differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude, and foreign-language grades among...

http://ltj.sagepub.com/Language Testing

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/181The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/026553229801500203

1998 15: 181Language TestingPlageman and Jon Patton

Richard L. Sparks, Marjorie Artzer, Leonore Ganschow, David Siebenhar, Markforeign-language learners: two studies

foreign-language grades among high-, average-, and low-proficiency Differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude, and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language TestingAdditional services and information for

http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/181.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 1998Version of Record >>

at UNIV HOUSTON on December 8, 2014ltj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV HOUSTON on December 8, 2014ltj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ltj.sagepub.com/

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/181

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ltj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/181.refs.html

http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/181.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Differences in native-language skills,foreign-language aptitude, and foreign-language grades among high-,average-, and low-proficiency foreign-language learners: two studiesRichard L. Sparks1 Department of Education, College ofMount St JosephMarjorie Artzer Northern Kentucky UniversityLeonore Ganschow, David Siebenhar, Mark Plageman, JonPatton Miami University

Two studies examined the extent to which there would be differences in nativelanguage skills, foreign-language aptitude, and final foreign-language gradesamong high-school students completing a second year of a foreign-language courseand identified as high-, average-, and low-proficiency learners. Oral and writtenproficiency measures in Spanish, French, and German were designed and adminis-tered by trained evaluators. The first study involved 60 females who attendeda private, single-sex suburban high school; the second involved a coeducationalpopulation of 36 students in a suburban public2 school. Results showed overalldifferences among the three proficiency groups on native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures. Most group differences were between high- and low-proficiency learners, although high vs average and average vs low groups differedon some measures. There were also group differences in final grades at end ofboth first-year and second-year foreign-language courses. Discriminant analysesshowed that two testing measures in the first study and one testing measure in thesecond study were significant in distinguishing the three groups. Conclusions andimplications about connections among foreign-language proficiency and native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude, and end-of-year grades are presented.

Foreign-language educators speculate that one’s level of native-language skill affects one’s ability to learn a foreign language. Forexample, Skehan (1991) cites research results which support Carroll’s(1973) speculation that ‘aptitude for foreign language is, to someextent, a residue of first language learning ability’ (p. 278). Throughfactor-analytic studies, Carroll (1962) finds that language skills –

1Address for correspondence: Richard Sparks, Department of Education, College of Mount StJoseph, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati, OH 45233, USA; e-mail: richard sparksKmail.msj.edu

2In the United States a public school is a nonprivate school, i.e., the equivalent of a Britishstate school.

Language Testing 1998 15 (2) 181–216 0265-5322(98)LT148OA 1998 Arnold

at UNIV HOUSTON on December 8, 2014ltj.sagepub.comDownloaded from


182 Differences in foreign-language learners

phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language-learningability – are the basis for aptitude to learn a foreign language. Theselanguage, or metalinguistic, skills (and rote memory) form the basisfor the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon,1959). Paul Pimsleur (1966a; 1968) also studied students’ ability tolearn a foreign language and developed a test of foreign-languageaptitude, the Language Aptitude Battery (Pimsleur, 1966b), whichincluded subtests of native-language skill (i.e., English vocabulary)and metalinguistic skill. In his model of language learning, Spolsky(1989) includes intact language skills (e.g., phonology/orthographyand grammar) as ‘necessary’ conditions for learning a foreign language.

Recently, Sparks and Ganschow introduced into the literature theLinguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) (Sparks andGanschow, 1991; 1993a; Sparks, Ganschow, and Pohlman, 1989). Inthe LCDH, they hypothesize that native-language skills (i.e.,phonology/orthography, grammar and semantics) serve as the foun-dation for successful foreign-language learning. They speculatefurther that both native- and foreign-language learning depend onbasic language-learning mechanisms and that problems with one lang-uage skill, e.g., phonological/orthographic processing, will likelyhave a negative impact on both language systems. Sparks and Gan-schow also speculate that students who have difficulties in their nativelanguage may lack the ability to reflect on thephonological/orthographic and grammatical structures in a foreignlanguage (i.e., metalinguistic skills). Thus, Sparks and Ganschow’sLCDH is conceptually similar to Carroll’s model of foreign-language aptitude.

Research by Sparks, Ganschow, and colleagues indicates that one’sability to learn a foreign language relates to one’s skills in his/hernative language and depends upon one’s aptitude for language learn-ing, generally (Sparks and Ganschow, 1991; 1993a; 1995a). Forexample, they find significant differences between good and poorforeign-language learners on several native-language measures andthe MLAT in both high-school and college populations (Ganschowand Sparks, 1995; 1996; Ganschowet al., 1991; 1994; Sparks andGanschow, 1993c; 1995b; 1996; Sparkset al., 1992; 1992a; 1992b;1996; Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, and Patton, 1997). These results aresupported by Humes-Bartlo (1989) who also finds that poor foreign-language learners show mild deficits in their native-language skillswhen compared to good foreign-language learners. Skehan reportsthat children who ‘make more rapid progress in their first languagetend to do better in foreign language learning at school’ (1986). Ina study with two populations (disadvantaged and regular classes) ofHebrew-speaking 11 and 12 year olds in Israel, Olshtainet al. (1990)



Richard L. Sparks et al. 183

find that academic proficiency in the students’ first language (L1)plays the most important role in predicting success in foreign-language learning in the classroom.

Some FL educators have hypothesized that affective variables area causal factor in the learning of a foreign language (e.g., see Gardner,1985; Oxford, 1990). For example, MacIntyre (1995) hypothesizesthat language anxiety plays a significant causal role in creating indi-vidual differences in foreign-language learning skill. In contrast,Sparks and Ganschow speculate that affective variables, e.g., stu-dents’ level of anxiety about foreign-language learning, likely do notplay a causal role in most students’ learning of a foreign language.Instead, affective states such as a low level of motivation and a highlevel of anxiety about foreign-language learning are thought to be duelargely to differences in one’s level of native-language skill (Sparks,1995; Sparks and Ganschow, 1991; 1993a; 1993b; 1995a; Sparks,Ganschow, and Pohlman, 1989). In order to provide support for theirhypothesis, Sparks and Ganschow have grouped students by level offoreign-language anxiety and have found native-language skill andforeign-language aptitude differences across high-, average-, and low-anxiety groups (Ganschow and Sparks, 1996; Ganschowet al., 1994).They have also grouped students by levels of foreign-language anxi-ety and have found significant differences in oral and written foreign-language proficiency among high-, average-, and low-anxiety groups(Sparks, Ganschow, Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plageman, 1997).

Sparks et al. also have studied affective states by examiningforeign-language teachers’ perceptions of the language skills of theirforeign-language learners (Sparks and Ganschow, 1995b) and alsoparents’ perceptions of their children’s native-language and foreign-language learning skills (Sparks and Ganschow, 1996). These studiesindicate that students who are perceived by both parents and foreign-language teachers as having lower levels of native-language andforeign-language skill exhibit lower levels of native-language skilland foreign-language aptitude and do relatively more poorly (i.e.,achieve lower grades) in foreign-language courses than students whoare perceived as having higher levels of native-language and foreign-language skill. Studies of the self-perceptions of good and poorforeign-language learners about their native-language and foreign-language learning skills indicate that poor foreign-language learners areequally as motivated to learn a foreign-language as good foreign-language learners but perceive themselves as having weaker skills inboth the oral and written aspects of language learning (Javorsky,Sparks and Ganschow 1992; Sparks, Ganschow and Javorsky, 1993).

