A Study of the Attitudes, Motives, and

Strategies of University Foreign Language

Students and Their Disposition to
Authentic Oral and Written Input
SUSAN M. BACON MICHAEL D. FINNEMANN
Romance Languages & Literatures Department of Spanish
University of Cincinnati Augustana College
Cincinnati, OH 45219 Rock Island, IL 61201

A MAJOR AREA OF SECOND LANGUAGE (SL) ing (LL) strategies in general and with ~he
acquisition research is the role playe? by learner's anticipated cognitive and affective
learner variables in the process of learnmg a responses to authentic input in particular.
second language. I The focus of interest is on
the complex relationship between learner char- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
acteristics, their specific language learnin.g
Authentic Input, Affective, Social, and Personality
behaviors or strategies, and, of course, the ulti-
Factors. A rapidly growing body of literature
mate success of these strategies in language
discusses ways and means of exploiting authentic
learning. Learner characteristics in the social materials in classroom instruction (15; 25, for
and affective domains in particular are widely examplej.? The use of authentic materials is
regarded as profoundly influencing outcome b.y promoted for both cognitive and affective :e~
virtue of their association with language acqUI- sons. In cognitive terms, for example, It IS
sition behavior. The pioneering work of
argued that authentic materials provide the
Gardner and Lambert (13, 14) brought moti-
necessary context for appropriately relating
vation and other attitudinal/affective variables form to meaning in the language acquisition
to the forefront of research. Krashen's Monitor process. In terms of affect, authentic texts are
Model, widely assumed if also widely criticized,
regarded as motivators and as a means to o~er
ascribes a powerful influence to the "Affective come the cultural barrier to language learning
Filter." Research by Beebe shows that per-
(2, 22, 27).
sonality variables, such as the willingness to
Although the pedagogical trend is clearly in
take risks, are powerful determinants of the
the direction of increased use of authentic input
propensity to interact in the target language.
in language instruction, a clearer understand-
Horwitz and her colleagues (16,17,18) con-
ing of the mechanisms of interaction between
tinually remind us of the profound effects on
learner and authentic texts is required to pro-
learner behavior of both beliefs about language
vide the basis for sound pedagogical use of
and affective responses ("anxiety") to specific
authentic input. Research is essential to under-
language learning situations.
standing how to prepare both m~terials .and
This paper reports the main findings of a students for effective language instrucuon.
survey-based research project condu.cted ~m Unfortunately, very little empirical resea~ch
first-year Spanish students at two maJ?r ml.d- exists on the learner's cognitive and affective
western universities. The goal was to identify
responses to authentic input. A few studies have
a reliable set of learner beliefs (or factors) for emerged at the levels of primary and secondary
that population associated with language learn- education. Kienbaum, Russell, and Welty com-
pared traditional classroom contexts (elementary
The Modern Language Journal, 74, iv (1990) school) with communicative contexts .charac-
0026-7902/90/0004/459 S1.50/0 terized primarily by the use of authentic mate-
e 1990 The Modern Language Journal
rials in instruction. Although test results
460 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
showed no significant differences between the mirror the integrative/instrumental distinction
groups in language performance, an attitude first posited by Gardner and Lambert: "The
survey revealed favorable attitudes toward the similarities are especially interesting in light of
absence of the traditional textbook and a high the fact that the motivational clusters were
degree of interest in current events materials. developed from a descriptive survey rather than
Duquette, Dunnett, and Papalia studied the constructed on the basis of prior theory" (9: p.
effect of authentic materials on language acqui- 32). The type and degree of motivation likely
sition and cultural attitudes at the kindergarten will affect the learner's disposition toward au-
level and found that the children in the experi- thentic input situations. Specifically, one might
mental group improved linguistically and expect more highly motivated learners and the
learned to respond positively and appropriately more integratively oriented learners to welcome
to cultural materials. Bernhardt and Berke- the opportunity and challenge of operating on
meyer found that high school students of Ger- authentic written and oral input to a greater
man at all levels were able to handle all extent than others.
authentic text types and that students fell into Personality factors have been investigated in
three levels of comprehension associated with regard to language learning as well. Ely (10),
years of language study. Allen and colleagues in a study of 125 university-level Spanish stu-
did the general study that encompasses Bern- dents, found correlations between Language
hardt and Berkemeyer. They tested 1,500 high Class Risk-taking and a preference for activi-
school students with from one to five years of ties involving free language use and between
language instruction for comprehension of Language Class Sociability and activities
authentic texts at three levels of difficulty. They involving interaction and "performing" in class.
found that the subjects in the study could deal In another study carried out in anticipation of
with all of the authentic texts they were asked the establishment of a university-wide language
to read. The protocols illustrated that, regard- requirement, Moody used Myers-Briggs type
less oflevel, "all subjects were at the very least indicators on a university-wide sample and
able to capture some meaning from all of the found significantly different personality con-
texts" (p. 168). Furthermore, even beginners figurations in different majors. He hypothe-
could cope with authentic texts of considerable sized corresponding differences in preferences
length, 250-300 words. The researchers found for language practice activity. For example, he
that target language and level of instruction was interprets the results to suggest that, while lan-
a more important correlate of comprehension guage and science students would benefit from
than was text difficulty. the traditional language classroom environ-
Although initial indications with respect to ment, engineering and particularly business
learner reaction to authentic input are promis- students would be adversely affected. The per-
ing, it should not be assumed that learners will sonality profile of business students indicates
behave in uniformly positive fashion to lan- the need for social learning activities involving
guage learning trends that teachers regard as "performance." These studies suggest that
beneficial. For example, the Kienbaum et al. learners will vary with respect to their willing-
study, which found a basically positive response ness to take risks in language learning activi-
to classroom instruction based primarily on au- ties, particularly if there is a concomitant
thentic materials, also found that an appre- requirement to "perform" publicly. The impli-
ciable number of students still wanted materials cations of this observation are particularly
associated with traditional language instruc- important in the case of authentic interaction
tion: vocabulary lists, grammar review items, with native speakers of the target language.
and finite content and testing. The findings of Horwitz and colleagues (18)
Recent research involving university-level with respect to foreign language (FL) anxiety
populations on the interaction of social and affec- underscore the point made above with respect
tivevariables and language learning behavior also to "performance." They found through a survey
suggests that learning strategies and preferences and support-group discussions that FL anxiety
for learning activities are closely tied to social is distinguishable from general communicative
and affective variables. Motivation has been anxiety and that "significant foreign language
found to be a significant variable, either singly anxiety is experienced by many students in
or interacting with other variables such as response to at least some aspects of foreign lan-
gender (5, 7, 9, 23). Ely reports results that guage learning" (p. 130). FL anxiety has a
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 461

