance accounted for by the constellation of variables shown by the regression analysis to be statistically significant.
Elementary school data. Stepwise regression analysis with only the student data entered indicated that 3 variables contributed to the outcome measure. The order of the three variables was as follows: Gardner's instrumental/integrative motivation, innovative language learning strategies, and outside classroom language use. The regression findings are reported in Table 16. It should be noted that use of innovative language learning strategies was negatively related to the FLOSEM ratings, meaning that the greater the reported use of innovative strategies the lower the FLOSEM rating of a student. The stepwise regression output (see Table 16) also shows that the 3 variables together account for 93% of the total variance associated with FLOSEM ratings for all elementary level students.
When the stepwise regression analysis was recomputed by adding the two parent related variables (attitudes toward language study and involvement), the findings were different (see Table 16). This analysis revealed that parental involvement was the single variable that was statistically significant and which by itself predicted 79% of the total variance associated with the teacher rating of oral proficiency on the FLOSEM. When a similar stepwise regression was computed for only the elementary level students learning Japanese, of the 10 variables entered into the analysis only parental involvement emerged as a significant predictor of oral proficiency. In addition to being highly significant, the single variable model for the Japanese elementary program accounts for 78% of the total variance. The interpretation that follows from this analysis is that for elementary students parental involvement is the most important variable in understanding how well these young learners will do in their learning of a LCTL as judged by teachers using the FLOSEM.
High school data. For the high school students, the stepwise multiple regression analysis resulted in a more complicated pattern of findings. Table 17 presents the results when only the student variables were entered into the analysis. Of the 8 student variables entered, 6 emerged in the stepwise regression. The six variables found to be significant were: instrumental/integrative motivation, ethnic heritage motivation, school related motivation, innovative language learning strategies, outside classroom language use, and translation. These 6 variables constitute a good model since they accounted for 86% of the variance surrounding oral proficiency as judged by teachers on the FLOSEM. Two of the variables -- school related motivation and innovative language learning -- entered the model negatively. This means that students who enroll in a LCTL because of reasons associated with a teacher's reputation, believing the language program to be good, or having friends in the class perform less well on oral proficiency at least as judged by teachers. Similarly, students who report use of innovative strategies for learning a language again do less well when rated for teachers on oral proficiency.
When the two parent variables are added to the stepwise regression (see Table 18), the results change somewhat. The motivation variable related to instrumental/integrative reasons for learning a language does not emerge as a part of the final regression model. Further, both of the parent variables -- attitudes and involvement -- enter significantly into the regression model. The fact that 88% of the variance is accounted for by the 7 variable model attests to the adequacy of the regression outcome for high school students. As shown in Table 18, school related-motivation and innovative language learning strategies continue to be negatively correlated with oral proficiency in the regression model.
Separate regression analyses were next computed for each high school language program separately. These analyses were first done without the two parent variables and then again with the parent variables added to the regressions. In the case of all four language programs, the analyses which combined student and parent variables resulted in the best models. Thus, only the regressions which included both student and parent variables will be summarized.
Table 19 presents the regression output for each of the high school language programs. For students studying Japanese, the best regression solution consisted of four variables: school related-motivation, personal interest motivation, translation, and parents' attitudes toward language study. Together these four variables account for 91% of the variance surrounding FLOSEM proficiency ratings. Table 19 also shows the results of the regression analysis for students studying Mandarin. Here only two variables (Gardner's instrumental/integrative motivation and parental involvement) comprised the regression model. Together these two variables predicted 94% of the variance. It is important to note that there was no overlap of variables in the Japanese and Mandarin language programs. This means that student learning in these two language programs is due to entirely different patterns of influence.
When the Korean language program was next examined, a third model emerged. For Korean language students, three variables (school related-motivation, outside class language use, and parental involvement) constituted the best regression model. Again these findings are shown in Table 19. These three variables accounted for 86% of the variance. The final regression analysis was performed on the Russian program students. Here two variables (translation and parent attitudes) fit the model. The total predicted variance associated with the two variables for Russian language students was 89%.
In sum, these stepwise regression analyses provide us with another perspective on the factors that contribute to learning of a LCTL. The findings show, for instance, the relative importance of parental attitudes and involvement in students' learning of a language. The findings also demonstrate that school related motivation operates in a way that is counter-intuitive to what we might expect for a high school language program. That is, a student who believes that the teacher and the language program is good, and who has friends in the class, does less well as judged by teacher ratings for oral proficiency. Also interesting is the fact that reasons for studying a language that are based on instrumental/integrative motivation lose their relative importance when the parental variables are added to the stepwise regressions. Finally, the fact that so much of the variance associated with the dependent variable is accounted for by a small number of student and parent independent variables gives us confidence in the data collected as part of this evaluation study.
Proficiency and Students' Background Information
Students' 1995-96 FLOSEM ratings were also examined by language program type, students' gender and ethnic background. There was a significant difference for high school language program type, F (3, 511) = 24.833, p < .0001 (see Figure 51). Students in the Korean program possessed significantly higher oral proficiency (M = 15.725) than did students in the other three language programs. On the other hand, students in the Russian programs (M = 8.595) showed significantly lower oral proficiency than did students in the other three programs.
There was also a significant gender difference on the FLOSEM scores among high school students, F (1, 512) = 7.786, p =.005 (see Figure 52). Female students (M = 13.321) had significantly higher FLOSEM proficiency ratings than did their male counterparts (M = 12.050). Importantly, a significant gender difference was found in every language program.
Not surprisingly, ethnic heritage was also found to be a significant factor for students' oral proficiency for high school students, F (2, 506) = 26.504, p < .0001 (see Figure 53). Ethnic heritage students (M = 15.055) attained a significantly higher oral proficiency than did non-ethnic students (M = 11.578). This significant ethnic background difference on students' proficiency was also found across all four language programs.
When FLOSEM ratings were examined for elementary level students, no overall gender difference was found. Similarly, when possible gender differences were checked for students in the Japanese and Cantonese programs separately none were found. However, there was a significant ethnic heritage difference, F (2, 34) = 3.742, p = .034 (see Figure 54). Like their high school counterparts, FLOSEM proficiency ratings were significantly higher for ethnic heritage students (M = 21.417) than they were for non-ethnic students (M = 15.583).
Ethnic heritage background was also found to be important consideration in LCTL teaching and learning. Students who were of the same ethnic background as the language studied reported more affinity for the language because of their heritage. This was true for all language programs and levels of instruction. Interestingly, this was also true for mixed ethnic heritage students (e.g., student studying Japanese with only one parent of Japanese heritage). A gender difference was noted in our findings on the importance of ethnic heritage-related motivation. Females scored significantly higher on the importance of ethnic heritage motivation in learning a LCTL than did males. Ethnic heritage parents also differed from non-heritage background parents on attitudes toward language learning and involvement in the language study of their children. Regardless of language program type or instructional level, ethnic heritage parents were more positive toward second language study and were reported more involvement in their child's language study than did non-ethnic heritage parents. The later finding was also supported indirectly by the fact that "outside classroom use of the language" was the strategy which occurred with greatest frequency on the part of ethnic background students.
Collectively the findings reported in this chapter confirm our belief that it is important to recognize the importance of motivational and parental background factors in second language teaching and learning. The position taken in this evaluation project was to think about motivation from several perspectives beginning with Gardner's (1985) work on instrumental and integrative motivation and extending this to include heritage, school, and personal-related motives. We believe that by combining our expanded view of motivation with heritage background considerations, we have augmented our understanding of how students and parents perceive the task of learning a LCTL.
Home | Organization | Map | Events and Discussions | Resources | Standards and Frameworks