The results of the aforementioned studies support the hypothesisthat differences in foreign-language learners’ affective states are




likely to be the result of differences in language skills. In a responseto MacIntyre (1995), who challenges this speculation, Sparks andGanschow (1995a) find methodological and conceptual difficultieswith theories that attribute differences in foreign-language learning toaffective variables. Their position has been supported by otherforeign-language educators (e.g., see Au, 1988; Long, 1990; Oller,1981).

I Purpose of studiesTo date, there are no studies comparing students’ native-languageskill and foreign-language aptitude with their proficiency in a foreignlanguage after two years of classroom study. In order to examineforeign-language proficiency, the present authors developed quantifi-able proficiency measures that could be used to compare foreign-language proficiency with students’ scores on native-language andforeign-language aptitude measures.

The purpose of the two present studies was to determine whetheror not there would be differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude, and final foreign-language course grades amonghigh-school students identified as having a high level of proficiency(HIGH PROF), an average level of proficiency (AVE PROF), and alow level of proficiency (LOW PROF) in their oral and written skillsin a foreign language (Spanish, French, and German). The first studyinvolved females attending a private college preparatory school. Thesecond study was conducted to determine if similar results would befound with a coeducational population in a public-school setting. Theauthors tested the hypothesis that there would be overall differenceson measures of native-language skill and foreign-language aptitude(dependent variables) among foreign-language learners identified asHIGH PROF, AVE PROF, and LOW PROF (independent variable).LOW PROF students were expected to score significantly lower thanAVE and HIGH PROF students on all of the measures, whichincluded phonological/orthographic (word recognition, pseudowordreading, spelling, phonemic awareness) and semantic (vocabulary,reading comprehension) measures of native-language skill, groupnative-language achievement tests (reading, maths, language), 8th-grade English grade, and the MLAT (foreign-language aptitude).Likewise, HIGH PROF students were expected to achieve signifi-cantly higher end-of-year grades than AVE PROF and LOW PROFstudents, and AVE PROF students were expected to achieve signifi-cantly higher grades than LOW PROF students in both first-year andsecond-year foreign-language courses.

Method and results sections are provided separately for each study.Discussion and implications sections are based on the combined datasets.




II Study 1

1 Method

a Participants: 60 females attending a highly selective, single-sex,college preparatory high school and enrolled in second-year Spanish,French, and German courses served as participants. All students hadparticipated in studies conducted by Sparks and Ganschow duringtheir first year of foreign-language study (Ganschow and Sparks,1995; 1996; Sparks and Ganschow 1996; Sparks, Ganschow, andPatton 1995; Sparks. Ganschow, Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plageman,1997). At that time, 154 students had been administered severalmeasures of native-language skill and the MLAT. Thirty Spanish stu-dents, 20 French students, and 10 German students accepted theauthors’ invitation to participate through their second year of foreign-language study. Of this number, 58 were 10th-grade students and 2,eleventh-grade students. The mean age of the students was 16 years,1 month (age range= 15 years, 5 months to 17 years, 2 months).Each participant received parental permission to participate.

b Instruments: There were three types of testing instruments usedin this study: 1) native-language measures, including eighth-gradeEnglish grade and a group achievement test; 2) a foreign-languageaptitude test; and 3) foreign-language proficiency tests in the areasof reading comprehension, writing, and listening/speaking. Each ofthe three categories of instruments is described next. A brief descrip-tion of the native-language and foreign-language aptitude instrumentsand the skills they measure can be found in Figure 1. (Figure 1 showsthe instruments used in both studies.) The foreign-language pro-ficiency measures are described below.

The native-language battery included seven measures in the follow-ing areas (tests are noted by abbreviations which are used throughoutthe article and in the Tables):phonology/orthography(sounds of thelanguage and how the sounds are represented by letters) – WideRange Achievement Test-Revised: Spelling subtest (WRAT SPELL);Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Basic Skills Cluster(WRMT BSC) (Word Identification (WID) and Word Attack(WATT) subtests); and Phoneme Deletion (PHON DEL), an informalphonemic-awareness measure;semantics(word meanings, compre-hension of connected text) – Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) and the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NELSON);group achievement(cognitive and basic academic skills) – the HighSchool Placement Test Total Test Score (HSPT TOT); andlanguagegrade– 8th-grade English grade (ENG 8).




Figure 1 Alphabetical list and descriptions of testing instruments used in Studies 1and 2




Figure 1 continued




The foreign-language aptitude measure chosen for use in this studywas the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon1959). The MLAT Long Form (MLAT LF) is composed of five sub-tests: Part I (number learning); Part II (phonetic script); Part III(spelling clues); Part IV (words in sentences); and Part V (pairedassociates).

The foreign-language proficiency tests were designed by Artzer,Siebenhar, and Plageman. Each of the three authors had completedformal proficiency-testing training sponsored by the American Coun-cil on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). The authorsworked together when developing the tests to assure the uniformityof the proficiency tests across languages.

The foreign-language reading comprehension test (FL READINGCOMP) involved 10 multiple-choice questions in English about aone-page letter written in the foreign language which the student read.The three foreign-language reading comprehension tests (French,Spanish, German) each used the same letter and comprehension ques-tions. The only differences in the three tests were those specific to aparticular foreign language. The test directions were the same for eachof the three languages. The reading test was designed using criteriadescriptive of the Intermediate-High level of theACTFL proficiencyguidelines(ACTFL, 1986; 1989). Each participant had 15 minutes toread the letter and answer the questions (maximum score= 10). Theletters for each of the three languages (Spanish, French, German) andthe comprehension questions are provided in Appendices A, B, C,and D

The foreign-language writing test (FL WRITING) involved a writ-ing sample elicited by asking each student to write a response (inletter form) to the letter which she had read for the reading-comprehension task. The letter contained five questions to which thestudent responded within 15 minutes. The questions were the samein all three languages. Each student’s writing sample was scored forfive criteria that had been selected by Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plage-man, who designed the writing test for this study: vocabulary, culturalappropriateness, structures, comprehensibility, and spelling. Eachstudent was assigned a score from 0 to 5 on each of the five criteria.The ACTFL proficiency guidelinesfor determining proficiency levelswere used in assigning the scores (0–5) on each of the five aforemen-tioned criteria in the following manner: 0= no production, 1= Nov-ice-Low, 2 = Novice-Mid, 3 = Novice-High, 4= Intermediate-Low,5 = Intermediate-High and above (maximum score= 25). Students’level of proficiency was converted to a numerical score so that theirlevels of proficiency could be compared quantitatively. A score of 0was included in the scoring because some students at this level of




proficiency may have been unable to produce any response in thetarget language. Appendix E shows the directions for the writing testand a sample of one student’s response (in Spanish).

The foreign-language listening and speaking test (FLLISTEN/SPEAK) involved a 10–15-min oral-proficiency interviewwith each student. Interviewers used randomly selected topics aboutwhich the students conversed (e.g., food, family, school, daily activi-ties, etc.). The topic was first suggested by the interviewer and theconversation began with an open-ended question. The student beganto speak on the topic. Then, the interviewer asked questions on thetopic or related topics to determine the sustained proficiency of eachstudent. The oral interview was scored for five criteria that had beenselected by Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plageman: pronunciation, vocabu-lary, grammar, comprehensibility, and listening comprehension. Theremainder of the scoring procedure and maximum score (25) werethe same as in the FL WRITING test. Students’ level of proficiencywas converted to a numerical score so that students’ levels of pro-ficiency could be compared quantitatively.

A student’s scores on the FL READING COMP, FL WRITING,and FL LISTEN/SPEAK tests were added together to obtain a totalproficiency test score (FL TOTAL TEST, maximum score= 60). TheFL TOTAL TEST score formed the basis for dividing subjects intothe three proficiency groups. (See the analysis section below.)