number of concrete manifestations, but the Factor Analysis. Factor analysis is a useful
findings of the study suggest that anxiety will method to improve and test the internal con-
have a particularly acute role in the case of sistency of a survey instrument and to improve
conversation in the target language (TL). The interpretation of data. It is a multivariate statis-
need to understand every word will produce tical method used in the analysis of correlation
interference in comprehension processes. coefficients (see 12: pp. 520-44, for discussion
Speaking, moreover, is problematic for very of uses). When an instrument produces a great
deep-seated reasons related to self-concept. The number of variables, factor analysis reduces
authors state, "Anxious students feel a deep and simplifies the data to help the researcher
anxiety when asked to risk revealing themselves interpret the interrelationship of the variables.
by speaking a foreign language in the presence Often, factor analysis is used when the distinc-
of others" (18: p. 129). Furthermore, the tion between independent and dependent vari-
authors suggest that this fear of self-revelation ables is less meaningful. Rather, the concern
may interfere in particular with a learner's is with the description and interpretation of
ability to profit from situations of authentic interdependencies.
in teraction: The analysis first organizes the number of
Authentic communication also becomes prob- variables into a fewer number of factors. Then,
lematic in the second language because of the the factors are examined according to the new
immature command of the second language structure they have acquired by virtue of being
relative to the first. Thus adult language a unit composed of several interrelated vari-
learners' selfperceptions of genuineness in pre- ables. The whole, therefore, may be different
senting themselvesto others may be threatened from the sum of the parts. Reduction and struc-
by the limited range of meaning and affectthat ture, in short, are the two distinguishing char-
can be deliberately communicated. In sum, the acteristics of factor analysis. The structural
language learners' self-esteem is vulnerable to properties of a factor determine its meaning
the awareness that the range of communicative (12: p. 525).
choices and authenticity is restricted. (18: Once a factor has been identified, it is treated
p. 128) as a variable. The difference is that a variable
is directly measured, whereas a factor is derived
In short, situations of authentic language input from a set of variables.
may be perceived as entailing risk and may A variety of methods exist for the identifica-
heighten the anxiety response (or raise the tion and determination of the number of factors
Affective Filter, in Krashen's terms) of the to retain (28). Once the number of factors has
learner such that comprehension is affected, been determined, the reference axes are rotated
particularly in anticipation of the need to in order to allow the interpretation of these
perform. factors. A minimum of three variables must be
Methodology: Self-Report Data. Much of the interrelated on a single factor. The factors are
data reviewed above are based completely or then tested for internal consistency using a sta-
in part on self-report (7; 9, 10; 11; 13; 14; 16; tistical program for reliability. A standardized
18; 21; 23). Self-report data have the limitation alpha of .8 or higher is considered acceptable.
that subjects may respond in a way that they
believe they are expected to respond. The study
PURPOSE OF PRESENT STUDY
of expressed beliefs, however, has gained
importance over the past few years (see, for To identify factors that pertain to how novice
example, 8; 16; 26). In order to verify the learners believe they interact with authentic
validity of self-report data, some studies follow input, the following research questions were
initial questionnaires by think-aloud techniques considered: 1) can a self-report instrument de-
and other criterion measures (such as compre- signed to elicit learner beliefs about attitudes,
hension or course grade). An important first motivation, and strategies toward language
step, however, is to establish a self-report learning, in general, and willingness, strategies,
instrument that reaches a high level of internal perception of comprehension, satisfaction, and
consistency. The internal reliability of such an affective response toward authentic input, in
instrument is best established by testing a large particular, reach an acceptable level of internal
number of subjects. A subsequent study would consistency? (This question is submitted with the
examine how reported beliefs relate to reality. understanding that the instrument measures an
462 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)

individual's perceptions of his or her behav- were identified. Items that did not contribute
iors.); 2) can these identified perceptions of to the reliability were revised or replaced. Five
general language learning (attitudes, motiva- statements were revised and four more were
tion, choice of strategies), gender, and willing- added to improve the reliability of the factors. 6
ness to deal with and/or exposure to authentic The revised instrument with 109 items was ad-
input - including the native language back- ministered to a new sample of almost 1,000
ground of the instructor - predict a learner's students at the two institutions in spring 1989.
anticipated comprehension, satisfaction, and A uniform set of instructions was used to ad-
strategy use regarding authentic input? (The minister each stage of the instrument in class;
term predict is used to show the association student participation was entirely voluntary.
between factors; it does not imply causation.) An average of fewer than one student in each
class declined to participate.
POPULATION AND PROCEDURES Sample. Descriptive statistics were obtained
using the SPSSX package on the AMDAHL
The Language Program. Most of the basic lan-
580 computer at the University of Cincinnati.
guage instruction at both institutions is per-
The results of the first three pilot tests revealed
formed by graduate students in Spanish or
that 95 percent of the students were studying
Foreign Language Education or by adjunct
Spanish to fulfill the College of Arts and Sci-
instructors of Spanish. Both institutions pro-
ences foreign language requirement at the
vide extensive training in methodology prior to
respective institutions. 7 Since both institutions
and in conjunction with each instructor's first
have FL entrance requirements, moreover,
year of teaching. Both institutions use the same
most students had had experience with Spanish
basic text and use departmental tests. The end-
in high school. The geographical location of the
of-course grade is based primarily on written
two universities (Midwest) precluded appre-
tests (70 %), of which a small portion, usually
ciable contact with Spanish outside of class.
less than 10 percent, may include authentic
The ratio of male to female respondents was
reading input. Because of the standard cur-
approximately even, as was the ratio of native-
riculum, the in-class exposure to authentic oral
speaker instructors to nonnative instructors."
input is very limited. 3
See Figure I for a summary of the demographic
Instrumentation. The instrument used for this
information and the Appendix for frequency
study was developed over a period of eight
distributions.
months at two large state institutions. The first
stage involved an open-ended questionnaire
RESULTS
that was administered to a total of 100 students
in the second and third quarters of basic The analysis of the data using the SAS sta-
Spanish." In addition to supplying demo- tistical package confirmed seven factors deal-
graphic information, students completed state- ing with language learning in general and five
ments such as "The two most important reasons
for studying Spanish are... ," "What helps me
most when I am learning Spanish is... ," and
"When I hear people speaking in Spanish FIGURE I
I. . . ." The statements were designed to elicit Demographic Information, n = 938
a variety of attitude, motivation, strategy, and
affective responses. In addition to producing % Yes % No
a range of strategies that are similar to those 1. Began FL study in college 14.5 85.5
2. Studied Spanish in high school 81.0 19.0
reported elsewhere (7, 23), students expressed
3. Travel to Spanish-speaking country 21.3 78.7
degrees of willingness to confront authentic 4. Lived in Spanish-speaking country 2.0 98.0
input. The summary of responses to this ques- 5. Other foreign travel 32.6 67.4
tionnaire then served as the basis for a 6. Have Spanish-speaking friends 37.4 62.6
100-item, Likert-style questionnaire. 5 7. Spanish spoken at home 1.8 98.2
The questionnaire was pilot-tested twice on % Male % Female
two different groups of fifty students each. After 8. Gender of student 48.0 52.0
each pilot test, the instrument was submitted % Span. % Eng.
to factor analysis and each factor was tested for Instructor's native language 44.0 56.0
internal reliability. A total of twelve factors Exposure X=3.1 s.d.=.55
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 463

factors dealing with authentic texts in particu- of attitude, motivation, and strategy identifi-
lar. The reliability of these factors and their cation (7, 9, 23). The factors were labelled
correlation to each other were tested using the according to the general tendency suggested by
SPSSX statistical package. Each item appears the total of the statements. Two factors dealt
on one factor only. One of the 109 items was with motivation for studying Spanish, of which
discarded because it did not factor strongly on one was more instrumental (1: Spanish Is Useful)
anyone index." A total of eleven factors with and one other was more integrative (2: Spanish
high internal consistency were identified. for Communication). 11 Factor 3, Perfectionist/Dis-
Language Learning in General. With the excep- crete-Point Strategies, was attitudinal, in that it re-
tion of Factor 5 (Spanish Is Easy), all factors dis- flected what aspects were important in learning
played an acceptable standardized alpha (.82 Spanish. It also seemed to reflect a perfectionist
or above). Since the low reliability score for the point of view. Factors 4 (Public/Oral Mode), 6
"ease" factor precluded replication, it was dis- (Prioate/Non-oral Mode), and 7 (Solitary Learner/Fl.
carded from further analysis. 10 The mean score as Object) reflected strategies for learning
for the other factors ranged from 3.1 to 4.1 Spanish. None of the items was highly skewed
(Figure II). within a factor.
The statements on several of the factors Authentic Input in Particular. Factors 11
tended to support previous research in the area through 15 also show an acceptable standardized

FIGURE II
General Language Learning Factors

Factor 1 Factor 2
Spanish is Useful/Instrumental Motivation X = 3.1 a = .87 Spanish for Communication/Noninstrumental Motivation
11. may help me get a job X= 4.0 a= .88
12. want to be able to communicate with Spanish- 25. being able to express myself to a native speaker
speaking people 26. understanding when a native speaker talks
H. part of a well-rounded education 27. understanding if someone wrote to me
15. hope to use in a future career 31. being able to write to someone in Spanish
17. I want to understand Hispanic culture 32. getting my ideas across in Spanish
19. I like thinking in Spanish 33. learning/sharing ideas with another
20. I'd like to use Spanish if I travel
23. understanding the culture

Factor 3
Pofectionist/Discrete- Point Strategies X = 3.6 a = .84 Factor 4
21. knowing all the grammar rules Public/Oral Mode Strategies (Risk-taker) X = 3.14 a = .82
22. knowing all the words 36. being called on in class
24. getting all the sounds right 37. finding new ways to use Spanish with others
28. getting all the accents and spelling right 42. hearing Spanish being used naturally
29. getting all the endings right 47. hearing Spanish spoken (in class/out of class)
30. hearing each word when someone speaks 48. expressing myself to others in small groups
34. hearing all the endings on the words 50. listening to tapes
52. trying out what I learned on someone else
53. repeating what I hear on tape
Factor 6
Private/Non-oral Mode Strategies (Non-Risk-taker) Factor 7
x-3.25a=.84 Solitary Leamer/Fl: as Object X = 3.7 a = .86
38. comparing Spanish with English 35. studying the text by myself
39. guessing at what may be going on 40. memorizing grammar rules
43. writing words and phrases over and over 41. translating in my head what I hear
46. translating what I read or hear to English 44. working it out by myself
49. writing the English words above the Spanish ones 45. memorizing vocabulary lists
54. keeping my dictionary close by 51. reading grammar explanations
55. rehearsing in my head before I speak
464 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
alpha of .80 or above. Average scores for each Other Variables of Interest. An average index for
factor range from 2.3 to 3.7 (Figure III). It perceived exposure to authentic texts (from
should be noted, however, that Factors 12 and never to often) was calculated for items 105-
13 became negative during factor analysis; a 107. The mean for this variable was 3.1. The
low score, therefore, means disagreement with composite index for "exposure" resulted in a
a negative statement. None of the items within stronger factor than when the individual com-
a factor was highly skewed. ponents were analyzed separately.
Two of the factors focused on anticipated or The intercorrelations of the eleven factors,
actual response to authentic input (11: Compre- gender, exposure to authentic language, and
hension/Satisfaction and 13: Negative Affect/Frus- language background of the instructor
tration); two dealt with anticipated or actual (NS/NNS) were calculated using Pearson
strategies or activities in response to authentic product moment correlation (Table I). The low
input (14: Global/Synthetic Strategies and 15: to moderate (.00 to .58) intercorrelations con-
Decoding/Analytic Strategies); and one focused on firmed that the factors were failry independent
the willingness of the student to confront of each other.P
authentic input (12: Unwillingness to Partici- Multiple regression analysis (24: pp. 154-
pate).12 57)14 was performed to determine whether or

FIGURE III
Factors Dealing Specifically with Authentic Input

Factor 11 Factor 12
Comprehension/Satisfaction X = 3.6 Ci = .88 Unwillingness to Participate X = 2.3 Ci = .87
58. understand most 56. (negative) try to get the gist
60. grasp basic concepts 57. not bother to listen
69. feel satisfied that I understand some 72. not be interested
74. grasp basic concept 76. (negative) pick it up and try to read it
75. understand most 81. not be interested
80. feel a sense that my study of Spanish had helped 88. (negative) try out what I've learned in Spanish
86. feel satisfied that I understand some 90. (negative) try to speak back
89. understand most 91. avoid conversation
99. feel satisfied that I can communicate 97. speak back in English
100. get the gist of what was being said to me 103. not be interested in having conversation
101. feel a sense that my study of Spanish had helped 104. (negative) ask questions to help me understand