The reliability of the three proficiency subtests (FL READINGCOMP, FL WRITING, FL LISTEN/SPEAK) and the total pro-ficiency test (FL TOTAL TEST) were checked by a Cronbach’sAlpha calculation. For FL READING COMP, the Cronbach’s Alphawas .71; for FL WRITING, .75; for FL LISTEN/SPEAK, .97; andfor FL TOTAL TEST, .86.

c Procedure: Students were tested both individually and in groups.The authors explained the purpose of the study to the students beforeadministering the group and individual tests. They administered thenative-language measures and foreign-language aptitude test duringthe first quarter of the previous school year when each participantenrolled in her first-year foreign-language course. Total test time wasapproximately two hours for the native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures. The HSPT TOT score and ENG 8 gradeswere obtained from school records, with parental permission. Foreign-language teachers provided first- and second-year foreign-languagegrades at the end of each school year.

The foreign-language proficiency measures were administered dur-ing the last three weeks of the school year at the conclusion of thestudents’ second year of foreign-language study. The FL READING




COMP and FL WRITING proficiency tests, which took approxi-mately 30 minutes, were given in one session to all students. Thethree groups (Spanish, French, German) took the tests in separaterooms. The FL LISTEN/SPEAK (oral interview), which tookapproximately 10–15 minutes to complete, was individually adminis-tered. Sparks and Ganschow, who are not proficient in any of thethree foreign languages in this study, administered the reading andwriting tests. After completion of the reading and writing tests, eachstudent received a number. That number was written on each readingand writing test so that the written portion of the proficiency testscould be scored anonymously by Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plageman.The last three authors had no previous information about the parti-cipants, their native-language or foreign-language aptitude test scores,or their performance in the foreign-language classroom.

Artzer, Siebenhar, and Plageman, each of whom was a foreign-language professor at a local university, administered and scored theoral interviews in their respective languages, which they taped forlater scoring.

d Analysis of data: In order to compare overall foreign-languageproficiency (FL TOTAL TEST) and performance on measures ofnative-language skill, foreign-language aptitude, and final foreign-language grade, the 60 subjects were divided into three groupsaccording to their performance on the FL TOTAL TEST. The group-ing procedure involved determining the extent to which a given stud-ent’s score deviated from the total group’s mean score on the FLTOTAL TEST. The high proficiency (HIGH PROF) group includedstudents whose mean score was+1.00 or more standard deviationsabove the mean; the average proficiency (AVE PROF) groupincluded students whose mean score was .99 above the mean to .99below the mean; and the low proficiency (LOW PROF) groupincluded students whose mean score was−1.00 or more standarddeviations below the mean. There were 13 students identified in theHIGH PROF group, 35 students in the AVE PROF group, and 12students in the LOW PROF group. An Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) procedure showed significant differences among theHIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF groups on the FL TOTAL TEST, F(2,57)= 121.67;p = .0001.Post-hocanalysis showed significant dif-ferences between the HIGH and AVE, HIGH and LOW, and AVEand LOW groups. Consideration was given to alternative groupingdesigns such as dividing the groups into high, average, and low per-formers according to their scores on the measures of native languageand the MLAT, and then comparing the groups’ performance on theforeign-language proficiency measures. However, we decided not to




use these designs because the students in Study 1 (and Study 2) wererelatively homogeneous in terms of their native-language skills andforeign-language aptitude, i.e., the majority of the students scoredwithin one standard deviation of the mean on these measures.

A Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) procedure was usedto determine whether there would be overall differences in group per-formance among the eight native-language and foreign-language apti-tude measures. In the event the MANOVA was significant, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare HIGH,AVE, and LOW PROF groups on the eight measures. The criterionfor significance was a level ofp # .05. To reduce the possibility ofType I error, a Scheffe procedure was used in comparing individualgroup differences on each measure. Means and standard deviationson the native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures werecompiled for the total group and for each of the three proficiencygroups. Table 1 reports total group scores on the native-language andforeign-language aptitude measures and end-of-year grades. Table 2reports the total group’s scores on the foreign-language proficiencymeasures. Table 3 reports the scores of each of the three proficiencygroups on the native-language and foreign-language aptitude

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of total group on native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures and final foreign-language grades – Study 11

Testing measures (N = 60)

X SD

Phonology/OrthographyWRAT SPELL 112.8 9.0PHON DEL2 17.0 2.8WRMT BSC 105.4 9.9

SemanticsPPVT-R 111.9 10.4NELSON 119.2 10.2

FL aptitudeMLAT LF 106.7 12.0

ENG 83 3.6 0.5HSPT TOT 118.4 8.1Final FL grade – Year 13 3.03 0.7Final FL grade – Year 23, 4 3.11 0.7

Notes:1 Standard scores based on X of 100, SD of 152 Raw scores3 Letter grades were converted to a 4-point scale, i.e., a grade of A = 4.00, A− = 3.67,B+ = 3.33, etc. A grade of A+ was recorded as 4.33.4 Final Year 2 grades could not be obtained for four subjects.




Table 2 Means and standard deviations of total group on foreign-language proficiencytests – Study 1

FL proficiency tests X SD

FL READING COMP1 8.6 1.4FL WRITING2 17.8 3.1FL LISTEN/SPEAK3 15.7 4.4FL TOTAL TEST4 42.0 7.0

Notes:1 Maximum score = 102 Maximum score = 253 Maximum score = 254 Maximum score = 60

measures and end-of-year grades, and Table 4, the scores on theforeign-language proficiency tests.

In order to examine the relationship between overall foreign-language proficiency (FL TOTAL TEST) and first-year and second-year foreign-language course grades, an ANOVA procedure was usedto compare the HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF groups. A level of .05was used as the criterion for significance. To reduce the possibilityof Type I error, a Scheffe procedure was used to examine group dif-ferences on each measure. Means and standard deviations for first-year and second-year foreign-language grades were compiled for thetotal group and each of the three groups. The total group’s grades arereported in Table 1. Table 3 reports the grades of the three pro-ficiency groups.

A Stepwise Discriminant Analysis procedure was used to determinewhich testing measures best discriminated the three groups. Based ontest performance, the number of students predicted to be members ofa given group (HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF) and the predicted errorrate were determined.

Correlation coefficients among the seven testing instruments, 8th-grade English grade, foreign-language grades, and the foreign-language proficiency measure (FL TOTAL TEST) were also calcu-lated.

2 Results

Results of the MANOVA procedure showed overall differencesamong HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF foreign-language learners onthe eight native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures inthe assessment battery (Wilks’ Lambda= .573; F (16,100)= 2.01; p= .02). This result supports the authors’ hypothesis that there wouldbe overall differences on measures of native-language skill and




Tab

le3

Mea

nsan

dst

anda

rdde

viat

ions

ofth

eH

IGH

,A

VE

,an

dLO

WP

RO

Fgr

oups

onna

tive-

lang

uage

and

fore

ign-

lang

uage

aptit

ude

mea

sure

san

dfin

alfo

reig

n-la

ngua

gegr

ades

–S

tudy

11

Tes

ting

mea

sure

sH

IGH

PR

OF

AV

EP

RO

FLO

WP

RO

F(N

=13

)(N

=35

)(N

=12

)

XS

DX

SD

XS

D

Pho

nolo

gy/O

rtho

grap

hyW

RA

TS

PE

LL11

8.6

7.3

111.

99.

110

8.8

8.0

PH

ON

DE

L217

.72.

817

.22.

216

.03.

9W

RM

TB

SC

110.