Factor 13 Factor 14
Negative Affect/Frustration X = 2.7 Ci = .84 Global/Synthetic Strategies X = 3.7 Ci = .80
59. get frustrated 62. listen for key words and guess at meaning
64. feel uncomfortable 63. try to guess from the context of where I was
70. get discouraged 66. listen for words that I know
77. get frustrated 67. think of the meaning in English
78. find my knowledge of vocabulary inadequate 83. read the title and guess at the content
79. find my knowledge of grammar inadequate 84. look for familiar words and guess
93. get frustrated 92. listen for key words
98. get embarrassed 95. ask to slow down
96. listen; try to get the gist

Factor 15
Decoding/Analytic Strategies X = 3.7 Ci = .84
65. try to translate each word as fast as I could
68. listen for subjects, objects, verbs
71. concentrate on each word
73. reach for my dictionary
82. write the words in English between the lines
85. read each word one at a time
87. look at the endings on the words
94. try to translate every word in my head
102. try to hear all the verb endings
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 465
not any combination of the general LL factors perception of comprehension and satisfaction
(attitudes, motivation, choice of strategies), was the negative input from Factor 12, Unwill-
gender, and willingness to deal with and/or ingness to Participate. This factor contributed .36
exposure to authentic input - including the of the total variance before other factors were
native language background of the instructors added to the model. Other contributing factors
- could predict a learner's perception of com- were Solitary Learner (Factor 7), Noninstrumental
prehension, satisfaction, and strategy use Motivation (Factor 2), Instrumental Motivation
regarding authentic input. (See Figure IV for (Factor 1), and Exposure to AuthenticInput. The
a summary of the independent and dependent total variance explained by the model was .42.
variables. ) In predicting Negative Affect/Frustration (Factor
This hypothesis was tested using multiple 13), the most important factor was Unwillingness
regression forward selection analysis with the (Factor 12) once again, though the association
SPSSX statistical package. Variables that was positive rather than negative. Thirteen per-
remained in the equation and their level of sig- cent of the total variance was explained by this
nificance are reported in Table II. factor. Other factors that remained in the equa-
The most important factor in predicting the tion were (negative) Exposure, Private/Non-oral

TABLE I
The Correlation between General LL and Specific Factors Dealing with Authentic Input, Gender, Exposure,
and Native Language Background of Instructor

2 3 4 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 Sex Expo. NNS

1
2 .58
3 .39 .53
4 .56 .53 .43
6 .11 .14 .24 .25
7 .11 .16 .40 .16 .40
11 .46 .48 .29 .40 .07 .21
12 -.51 -.51 -.25 -.43 .04 -.08 -.58
13 -.15 -.11 -.04 -.06 .17 -.01 -.36 .36
14 .09 .19 .10 .12 .38 .27 .17 -.15 .20
15 .17 .14 .33 .21 .46 .37 .15 .00 .32 .44
Sex .18 .13 .09 .14 .12 .07 .10 -.10 -.03 .12 .02
Expo. .30 .17 .15 .24 .01 -.01 .23 -.23 -.21 -.08 -.03 .08
NNS .08 .03 .08 .03 .01 .03 .01 -.05 -.08 .02 .01 .00 .02
NNS = nonnative speaker

Learning Spanish: general (attitudes, motivation, strategies)

1: Spanish is Useful (Instrumental Motivation)
2: Spanish for Communication (Noninstrumental Motivation)
3: Perfectionist/Discrete-Point Strategies
4: Public/Oral Mode Strategies
6: Private/Non-oral Mode Strategies
7: Solitary Learner

Dealing specifically with authentic texts

11: Comprehension/Satisfaction
12: Unwillingness to Participate
13: Negative Affect/Frustration
14: Global/Synthetic Strategies
15: Decoding/Analytic Strategies

Other Variables of Interest

Gender of Student
Exposure to Authentic Texts
NS/NNS as Instructor
466 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)

FIGURE IV
Summary of Variables of Interest for H o2

Independent Dependent
General LL Factors Specific Authentic Input Factors
1: Instrumental Motivation 11: Comprehension/Satisfaction
2: Noninstrumental motivation 13: Negative Affect/Frustration
3: Perfectionist/Discrete-Point Strategies 14: Global/Synthetic Strategies
4-: Public/Oral Mode Strategies 15: Decoding/Analytic Strategies
6: Private/Non-oral Mode Strategies
7: Solitary Learner

Specific Authentic Input Factors

12: Unwillingness to Confront Authentic Input

Other Variables of Interest

Exposure to Authentic Input
NL Background of Instructor
Gender of Student

TABLE II Strategies (Factor 6), Public/Oral Strategies (Factor

Multiple Regression Analysis 4), and NS Instructor. The total variance ex-
plained by the model was .18.
Beta T Sig T
In predicting the use of Global/Synthetic Strate-
Factor 11: Comprehension/Satisfaction gies (Factor 14), the general LL factor Private/
12: Unwillingness -.44 -14.3 .0000 Non-oral Strategies (Factor 6) explained the
7: Solitary Learner . 11 4-.2 .0000 greatest amount of variance (R 2 = .14). Other
2: Noninstrumental Motivation .13 4-.0 .0001
factors were (negative) Exposure, Solitary Learner
1: Instrumental Motivation .12 3.7 .0002
Exposure .07 2.6 .0095 (Factor 7), (negative) Unwillingness (Factor 12),
R2= .4-2 Noninstrumental Motivation (Factor 2), (negative)
Perfectionist/Discrete-Point Strategies (Factor 3), and
Factor 13: Negative Affect/Frustration a small association with Gender (female). The
12: Unwillingness .36 10.6 .0000 variance explained by the model was .21.
Exposure -.15 -4-.8 .0000 In predicting Decoding/Analytic Strategies, the
6: Private/Non-oral Strats. .13 4-.2 .0000 most important association was again with gen-
4-: Public/Oral Mode Strats. .10 2.8 .0055 eral LL Factor 6, Private/Non-oral Strategies
NNS Instructor -.07 -2.1 .0324- (R2 = .22). Second in importance was the Perfec-
R2= .18
tionist/Discrete-Point index (Factor 3), followed
Factor 11: Global/Synthetic Strategies by Solitary Learner (Factor 7) and Instrumental
6: Private/Non-oral Strats. .33 10.6 .0000 Motivation (Factor 1). Less variance was ex-
Exposure - .13 -4-.2 .0000 plained by (negative) Exposure and (negative)
7: Solitary Learner .14 4-.2 .0000 Noninstrumental Motivation (Factor 2). A small
12: Unwillingness -.13 -3.6 .0003 portion was attributed to Gender (male). The
2: Noninstrumental Motiv. .14 3.4- .0005 variance explained by the model was .29.
3: Perfectionist/Discrete-Pt. -.13 -3.4- .0007
Gender of Student .06 2.0 .04-27
R2 = .21 DISCUSSION

Factor 15: Decoding/Analytic Strategies

In weighing the results of this preliminary
6: Private/Non-oral Strats. .37 12.2 .0000 study into student beliefs about language learn-
3: Perfectionist/Discrete-Pt. .20 5.6 .0000 ing and their relationship to authentic input,
7: Solitary Learner .13 4-.1 .0000 we hasten to note that the data are based on
1: Instrumental Motivation .11 3.1 .0018 self-report. As such, additional research must
Exposure -.08 -2.6 .0097 focus on the relationship to outcome measures
2: Noninstrumental Motiv. -.08 -2.2 .024-8 such as reported strategies while being exposed
Gender of Student -.06 -2.1 .0344 to authentic input, comprehension of authentic
R2= .29 input, and affective response to authentic input.
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 467
Factor analysis performed on the 109-item low to moderate correlation with other factors.
questionnaire revealed eleven stable factors, of On the one hand, its emergence may reflect
which six dealt with perceptions of language attitudinal or motivational factors on the part
learning in general and five dealt with authen- of students who study Spanish to fulfill an FL
tic input in particular. Two of the general LL requirement. If students suspect that the input
factors were motivational, one was attitudinal, is not directly related to their evaluation in the
and the remaining were practice oriented. Of course, they may be less willing to interact with
the practice-oriented factors, one was clearly it. As Horwitz et al. (18) point out, on the other
with an oral mode and suggested risk-taking hand, unwillingness to interact may also be
(Factor 4); another was clearly non-oral and related to FL anxiety.
suggested non-risk-taking (Factor 6). The Soli- Other factors that had small individual main
taryLeamer factor (Factor 7) seems also to focus associations with the Comprehension/Satisfaction
on FL as object, rather than as process. While factor suggest that motivation, both instru-
these factors are not mutually exclusive, as mental and noninstrumental, figures into the
shown by the correlational matrix (Table I), explanation of the model. This finding is consis-
they show only low to moderate correlation tent with previous research in which motivation
with each other, which underscores their inde- has been found to be an important indicator
pendence. (9; 23). Students who perceive comprehension
Regarding authentic input, one factor and satisfaction also responded positively to the
emerged as strongly attitudinal, Unwillingness Solitary Learner factor, which suggests an indi-
(Factor 12), with a focus on potential interac- vidualistic approach to dealing with input.
tion. Another factor was both cognitively and Finally, the more exposure students perceive
affectively oriented, focusing on comprehension they have had, the more likely they are to re-
and satisfaction (Factor 11); another was purely spond favorably to the Comprehension/Satisfaction
affective, expressing frustration and inability index. The opposite is true for the Negative
(Factor 13). The remaining two reflected com- Affect/Frustration index, where Exposure exhibits
prehension strategies, of which one was more a negative association.
global and synthetic (Factor 14) and the other The small association between Public/Non-oral
more local and analytic (Factor 15). Strategies and Public/Oral Mode Strategies and the
Factors 11 and 13 imply how a student an- Negative Affect factor suggests that students may
ticipates slhe will respond to authentic input. feel frustration no matter what strategy they
Whereas Factor 11 expresses the positive employ. This frustration may in turn lead stu-
aspects of comprehension and satisfaction, Fac- dents to be less willing to deal with authentic
tor 13 expresses negative aspects of frustration input the next time they have an opportunity.
and inability. Nevertheless, the moderately low Finally, the small negative association with
intercorrelation (r = -.36) underscores the fact native language (NL) background of the in-
that they are two separate factors. structor (NS of Spanish) suggests that students
An impressive amount of variance can be do not perceive as beneficial the authentic input
accounted for in Factor 11, Comprehension/Satis- an NS instructor can provide. 15 Possibly, the
faction, by the entire model. Although the model frustration factor identified here is so strong
for the Negative Affect/Frustration factor is less that a fear of communication breakdown be-
strong, it shares with Factor 11 one major tween student and instructor cannot easily be
variable as the source of most of the variance: modified by the benefit of having an authentic
willingness or unwillingness to interact with the source of input. Horwitz et al. (18) concluded
input. This finding suggests that no matter that anxious students are afraid to make mis-
what strategies a student elects to employ when takes in an FL. When the instructor is an NS
dealing with authentic input, the most impor- of the target language, the frustration appears
tant obstacle to a sense of comprehension or to be even greater. This particular finding,
satisfaction is unwillingness to confront the though small compared to Unwillingness, should
input. be investigated further.
Willingness to accept input seems to be a Factors 14 and 15 represent anticipated
very basic, sinequa non requirement of instruc- strategies for comprehending authentic input,
tion. Yet the factor emerged from the original be it conversing with a native speaker of the
open-ended questionnaire without direct solici- target language or interacting with an authentic
tation. The Unwillingness factor exhibits a high text in Spanish. Most of the items in Factor 14
degree of internal consistency and shows only clearly represent global/synthetic strategies;
468 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
that is, the listener samples input and constructs significant, though their appearance and direc-
or infers the overall meaning from the sample tion are consistent with the above interpreta-
and contextual cues. The items in Factor 15 tion. Factor 7 (Solitary Learner/FL as Object) is
reflect an antithetical strategy involving a focus also significantly correlated with both compre-
on trying to capture and interpret each and hension-strategy factors, which supports the
every morphological form as it appears in interpretation that the learner who regards the
input. Although the items prompted subjects language as an object of analysis is more likely
for their anticipated responses, it is not unlikely to develop conscious, language-based strategies
that these comprehension strategies result from for learning. Furthermore, Table I shows that
actual experience with FL input (authentic or Solitary Learner shows a stronger correlation
otherwise) and represent the actual strategies (r = .40) with Private/Non-oral Strategies than with
that certain students will employ, at least Public/Oral Strategies (r = .16).
initially, in their efforts to comprehend input Exposure (negative) associates with both com-
in authentic contexts.!" prehension-strategy factors, but the relationship
Multiple regression analysis shows that the is stronger for Factor 14. This finding is also
strongest associate with each of these compre- consistent with the interpretation that was ad-
hension-strategy factors was the general- vanced above. The language-oriented, private
strategy Factor 6. The items in Factor 6 sug- learners who contribute most to the model do
gest private/non-oral strategies of language not necessarily seek exposure to authentic
practice with a heavy emphasis on translation input; in particular, they may not seek out
from Spanish to English. This finding is to be situations involving conversation with a native
expected, since Factors 14 and 15 describe com- speaker. One would expect the socially oriented
prehension strategies, which by definition are public learner (not in the model) to seek more
mental (private) and non-oral. The translation exposure. Not surprisingly, the data show that
or decoding content of the items on Factor 6 Factor 3 (Perfectionist/Discrete-Point Strategies) has
accounts for the relatively stronger association a strong positive association with Factor 15 and
with Factor 15. a negative (though less powerful or significant)
Factor 4 (Public/Oral Mode Strategies), how- association with Factor 14. The perfectionist/
ever, did not associate with either comprehen- discrete-point learner states s/he uses analytic
sion-strategy factor. Factor 4 stands in sharp strategies and likewise avoids global/synthetic
contrast to Factor 6 in that most of the items comprehension strategies.
reflect the effort to use the language orally in The results suggest that motivation plays a
public and in socially interactive contexts. Both role in strategy choice. Moreover, there is an
factors coalesced out of responses from the same interesting complementarity in this association:
general query ("What helps me most in learning noninstrumentally motivated learners are more
Spanish is..."), and their low correlation co- likely to use global/synthetic strategies and
efficient (r = .25) indicates that they are highly avoid decoding/analytic comprehension strate-
independent of each other. The data suggest gies when exposed to authentic input. This
a two-way typology oflearners: those who feel choice is consistent with the fact that instrumen-
they learn by social interaction and are disposed tal motivation only associates with Factor 15.
to use language orally, and those who attribute Gender significantly predicted reported com-
learning to focused attention on language as an prehension strategies. Female subjects were
object. It may be that the language-oriented, more likely to report using global/synthetic
private learner is more likely to develop (or is strategies, whereas males were significantly
more aware of) concrete, language-based com- more likely to report using decoding/analytic
prehension strategies than is the socially strategies. The gender associations were not
oriented public/oral learner. Rather, publici strong, but warrant further analysis to deter-
oral learners may structure their activity to mine whether or not group membership can be
create functional learning opportunities and predicted.!?
acquire language through (to them) vague ex-
periential processes. If such is the case, the
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
publiclorallearner may require strategic guid-
ance with language analysis strategies needed This study examined the association of self-
to deal with authentic input. reported strategies, motives, and attitudes with
The remaining factors are less statistically anticipated reactions to authentic input. Sub-
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 469
sequent analysis of the factors revealed statis- attitudes may be self-fulfilling: if a student is
tically significant models for predicting beliefs not interested in listening, his/her comprehen-
dealing with authentic input. In the context of sion is likely to be impaired. The curriculum
behavioral research, the variance explained by must be designed to convince students to be
the regression model for the cognitive/affective willing to deal with authentic input. To help
variable Comprehension/Satisfaction was especially students accept input, such input first must be
strong. Although the model for Negative Affect an early and important part of instruction.
was less strong, the predominance of willing- Second, it must be accompanied by meaningful
ness or unwillingness in both models merits advance organizers and comprehension checks.
further research. How these beliefs are related Finally, it must be included in the evaluation
to actual outcome measures must still be inves- of the student. Since exposure to authentic
tigated. input has a positive perceived effect on com-
The two comprehension-strategy factors prehension and satisfaction and a negative per-
owed the greatest amount of their variance to ceived effect on frustration, students seem to
one general language-learning factor, Private/ profit from its inclusion.
Non-oral Strategies. The absence of Public/Oral Finally, this study reinforces the importance
Strategies altogether underscores the need for of attending to students' affective needs and
further research on how different learner types general LL strategies when interacting with
cope with authentic input. authentic input. Studies involving other popu-
Pedagogically, research dealing with student lations and other levels of proficiency will con-
perceptions and beliefs sheds light into how firm general and specific factors and their role
individual students anticipate their reactions to in dealing with authentic input.
components of the FL curriculum. Beliefs and