59.

110

5.1

9.2

101.

511

.1

Sem

antic

sP

PV

T-R

117.

77.

111

1.9

10.2

107.

510

.1N

ELS

ON

127.

09.

811

8.4

9.8

113.

57.

6

FL

aptit

ude

MLA

TLF

113.

012

.110

7.3

11.1

98.9

11.1

EN

G83

3.8

0.3

3.7

0.4

3.2

0.7

HS

PT

TO

T12

3.8

7.1

119.

17.

311

1.5

6.0

Fin

alF

Lgr

ade

–Y

ear

133.

60.

33.

10.

62.

30.

7F

inal

FL

grad

e–

Yea

r23

,4

3.6

0.4

3.1

0.7

2.6

0.7

Not

es:

1S

tude

nts

wer

egr

oupe

das

HIG

H,

AV

E,

and

LOW

PR

OF

byF

LT

OT

AL

TE

ST

scor

e.S

tand

ard

scor

esba

sed

onX

of10

0,S

Dof

15.

2R

awsc

ores

3Le

tter

grad

esw

ere

conv

erte

dto

a4-

poin

tsc

ale,

e.g.

,a

grad

eof

A=

4.00

,A

−=

3.67

,B

+=

3.33

,et

c.A

grad

eof

A+

was

reco

rded

as4.

33.

4F

inal

Yea

r2

grad

esco

uld

not

beob

tain

edfo

rfo

ursu

bjec

ts.




Table 4 Means and standard deviations of the HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF groups onthe foreign-language proficiency tests – Study 1

FL proficiency tests HIGH PROF AVE PROF LOW PROF(N = 13) (N = 35) (N = 12)

X SD X SD X SD

FL READING COMP1 9.6 0.8 8.7 1.3 7.2 1.4FL WRITING2 21.4 3.7 17.2 1.8 15.4 2.1FL LISTEN/SPEAK3 20.9 2.1 15.6 2.9 10.2 2.8FL TOTAL TEST4 51.8 3.3 41.5 3.4 32.8 2.6


foreign-language aptitude among HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROFforeign-language learners.

Individual ANOVAs were used to determine differences among thegroups on each of the eight measures. The testing measures on whichthere were significant differences between groups (HIGH vs LOWPROF, HIGH vs AVE PROF, and AVE vs LOW PROF) arepresented in Table 5. Intercorrelations among the seven testing instru-ments, 8th-grade English grade, foreign-language grades, and the

Table 5 Significant differences on native-language, foreign-language aptitude and foreign-language proficiency measures and in foreign-language grades among HIGH, AVE, andLOW PROF groups – Study 1

Testing measures HIGH PROF vs HIGH PROF vs AVE PROF vsLOW PROF AVE PROF LOW PROF

Phonology/OrthographyWRAT SPELL *PHON DELWRMT BSC *

SemanticsPPVT-R *NELSON * *

FL aptitudeMLAT LF *

ENG 8 * *HSPT TOT * *Final FL grade – Year 1 * * *Final FL grade – Year 2 * *

Note: * p # .05




foreign-language proficiency measure (FL TOTAL TEST) arereported in Table 6.

Results of the Stepwise Discriminant Analysis procedure showedthat two testing measures, theHSPTTOT andNELSON, were sig-nificant in discriminating the three proficiency groups (Wilks’Lambda= .690; F (4,112)= 5.71; p = .0003). Table 7 shows thepercentage of students correctly classified in each proficiency group.As the Table indicates, the analysis correctly classified 61.5% of theHIGH PROF, 37.1% of the AVE PROF, and 75.0% of the LOWPROF students. Total error rate was .42. These results were expectedand show that this classification scheme was much better than classi-fication by chance alone, especially in the HIGH and LOW PROFgroups.

III Study 2

1 Method

The purpose of Study 2 was similar to that of Study 1. This replicationstudy was conducted to determine if results similar to Study 1 wouldbe found with a coeducational population in a public-school setting.

a Participants: 36 students attending a large, middle-class, sub-urban public high school and enrolled in second-year Spanish, French,and German courses served as participants. All of the students were10th graders. All of the students had participated in studies conductedby Sparks and Ganschow during their first year of foreign-languagestudy (Sparks and Ganschow, 1995b; Sparks, Ganschow, and Patton1995; Sparks, Ganschow, Patton, Artzer, Siebenhar and Plageman,1997). At that time, 100 students had been administered severalmeasures of native-language skill and the MLAT. Twenty-two Span-ish students, 7 French students, and 7 German students accepted theauthors’ invitation to participate through their second year of foreign-language study. There were 17 male and 19 female participants. Themean age of the students was 16 years, 1 month (age range= 15years, 7 months to 17 years, 4 months). Each student received par-ental permission to participate.

b Instruments: The assessment battery included eight testingmeasures in the same areas as in Study 1. Five of the eight measuresin Study 2 were the same as in Study 1. However, there were threedifferences in the measures used for Study 2. First, the public highschool in this study used the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Total TestScore (ITBS TOT) instead of the High School Placement Test TotalTest Score (HSPT TOT) to measure overall academic achievement.




Tab

le6

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

amon

gte

stva

riabl

esan

dF

LT

OT

AL

TE

ST

–S

tudy

1

Tes

ting

WR

AT

PH

ON

WR

MT

PP

VT

-RN

ELS

ON

MLA

TLF

EN

G8

HS

PT

Fin

alF

LF

inal

FL

FL

TO

TA

Lm

easu

res

SP

ELL

DE

LB

SC

TO

Tgr

ade

–gr

ade

–T

ES

TY

ear

1Y

ear

2

WR

AT

SP

ELL

0.51

**0.

52**

0.08

0.36

**0.

44**

0.21

0.44

**0.

50**

0.43

**0.

30*

PH

ON

DE

L0.

52**

0.22

0.08

0.44

**0.

25*

0.33

**0.

38**

0.32

**0.

17W

RM

TB

SC

0.29

*0.

39**

0.40

**0.

240.

55**

0.41

**0.

28*

0.22

PP

VT

-R0.

27*

0.37

**0.

130.

40**

0.27

*0.

200.

38**

NE

LSO

N0.

50**

0.25

*0.

54**

0.48

**0.

48**

0.41

**M

LAT

LF0.

40**

0.65

**0.

62**

0.51

**0.

49**

EN

G8

0.52

**0.

48**

0.36

**0.

35**

HS

PT

TO

T0.

63**

0.56

**0.

47**

Fin

alF

Lgr

ade

–0.

87**

0.63

**Y

ear

1F

inal

FL

grad

e–

0.53

**Y

ear

2F

LT

OT

AL

TE

ST

Not

es:

*S

igni

fican

tat

#0.

05le

vel

**S

igni

fican

tat

#0.

01le

vel




Table 7 Percentage of students classified into proficiency groups – Study 11

Proficiency groups HIGH AVE LOW

HIGH (N = 13) 61.5 30.8 7.7AVE (N = 35) 31.4 37.1 31.4LOW (N = 12) 8.3 16.7 75.0

Note:1 Bold-face numbers indicate students correctly classified.

Second, the school used the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Reading Com-prehension subtest (ITBS RCOMP) instead of the Nelson-Denny(NELSON) to measure reading comprehension skills. Third, theauthors devised a Pig Latin (PIG LAT) test to replace the PhonemeDeletion (PHON DEL) test to determine if another type of phonemicawareness measure might be more highly correlated with foreign-language proficiency. Descriptions of these three new instruments areincluded in Figure 1. (Abbreviations for the eight measures are usedin Tables 8–14.)