factor analysis is used to identify different, uncorrelated

NOTES factors. Only factor reliability is reported here.
'The pilot studies indicated, in addition, that the majority
of students were undergraduates in the colleges that require
'This study is part of a larger project that was partially a foreign language. No attempt was made to compare field
funded by a grant from the Center for Research in Second of specialization, graduate versus undergraduate, or age
Languages and International Studies at the University of in the final instrument.
Cincinnati. The authors are indebted to Roger Stuebing "The language background of the instructor was com-
of the Institute for Policy Research of the University of piled separately.
Cincinnati for his input into the design of the study and "The discarded item was, "If I were to overhear people
statistical analysis of the data. We also acknowledge helpful speaking Spanish, I would probably get only a few details."
comments from participants at the RP-ALLA Conference, I°It may be argued that how a student felt about getting
3-4 November 1989, Columbus, Ohio, where the data were an "easy" grade influenced his or her beliefs about learn-
first presented, as well as the comments of two anonymous ing and comprehension. The fact remains, however, that
reviewers. a single item does not carry the same weight as a factor.
2Input is considered authentic when it is produced by To have looked at any of the individual items on the "ease"
and for native speakers of the target language. Having a factor would have circumvented the entire purpose of estab-
native speaker (NS) as the classroom instructor does not lishing internal reliability of the instrument.
necessarily guarantee authentic input. II As with Ely's (9) identification of motivational factors,
'As in many large institutions, the grade in the course the two identified here are not mutually exclusive. Factor 1,
reflects the need for uniformity between many sections. however, includes instrumental statements that do not
Since the grade had little, if anything, to do with the use appear at all on Factor 2. Factor 1, moreover, appears
of authentic texts, it was not considered a useful criterion. broader in scope; Factor 2 is definitely communicative in
'Students at this level were chosen to ensure that they orientation, but more on a one-to-one level than Factor 1.
had adequate experience with studying Spanish at the uni- I2Note that the average response to this factor indicates
versity level and yet were less likely to be foreign language that students were not generally unwilling (x ~ 2.3).
sophisticates. That is, we expected they would represent "In factor analysis, low intercorrelation among factors
the majority of the students who take basic Spanish lan- is an important consideration. Each factor should represent
guage classes at the university level. a separate trait.
5 As in Ely's study (9), the factors emerged from the survey 14Although there were a sufficient number of cases to
rather than being pre-imposed. perform canonical correlation, we chose to analyze the data
6It is important to note that it is not appropriate to calcu- using multiple regression analysis. The latter is both more
late the internal reliability of the entire instrument when widely used and more easily interpreted.
470 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
15This may also reflect a generalized negative reaction "Recent research (7) has focused on the effect of gender
to foreign-born TAs. differences in strategy choice. The current data are being
16Itis interesting that, relative to other factors, Factors subjected to discriminant analysis, the results of which will
14 and 15 are moderately correlated with each other be reported in an article now in preparation.
(r = .44). This suggests that many learners use both
strategies.