Siebenhar, Plageman and Patton designed the foreign-language pro-ficiency tests for Study 2 using the same procedures as in Study 1.The public high school used the same textbooks and had similar cur-ricula in all first- and second-year foreign-language courses as theprivate high school in Study 1. Thus, the same proficiency measuresin Study 1 were used in Study 2.

The reliability of the three proficiency subtests and the total pro-ficiency test was checked by a Cronbach’s Alpha calculation. Forthe FL READING COMP, the Cronbach’s Alpha was .71; for FLWRITING, .87; for FL LISTEN/SPEAK, .96; and for FL TOTALTEST, .90.

c Procedure: Study 2 used the same procedures as those in Study1 with one exception. All participants received the Wide RangeAchievement Test-Revised (WRAT SPELL) individually instead ofin classroom groups because testing in classroom groups could notbe done at the school in this study. The results of the achievementtest (ITBS TOT) and reading comprehension test (ITBS RCOMP)were obtained from school records. Foreign-language teachers pro-vided foreign-language grades at the end of each school year.

d Analysis of data: Study 2 included the same statistical proceduresas in Study 1. In the MANOVA procedure, the Iowa Tests of BasicSkills (ITBS TOT) replaced the High School Placement Test (HSPTTOT), the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Reading Comprehension subtest(ITBS RCOMP) replaced the Nelson-Denny (NELSON), and the Pig




Latin test (PIG LAT) replaced the Phoneme Deletion measure(PHON DEL).

The 36 subjects were divided into three groups according to theirperformance on the FL TOTAL TEST using the same procedure asin Study 1. There were 7 students identified in the HIGH PROFgroup, 21 students in the AVE PROF group, and 8 students in theLOW PROF group. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedureshowed significant differences among the HIGH, AVE, and LOWPROF groups on the FL TOTAL TEST, F (2,33)= 41.72;p = .0001.Post-hocanalysis showed significant differences between the HIGHand AVE, HIGH and LOW, and AVE and LOW groups.

Means and standard deviations on the native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures were compiled for the total group andeach of the three proficiency groups. Table 8 reports the total group’sscores on the native-language and foreign-language aptitudemeasures, and end-of-year grades. Table 9 reports the total group’sscores on the foreign-language proficiency measures. Table 10 reportsthe scores of each of the three proficiency groups on the native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures. The scores of thethree groups on the foreign-language proficiency tests are reported inTable 11.

Table 8 Means and standard deviations of total group on native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures and final foreign-language grades – Study 21

Testing measures (N = 36)

X SD

Phonology/OrthographyWRAT SPELL 108.2 8.5PIG LAT2 11.0 2.5WRMT BSC 102.4 10.0

SemanticsPPVT-R 109.4 12.5ITBS RCOMP 115.7 11.8

FL aptitudeMLAT LF 106.4 15.4

ENG 83 3.1 0.7ITBS TOT 115.1 10.3Final FL grade – Year 13 2.98 0.9Final FL grade – Year 23 2.49 1.1

Notes:1 Standard scores based on X of 100, SD of 152 Raw scores3 Letter grades were converted to a 4-point scale, i.e., a grade of A = 4.00, A− = 3.67,B+ = 3.33, etc. A grade of A+ was recorded as 4.33.




Table 9 Means and standard deviations of total group on foreign-language proficiencytests – Study 2

FL proficiency tests X SD

FL READING COMP1 8.2 1.4FL WRITING2 19.3 3.7FL LISTEN/SPEAK3 19.5 4.6FL TOTAL TEST4 46.9 8.3


2 Results

Results of the MANOVA procedure showed overall differencesamong HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF foreign-language learners onthe eight native-language and foreign-language aptitude measures inthe assessment battery (Wilks’ Lambda= .328; F (16,52)= 2.43; p= .008). This result supports the authors’ hypothesis that there wouldbe overall differences on measures of native-language skill andforeign-language aptitude among HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROFforeign-language learners.

Individual ANOVAs were used to determine differences among thegroups on each of the eight measures. The testing measures on whichthere were significant differences between groups (HIGH vs LOW,HIGH vs AVE, and AVE vs LOW PROF) are presented in Table 12.Table 13 reports intercorrelations among the seven testing instru-ments, 8th-grade English grade, foreign-language grades, and theforeign-language proficiency measure (FL TOTAL TEST).

Results of the Stepwise Discriminant Analysis procedure showedthat one testing measure, MLAT LF, was significant in distinguishingthe three proficiency groups (Wilks’ Lambda= .619; F (2,33)=10.17;p = .0004). Table 14 shows the percentage of students correctlyclassified in each proficiency group. As the Table indicates, 42.9%of the HIGH PROF, 47.6% of the AVE PROF, and 62.5% of theLOW PROF students were correctly classified. Total error rate was.42. These results were expected and show that this classificationscheme was much better than classification by chance alone,especially in the LOW PROF group.

IV Discussion

The results of these studies support the authors’ hypotheses that therewould be significant overall differences in native-language skill,




Tab

le10

Mea

nsan

dst

anda

rdde

viat

ions

ofth

eH

IGH

,A

VE

,an

dLO

WP

RO

Fgr

oups

onna

tive-

lang

uage

and

fore

ign-

lang

uage

aptit

ude

mea

sure

san

dfin

alfo

reig

n-la

ngua

gegr

ades

–S

tudy

21

Tes

ting

mea

sure

sH

IGH

PR

OF

(N=

7)

AV

EP

RO

F(N

=21

)LO

WP

RO

F(N

=8

)

XS

DX

SD

XS

D

Pho

nolo

gy/O

rtho

grap

hyW

RA

TS

PE

LL11

3.0

11.1

108.

77.

210

2.8

7.0

PIG

LAT

211

.40.

511

.82.

48.

52.

5W

RM

TB

SC

109.

010

.010

3.1

9.1

94.6

8.1

Sem

antic

sP

PV

T-R

120.

913

.510

9.0

10.9

100.

68.

1IT

BS

RC

OM

P12

4.0

8.0

115.

911

.110

6.9

11.2

FL

aptit

ude

MLA

TLF

118.

010

.310

8.8

13.2

90.3

11.7

EN

G83

3.6

0.4

3.1

0.5

2.6

0.8

ITB

ST

OT

125.

76.

511

4.7

8.1

107.

011

.1F

inal

FL

grad

e–

Yea

r13

3.2

0.7

2.5

0.9

1.8

1.6

Fin

alF

Lgr

ade

–T

ear

233.

50.

53.

10.

82.

80.

9

Not

es:

1S

tude

nts

wer

egr

oupe

das

HIG

H,

AV

E,

and

LOW

PR

OF

byF

LT

OT

AL

TE

ST

scor

e.S

tand

ard

scor

esba

sed

onX

of10

0,S

Dof

15.

2R

awsc

ores

3Le

tter

grad

esw

ere

conv

erte

dto

a4-

poin

tsc

ale,

e.g.

,a

grad

eof

A=

4.00

,A

−=

3.67

,B

+=

3.33

,et

c.A

grad

eof

A+

was

reco

rded

as4.

33.




Table 11 Means and standard deviations of the HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF groups onthe foreign-language proficiency tests – Study 2

FL proficiency tests HIGH PROF AVE PROF LOW PROF(N = 7) (N = 21) (N = 8)

X SD X SD X SD

FL READING COMP1 9.9 0.4 8.1 1.1 7.3 1.4FL WRITING2 23.0 2.0 19.7 2.6 14.8 3.1FL LISTEN/SPEAK3 24.7 0.5 19.8 3.7 14.2 3.1FL TOTAL TEST4 57.6 2.5 47.5 5.2 36.3 3.9


Table 12 Significant differences on native-language, foreign-language aptitude andforeign-language proficiency measures and in foreign-language grades among HIGH, AVE,and LOW PROF foreign-language groups – Study 2

Testing measures HIGH PROF vs HIGH PROF vs AVE PROF vsLOW PROF AVE PROF LOW PROF

Phonology/OrthographyWRAT SPELL *PIG LAT * *WRMT BSC *

SemanticsPPVT-R *ITBS RCOMP *

FL aptitudeMLAT LF * *

ENG 8 *ITBS TOT * *Final FL grade – Year 1 *Final FL grade – Year 2 *

Note: * p # 0.05.

foreign-language aptitude, and end-of-year foreign-language gradeswhen students were grouped by their level of foreign-language pro-ficiency. These findings are similar to previous research by theauthors showing that students grouped into risk categories by suchvariables as performance in foreign-language classes and anxiety lev-els have significantly different levels of native-language skill andforeign-language aptitude (Ganschowet al. 1991; 1994; Ganschow




Tab

le13

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

amon

gte

stva

riabl

esan

dF

LT

OT

AL

TE

ST

–S

tudy

2

Tes

ting

WR

AT

PIG

LAT

WR

MT

PP

VT

-RIT

BS

MLA

TLF

EN

G8

ITB

SF

inal

FL

Fin

alF

LF

LT

OT

AL

mea

sure

sS

PE

LLB

SC

RC

OM

PT

OT

grad

e–

grad

e–

TE

ST

Yea

r1

Yea

r2

WR

AT

SP

ELL

0.46

**0.

63**

0.45

**0.

64**

0.61

**0.

64**

0.68

**0.

41**

0.65

**0.

33*

PIG

LAT

0.53

**0.

190.

280.

47**

0.35

*0.

37*

0.23

0.32

*0.

25W

RM

TB

SC

0.43

**0.

48**

0.67

**0.

42**

0.57

**0.

39*

0.52

**0.

42**

PP

VT

-R0.

70**

0.49

**0.

34**

0.69

**0.

35*

0.40

**0.

33*

ITB

SR

CO

MP

0.64

**0.

55**

0.91

**0.

47**

0.59

**0.

27M

LAT

LF0.

52**

0.69

**0.

50**

0.70

**0.

52**

EN

G8

0.60

**0.

63**

0.62

**0.

33*

ITB

ST

OT

0.54

**0.

64**

0.36

*F

inal

FL

grad

e–

0.72

**0.

43**

Yea

r1

Fin

alF

Lgr

ade

–0.

43**

Yea

r2

FL

TO

TA

LT

ES

T

Not

es:

*S

igni

fican

tat

#0.

05le

vel

**S

igni

fican

tat

#0.

01le

vel




Table 14 Percentage of students classified into proficiency groups – Study 21

Proficiency groups HIGH AVE LOW

HIGH (N = 7) 42.9 57.1 0.0AVE (N = 21) 28.6 47.6 23.8LOW (N = 8) 0.0 37.5 62.5

Note:1 Bold-face numbers indicate students correctly classified.

and Sparks 1995; 1996; Sparks and Ganschow, 1995b; 1996; Sparkset al., 1992a; 1992b; 1996).

The hypothesis that LOW PROF students would score significantlylower than the AVE PROF and HIGH PROF students on the native-language measures was generally supported. Study 1 showed signifi-cant differences between the HIGH PROF and AVE PROF groupsfavoring HIGH PROF on only one native-language measure(NELSON); likewise, Study 2 showed significant differences on onenative-language measure (ITBS TOT). This finding suggests that theHIGH and AVE PROF groups have similar levels of native-languageskill. The HIGH PROF and LOW PROF groups, however, showedsignificant differences on six of the seven native-language measuresin Study 1 and on all of the native-language measures in Study 2.This finding suggests that students who achieve higher scores on oraland written proficiency measures in a foreign language have strongernative-language skills in phonology/orthography and semantics thanstudents who achieve lower proficiency scores. Overall, the findingssupport Sparks and Ganschow’s earlier findings on the relationshipbetween native-language skills and performance in a foreign-languageclassroom by showing that students grouped by performance on aforeign-language proficiency measure also distinguish themselves intheir performance on tests of native-language skill and foreign-language aptitude (Sparkset al., 1992a; Sparks and Ganschow, 1996;Sparkset al., 1996).

The findings in both studies also support the hypothesis that LOWPROF students would score significantly lower than the HIGH PROFstudents on the foreign-language aptitude measure, the MLAT. InStudy 1 significant differences were found between the HIGH PROFand LOW PROF groups on the MLAT. In Study 2 significant differ-ences were found between the HIGH PROF and LOW PROF groupsand AVE PROF and LOW PROF groups. These differences indicatethat though there was not always a statistically significant differencebetween these groups, there was evidence of large and substantialdifferences in mean standard scores on the MLAT.




The finding that performance on native-languagephonological/orthographic measures (e.g., WRAT SPELL, WRMTBSC, PIG LATIN) distinguished HIGH PROF and LOW PROFforeign-language learners is consistent with the findings of earlierstudies with good and poor (or at-risk and not-at-risk) foreign-language learners (Ganschowet al., 1991; Pimsleur, Sundland, andMcIntyre, 1964; Sparkset al., 1992a; 1992b; 1996; Sparks, Gan-schow, Artzer, and Patton, 1997). In a recent study, Service (1992)finds that phonological/orthographic tasks (pseudoword repetitionand copying) along with skill in comparing syntactic-semantic struc-tures predicts the learning of English by Finnish children. She con-cludes that the ability to represent unfamiliar phonological materialin working memory underlies the acquisition of new vocabularywords in a foreign language. For several years, Sparks and Ganschowhave hypothesized that skill in the sound and sound-symbol systemof one’s native language relates to skill in learning a foreign language(Sparks, 1995; Sparks and Ganschow, 1991; 1993a; 1995a). Theresults of these studies show that students who achieved significantlyhigher on phonological/orthographic tasks achieved higher levels oforal and written proficiency in a foreign language. Generally, AVEand LOW PROF students in both studies did not exhibit significantdifferences on phonological/orthographic measures (except for PIGLAT in Study 2). Thus, it may be that only pronounced differencesin phonological/orthographic skills distinguish LOW PROF studentsfrom students with higher levels of foreign-language proficiency.

The finding that there were statistically significant overall differ-ences among HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF learners on the ENG 8and the MLAT LF is important. In a larger study involving twoexperiments that included the two present populations, both ENG 8and MLAT LF were found to be the best predictors of end-of-yeargrade in first-year foreign-language courses (Sparks, Ganschow, andPatton, 1995). In that study the authors speculated that ENG 8 andMLAT LF were good predictors of foreign-language grade becausesuccess in an English course and strong performance on a foreign-language aptitude test are related to one’s ability in oral (listening,speaking) and written (reading, writing) language. In a related studyin which a smaller number of the two present populations partici-pated, findings showed that the best predictors of overall proficiencyin a foreign language (i.e., listening+ speaking+ reading+ writing)after two years of foreign-language study in high school were end-of-first-year grade in the foreign-language course and foreign-language word decoding (Sparks, Ganschow, Patton, Artzer, Sieben-har, Plageman, 1997). In that study the authors speculated that end-of-first-year foreign-language grade as a predictor ofproficiency




replaced 8th-grade English grade as a predictor of foreign-languagegradebecause though both are measures of achievement in oral andwritten language, foreign-language grade is an indicator of achieve-ment in a foreign-language course, not a native-language course.Likewise, the authors of the present studies speculate that proficiencyin a foreign language is also predicated on oral and written languageskills because the learning of a foreign language is the learning oflan-guage.

The finding that the MLAT LF distinguished the three proficiencygroups in Study 2 lends additional support to Sparks, Ganschow, andPatton’s (1995) speculation about the importance of the MLAT LFas a predictor of skill in foreign-language learning. Not only was theMLAT LF a good predictor of students’ first-year foreign-languagegrade in that study but this language aptitude measure distinguishedstudents with different levels of oral and written proficiency in theforeign language after two years of foreign-language study (in Study2). Although the MLAT LF did not distinguish the three proficiencygroups in Study 1, this measure correlated more highly (.49) withoverall proficiency (FL TOTAL TEST) than any other measure ofnative-language skill (see Table 6). The MLAT LF also correlatedhighly with the HSPT TOT (.65) andNELSON (.50), the twomeasures that distinguished the three proficiency groups in Study 1.

The hypothesis that there would be significant differences in first-year foreign-language course grades among groups with different lev-els of foreign-language proficiency was supported. As expected, inStudy 1 there were significant differences in first-year course gradesamong all three groups favouring the HIGH PROF group over theAVE and LOW PROF groups and favouring the AVE PROF groupover the LOW PROF group. In Study 2, however, there were signifi-cant differences in first-year course grades only between the HIGHPROF and LOW PROF groups. Although course grades are not ameasure of actual proficiency in a foreign language, these resultssuggest that students’ grades in foreign-language courses do, at leastto some extent, reflect their oral and written proficiency in a foreignlanguage. However, end-of-year grades may distinguish LOW PROFstudents from HIGH PROF students better than they distinguishHIGH PROF from AVE PROF students or AVE PROF students fromLOW PROF students. To the authors’ knowledge, this is a new find-ing heretofore not reported in the foreign-language literature.

The results of the studies partially support the authors’ hypothesisthat there would be significant differences in second-year foreign-language course grades among groups of students with different levelsof foreign-language proficiency. There were significant differencesbetween the second-year grades of the HIGH PROF and LOW PROF




groups and the HIGH PROF and AVE PROF groups in Study 1;however, there were no significant differences between the AVEPROF and LOW PROF groups. In Study 2, there were significantdifferences in second-year grades only between the HIGH PROF andLOW PROF groups. Findings on second-year grades appear to paral-lel findings on first-year grades. To the authors’ knowledge, this find-ing on the extent to which end-of-year grades may distinguish stu-dents grouped by proficiency level has heretofore not been reportedin the foreign language literature.

In sum, all of the hypotheses in these studies were largely sup-ported. In both Studies 1 and 2 students who achieved higher levelsof oral and written proficiency in a foreign language had significantlystronger native-language skills and foreign-language aptitude and alsoachieved higher end-of-year foreign-language grades. The strongestfinding, perhaps, is that HIGH PROF and LOW PROF groups dis-tinguished themselves on almost all of the measures in both studies.Thus, one can infer the existence of native-language skill and foreign-language aptitude differences in a population of foreign-languagelearners.

V Conclusions

Findings from the two studies suggest several conclusions. The find-ing that students with low levels of foreign-language proficiency gen-erally have language skills in the average range is important becauseit suggests that LOW PROF learners are not necessarily students whohave weak language skills. Instead, it may be that HIGH PROF and,to some extent, AVE PROF students are strong on tests measuringnative-language skills and foreign-language aptitude. Put simply, itmay be that there is variation in students’ ability to become proficientin a foreign language, and performance on traditional measures ofnative-language skill and foreign-language aptitude reflects thisability. Students with low-average to average language skills (i.e.,LOW PROF in both studies) as reflected in a variety of tests measur-ing phonology/orthography, semantics, group achievement, andforeign-language aptitude may still experience moderate to severe dif-ficulties with foreign-language learning in school. Sparks, Ganschow,and colleagues (Sparks, 1995; Sparks and Ganschow, 1995a; Sparks,Ganschow and Javorsky, 1993) have suggested that similar to othersubject areas (e.g., maths, reading), foreign-language learning occurson a continuum of very good to very poor skill, even among studentsin college or in college preparatory programmes. The results of thesestudies lend support to their speculation.




Secondly, the results of these studies suggest that one’s perform-ance on standard measures of native-language skill (e.g., reading,vocabulary, group achievement) relates to one’s level of foreign-language proficiency. Students with higher levels of native-languageskill tend to achieve higher levels of oral and written proficiency, andvice versa. Thus, groups of students who show significant differencesin oral and written proficiency in a foreign language may also showsignificant differences in native-language skills. The finding hasimplications for assessment of potential performance in foreign-language classes. Students who have overt or subtle native-languagedifficulties in reading, writing, listening, and speaking are likely toexperience similar difficulties in learning a foreign language.

Thirdly, groups of students who demonstrate significant differencesin foreign-language proficiency may also show significant differenceson the MLAT. In the past, foreign language educators have criticizedthe MLAT and other foreign-language aptitude tests because they‘focus on analytical and analogical skills and not on the student’spotential for the developmental of more global skills needed for com-munication’ in the foreign language (Oxford, 1990: 68). In the presentstudies, however, the MLAT appears to measure skills that areimportant for communication, as students with higher levels of bothoral and written and both expressive and receptive proficiency in aforeign language achieved significantly higher scores on the MLATthan students who achieved lower levels of proficiency. In bothstudies, MLAT scores correlated higher with foreign-language pro-ficiency (FL TOTAL TEST) than any of the native-language meas-ures or foreign-language grades. Results suggest the implication thata standard measure of foreign-language aptitude may provide a rela-tively good indicator of how proficient one may become in a foreignlanguage, at least after two years of studying that language.

Fourthly, there appear to be phonological/orthographic processingdifferences among HIGH, AVE, and LOW PROF foreign-languagelearners. Studies by Sparks, Ganschow, and their colleagues consist-ently have shown that good and poor foreign-language learnersexhibit significant differences in their native-language phono-logical/orthographic skills and that foreign-language word decodingis a good predictor of overall (oral and written) proficiency in aforeign language (Sparks, Ganschow, Patton, Artzer, Siebenhar, andPlageman, 1997). In the present two studies, significant differencesin phonology/orthography were most often found between studentsof HIGH and LOW PROF. Koda (1992) has indicated that efficientlower-level verbal-processing skills (i.e., the phonological/ortho-graphic skills of letter identification, word recognition) are essential




for successful performance in foreign-language reading comprehen-sion and recommends that the new foreign-language orthographic(writing) system be taught to students as soon as possible. Ehri(1987) has speculated that written-language skills positively enhancespoken-language skills, arguing that ‘written language supplies a vis-ual-spatial model for speech, and that when children learn to read andspell, this model and its symbols are internalized as a representationalsystem in memory’ (p. 361). Further research by foreign-languageeducators is necessary to determine the impact of written-language(i.e., phonology/orthography) on spoken-language proficiency in aforeign language.

Fifthly, the results of these studies suggest that students who havediffering levels of foreign-language proficiency also show differencesin their course grades, particularly at the end of the first year. Animplication of this finding then is that in a classroom-based context,at least, higher grades may be indicative of higher proficiency in theforeign language.

In recent years, foreign-language educators and researchers havefocused to a large extent on variables other than language skills whenattempting to explain the presence of individual differences inforeign-language learning. Foreign-language educators have generallyaccepted the notion that individual differences in motivation, attitude,and anxiety are responsible for differences in foreign-language learn-ing, perhaps overriding the focus on language variables themselves.Language-comprehension and language-production differences beginto emerge early in childhood and affect performance in reading andwriting as children progress through school. There is no reason tobelieve that the learning of a foreign language will be any different;that is, differences in language skill will emerge early on in the courseof learning a foreign language and will differentially affect learningto read, write, speak, and listen to the language. In the authors’ view,these differences in the oral and written aspects of foreign-languagelearning are likely related to students’ levels of native-language skill.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms Shirley Speaks, Ms Mary Sies,Ms Joanne Brewer, and Ms Marilyn Herring for their assistance inStudy 1. Special thanks are extended to Mr Kim Icsman for his un-tiring diligence in assisting the authors.

The authors would like to thank Mr Craig Ullery for his assistancein Study 2. Special thanks are extended to Ms Ann Johnson and herstaff for their diligence in assisting the authors.

Thanks are extended to Elke Schneider and the six anonymous




reviewers for their critiques of this manuscript. Thanks are alsoextended to Professor Charles Alderson for his extensive review ofthe manuscript.

IV ReferencesACTFL 1986: ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY:

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.ACTFL 1989: ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: American

Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Au, S. 1988: A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social-psychological theory

of second-language (L2) learning.Language Learning38, 75–100.Brown, J., Bennett, J. and Hanna, G. 1981: Nelson-Denny reading test.

Chicago, IL: Riverside.Carroll, J. 1962: The prediction of success in intensive foreign language

training. In Glaser, R., editor,Training and research in education.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 87–136.

—— 1973: Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theoryfor foreign language teaching.International Journal of Psycho-linguistics2, 5–14.

Carroll, J. andSapon, S.1959:Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT):manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Dunn, L. and Dunn, L. 1981: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.

Ehri, L . 1987: Effects of printed language acquisition on speech. In Olson,D., Torrence, N., and Hildyard, A., editors,Literacy, language andlearning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333–67.

Ganschow, L.andSparks, R.1995: Effects of direct instruction in Spanishphonology on the native language skills and foreign language aptitudeof at-risk foreign language learners.Journal of Learning Disabilities28, 107–20.

—— 1996: Foreign language anxiety among high school women.ModernLanguage Journal90, 199–212.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J.and Skinner, S.1994: Differences in language performance among high and lowanxious college foreign language learners.Modern Language Journal78, 41–55.

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J.and Bishop-Mar-bury, A. 1991: Identifying native language difficulties among foreignlanguage learners in college: a ‘foreign’ language learning disability?Journal of Learning Disabilities24, 530–41.

Gardner, R. 1985: Social psychology and second language learning: therole of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.

High School Placement Test1991: Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Ser-vice.

Humes-Bartlo, M. 1989: Variation in children’s ability to learn secondlanguages. In Hyltenstam, K., and Obler, L., editors,Bilingualismacross the lifespan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–54.




Iowa Tests of Basic Skills1990: Chicago, IL: Riverside.Jastak, S.andWilkinson, G. 1984:Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised.

Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Javorsky, J., Sparks, R.and Ganschow, L. 1992: Perceptions of college

students with and without learning disabilities about foreign languagecourses.Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice7, 31–44.

Koda, K. 1992: The effects of lower-level processing skills on foreignlanguage reading performance: implications for instruction.ModernLanguage Journal76, 502–12.

Long, M. 1990: Maturational constraints on language development.Studiesin Second Language Acquisition12, 251–85.

MacIntyre, P. 1995: How does anxiety affect second language learning? Areply to Sparks and Ganschow.Modern Language Journal79, 90–99.

Oller, J. 1981: Research on the measurement of affective variables: someremaining questions. In Andersen, R., editor,New dimensions insecond language acquisition research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,14–27.

Olshtain, E., Shohamy, E., Kemp, J.andChatow, R. 1990: Factors pre-dicting success in EFL among culturally different learners.LanguageLearning40, 23–44.

Oxford, R. 1990: Styles, strategies, and aptitude: connections for languagelearning. In Parry, T., and Stansfield, C., editors.Language aptitudereconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 67–125.

Pimsleur, P. 1996a: Testing foreign language learning. In Valdman, A.,editor, Trends in language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill, 175–214.

—— 1996b: Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt,Brace.

—— 1968: Language aptitude testing. In Davies, A., editor,Language apti-tude symposium: A linguistic approach. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 98–106.

Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D.andMcIntyre, R. 1964: Underachievement inforeign language learning.International Review of Applied Linguistics2, 113–50.

Service, E.1992: Phonology, working memory, and foreign language learn-ing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology45A, 21–50.

Skehan, P.1986: The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of schoollearning.Language Testing3, 188–221.

—— 1991: Individual differences in second language learning.Studies inSecond Language Acquisition13, 275–98.

Sparks, R.1995: Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis toexplain individual differences in foreign language learning.Annals ofDyslexia45, 187–219.

Sparks, R.andGanschow, L.1991: Foreign language learning difficulties:affective or native language aptitude differences?Modern LanguageJournal 75: 3–16.

—— 1993a: Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning




difficulties: linking native and foreign language learning.ModernLanguage Journal77, 289–302.

—— 1993b: The impact of native language learning problems on foreignlanguage learning: case study illustrations of the linguistic codingdeficit hypothesis.Modern Language Journal77, 58–74.

—— 1993c: The effects of a multisensory structured language approach onthe native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk lear-ners: a replication and follow-up study.Annals of Dyslexia43,194–216.

—— 1995a: A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign langu-age learning: a response to MacIntyre.Modern Language Journal79,235–44.

—— 1995b: Parent perceptions in the screening for performance in foreignlanguage courses.Foreign Language Annals28, 371–91.

—— 1996: Teachers’ perceptions of students’ foreign language academicskills and affective characteristics.Journal of Educational Research89, 172–85.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M. and Patton, J. 1997: Foreignlanguage proficiency of at-risk and not-at-risk foreign language lear-ners over two years of foreign language instruction.Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities 30, 92–8.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Artzer, M., Siebenhar, D.andPlageman, M.1997: Anxiety and proficiency in a foreign language.Perceptual andMotor Skills85, 559–62.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Fluharty, K.andLittle, S. 1996: An explora-tory study on the effects of Latin on the native language skills andforeign language aptitude of students with and without learning dis-abilities. Classical Journal91, 165–84.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L.andJavorsky, J. 1993: Perceptions of low andhigh risk students and students with learning disabilities about highschool foreign language courses.Foreign Language Annals26, 491–510.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J.and Patton, J.1992a: Identifying native language deficits in high- and low-riskforeign language learners in high school.Foreign Language Annals25, 403–18.

—— 1992b: Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high school foreign language courses.Modern Language Journal76, 142–59.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L.andPatton, J. 1995: Prediction of performancein first-year foreign language courses: connections between native andforeign language learning.Journal of Educational Psychology87,638–55.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Patton, J., Artzer, M., Siebenhar, D.andPlageman, M.1997: Prediction of proficiency in a foreign language.Journal of Educational Psychology89, 549–61.

Sparks, R., Ganschow, L.and Pohlman, J. Linguistic coding deficits inforeign language learners.Annals of Dyslexia39, 179–95.




Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Artzer, M.andSkinner, S.1992:The effects of a multisensory structured language approach on thenative and foreign language skills of high-risk foreign languagelearners.Annals of Dyslexia42, 25–53.

Spolsky, B.1989:Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Woodcock, R. 1987: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. CirclePines, MN: American Guidance.

Appendix A Letter in Spanish




Appendix B Letter in French




Appendix C Letter in German




Appendix D Comprehension questions for Spanish, French,and German




Appendix E Writing sample in Spanish



differences in native-language skills, foreign-language aptitude, and foreign-language grades among...

Documents