15. Geltrich-Ludgate, Brigitta & Deanna Tovar. "Authen-

BIBLIOGRAPHY tic Texts and Corresponding Activities: A List for
the Foreign Language Instructor." Unterrichtspraxis
20 (1987): 80-90.
1. Allen, Edward D., Elizabeth Bernhardt, M. Berry & 16. Horwitz, Elaine K. "Using Student Beliefs about Lan-
M. Demel. "Comprehension and Text Genre: An guage Learning and Teaching in the Foreign Lan-
Analysis of Secondary School Foreign Language guage Methods Course." Foreign Language Annals 18
Readers." Modem LangtUJgeJournal72 (1988): 163-72. (1985): 333-40.
2. Bacon, Susan M. Cameron. "Mediating Cultural Bias 17. - - - . "Facing the Blackboard: Student Perceptions
with Authentic Target-Language Texts for Begin- of Language Learning and the Language Class-
ning Students of Spanish." Foreign Language Annals room." ADFL Bulletin 20 (1989): 61-64.
20 (1987): 557-63. 18. - - - , Michael B. Horwitz &Jo Ann Cope. "Foreign
3. Beebe, Leslie M. "Risk-taking and the Language Language Classroom Anxiety." Modern Language
Learner." Classroom Oriented Research in Second Lan- Journal 70 (1986): 125-32.
guage Acquisition. Ed. Herbert W. Seliger & Michael 19. Kienbaum, Barbara E., A. J. Russell & S. Welty.
Long. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983. "Communicative Competence in Foreign Language
4. Bernhardt, Elizabeth B. & Victoria C. Berkemeyer. Learning with Authentic Materials." Final Project
"Authentic Texts and the High School German Report (1986) [ERIC 275200j.
Learner." Unterrichtspraxis 21 (1988): 6-28. 20. Krashen, Stephen. "Adult Second Language Acquisi-
5. Bialystok, Ellen. "The Role of Conscious Strategies in tion and Learning: A Review of Theory and Appli-
Second Language Proficiency." Modem Language cations." Second LangtUJge Teaching and Foreign LangtUJge
Journal 65 (1981): 24-35. Learning. Ed. R. Gingras. Arlington, VA: CAL,
6. Duquette, Georges, Stephen Dunnett & Anthony 1978.
Papalia. "The Effect of Authentic Materials in 21. Moody, Raymond. "Personality Preferences and For-
Acquiring a Second Language." Canadian Modern eign Language Learning." Modern LanguageJournal
Language Review 43 (1987): 479-92. 72 (1988): 389-401.
7. Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford. "Effects of Sex 22. Nostrand, Howard L. "Authentic Texts and Cultural
Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type Authenticity: An Editorial." Modern Languagefour-
on Adult Language Learning Strategies." Modern nal 73 (1989): 49-52.
Language Journal 73 (1989): 1-13. 23. Oxford, Rebecca & Martha Nyikos. "Variables Affect-
8. Elbaum, Batya. "Research Design for the Study of ing Choice of Language Learning Strategies by Uni-
Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning." Paper versity Students." Modem LanguageJournal73 (1989):
presented at the MLJIOhio State University Sym- 291-300.
posium RP-ALLA, Columbus, Ohio, November 24. Pedhazer, E1azur J. Multiple Regression in Behavioral
1989. Research. 2nd ed. New York: CBS, 1982.
9. Ely, Christopher. "Language Learning Motivation: A 25. Rodgers, Carmen Villegas & Frank W. Medley, Jr.
Descriptive and Causal Analysis." Modern Language "Language with a Purpose: Using Authentic Mate-
Journal 70 (1986): 28-35. rials in the Foreign Language Classroom." Foreign
10. - - - . "Personality: Its Impact on Attitudes toward LanguageAnnals 21 (1988): 467-78.
Classroom Activities." Foreign Language Annals 21 26. Wenden, Anita. "How To Be a Successful Language
(1988): 25-32. Learner: Insights and Prescriptions from L2 Learn-
11. - - - . "Tolerance of Ambiguity and Use of Second ers." LeamerStrategies in Language Learning. Ed. Anita
Language Strategies." Foreign Language Annals 22 Wenden & Joan Rubin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
(1989): 437-46. Prentice- Hall, 1987.
12. Ferguson, George A. & Yoshio Takane. Statistical Analysis 27. Westphal, German F. "On the Teaching of Culture in
in Psychology and Education. 6th ed. New York: the Foreign Language Curriculum." Canadian Mod-
McGraw-Hili, 1989. ern Language Review 43 (1986): 87-93.
13. Gardner, Robert C. & Wallace E. Lambert. "Motiva- 28. Zwick, William R. & Wayne F. Velicer. "Comparison
tional Variables in Second Language Acquisition." of the Five Rules for Determining the Number of
Canadian Journal oj Psychology 13 (1959): 266-72. Components to Retain." Psychological Bulletin 99
14. - - - . Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learn- (1986): 432-42.
ing. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972.
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 471

APPENDIX
Valid Percentage Response for Each Item

Reasons why I chose to study Spanish:

VERY UNIMPORTANT TO VERY IMPORTANT
ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 X S.D.
9. Previous experience in high school 20.9 5.7 16.2 27.6 29.6 3.4 1.5
10. Easy grade 20.8 21.7 35.3 16.5 5.7 2.6 1.1
11. May help me get a job 22.1 17.7 23.6 22.7 13.9 2.9 U
12. Want to be able to communicate with NSS 10.0 14-.9 27.3 27.7 20.2 3.3 1.2
13. Takes up little time 28.8 27.6 30.5 10.5 2.7 2.3 1.1
14-. Part of well-rounded education 10.9 12.8 30.40 33.0 12.8 3.2 1.2
15. Hope to use in future career 19.4 18.40 26.2 20.5 15.5 2.9 1.3
16. Spanish is easier than 15.8 17.5 32.7 26.40 7.6 2.9 1.2
17. Want to understand Hispanic culture 16.0 24.40 33.3 19.7 6.6 2.8 1.1
18. Spanish is easy for me 16.2 16.0 33.6 24.5 9.7 3.0 1.2
19. Like thinking in Spanish 26.3 24.2 27.3 16.6 5.6 2.5 1.2
20. Like to speak if I travel 7.7 8.1 18.0 36.5 29.7 3.7 1.2
In learning Spanish, I consider the following aspects important:
VERY UNIMPORTANT TO VERY IMPORTANT
ITEM 1. 2 3 4 5 X S.D.
21. Knowing all grammar rules 3:8 8.0 27.6 36.3 24.2 3.7 1.0
22. Knowing all the words 1.5 2.9 20.5 42.1 33.0 4.0 0.9
23. Understanding culture 4.0 14-.2 33.0 34.9 13.9 3.40 1.0
24. Getting sounds right 1.6 8.8 30.7 39.0 19.9 3.7 0.9
25. Able to express self to NS 2.0 4.5 17.8 39.0 36.7 4.0 1.0
26. Understand native 1.4 2.7 10.7 40.3 45.0 4.2 0.9
27. Understand correspondence 1.3 4.2 19.1 39.7 35.7 4.0 0.9
28. Get all accents/spelling 6.1 20.6 36.8 25.5 11.0 3.1 1.1
29. Get all endings right 2.7 8.40 28.7 40.7 19.5 3.7 1.0
30. Hearing each word 2.8 13.40 29.5 33.2 21.2 3.6 1.1
31. Able to correspond 3.3 lOA 28.0 35.4 22.9 3.6 1.0
32. Getting ideas across 0.9 1.6 12.9 36.8 47.9 4.3 0.8
33. Learn/share ideas with another 1.5 7.8 26.1 34.8 29.8 3.8 1.0
34. Hear endings on words 4.40 12.8 35.7 32.40 14-.7 3.40 1.0
What helps me most in learning Spanish is:
NOT HELPFUL TO VERY HELPFUL
ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 X S.D.
35. Study text by myself 3.1 8.0 25.9 36.0 27.0 3.8 1.0
36. Called on in class 4.6 10.9 31.8 35.9 16.8 3.5 1.0
37. Find ways to use with others 6.7 18.40 38.6 26.3 10.0 3.1 1.0
38. Compare Spanish with English 7.8 16.40 27.40 33.3 15.1 3.3 1.1
39. Guess what's going on 19.9 26.6 29.0 18.5 6.0 2.6 1.2
40. Memorize grammar rules 3.8 12.1 29.8 36.3 18.0 3.5 1.0
41. Translate in my head 2.8 3.40 16.9 43.5 33.3 4.0 0.9
42. Hear Spanish used naturally 3.9 11.1 28.5 34.2 22.3 3.6 1.1
43. Write words/phrases over 11.9 21.0 24.2 27.2 15.8 3.1 1.3
H. Work out by myself 4.0 lOA 31.9 36.40 17.3 3.5 1.0
45. Memorize vocabulary lists 1.3 7.7 20.2 38.7 32.1 3.9 1.0
46. Translate read/hear to English 1.8 5.8 19.9 41.2 31.3 3.9 1.0
47. Hear Spanish spoken 1.3 6.2 21.9 37.3 33.3 4.0 1.0
48. Express self in groups 6.6 19.7 37.4 25.3 11.1 3.1 1.1
49. Write English words above 13.5 25.5 26.8 23.1 11.1 2.9 1.2
50. Listen to tapes 32.2 31.8 21.3 11.3 3.4 2.2 1.1
51. Read grammar explanations 5.2 12.3 33.9 34.40 lU 3.40 1.0
52. Try out on someone else 6.2 17.2 28.8 32.0 15.7 3.3 1.1
53. Repeat what I hear on tape 29.8 29.5 24.5 11.7 4.5 2.3 1.1
54. Keep dictionary close by 12.3 17.8 26.2 26.40 17.3 3.2 1.3
55. Rehearse in my head 4.40 9.5 24.4 39.9 21.8 3.7 1.1
472 Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)

APPENDIX (continued)

If I overheard people speaking in Spanish, I would probably...

VERY UNLIKELY TO VERY LIKELY
ITEM 1 2 3 4: 5 X S.D.
56. Try to get the gist 1.6 2.6 12.7 4:0.4- 4:2.7 4:.2 0.9
57. Not bother to listen 53.0 31.6 10.7 2.7 2.0 1.7 0.9
58. Understand most 4:.0 17.1 51.7 22.4- 4:.8 3.1 0.9
59. Get frustrated 12.8 26.2 36.3 16.7 7.9 2.8 1.1
60. Grasp basic concept 0.9 6.4- 25.7 4:7.8 19.3 3.8 0.9
61. Get only a few details 4:.9 26.1 39.5 24:.2 5.3 3.0 1.0
62. Listen for key words/guess 1.5 5.1 23.4: 4:3.5 26.5 3.9 0.9
63. Guess from context 5.0 15.9 35.3 31.7 12.1 3.3 1.0
64:. Feel uncomfortable 26.4- 33.1 25.7 9.8 5.0 2.3 1.1
65. Translate each word fast 12.0 25.5 28.1 23.9 10.5 3.0 1.2
66. Listen for known words 1.0 3.9 9.6 4:3.8 4:1.8 4:.2 0.8
67. Think of meaning in English 2.4- 5.1 17.8 4:0.7 34:.0 4:.0 1.0
68. Listen for subject/verb/object 8.0 13.5 25.7 30.4: 22.3 3.5 1.2
69. Feel satisfied that I understand some 2.1 9.1 26.2 39.5 23.1 3.7 1.0
70. Get discouraged 23.3 36.6 25.5 9.6 5.1 2.4- 1.1
71. Concentrate on each word 16.9 33.9 29.9 13.9 5.4- 2.6 1.1
72. Not be interested 52.9 26.8 12.7 5.1 2.5 1.8 1.0
If I saw a real Spanish-language text (newspaper, magazine), I would probably...
VERY UNLIKELY TO VERY LIKELY
ITEM 1 2 3 4: 5 X S.D.
73. Reach for my dictionary 16.2 25.7 24:.4- 19.4- 14:.2 2.9 1.3
74:. Grasp basic concept 1.7 6.3 25.1 4:8.5 18.4- 3.8 0.9
75. Understand most 4:.6 18.6 4:1.1 28.6 7.2 3.2 1.0
76. Pick up and try to read 3.5 6.2 13.8 36.1 4:0.4: 4:.0 1.1
77. Get frustrated 21.5 33.3 25.7 12.7 6.7 2.5 1.2
78. Find knowledge of vocabulary inadequate 6.7 19.3 37.1 25.1 11.8 3.2 1.1
79. Find knowledge of grammar inadequate 8.2 24:.7 38.2 20.9 8.1 3.0 1.1
80. Think study of Spanish had helped 1.2 4:.2 17.0 4:4:.3 33.4- 4:.0 0.9
81. Not be interested 50.2 29.3 13.6 3.6 3.2 1.8 1.0
82. Write English words between lines 38.4- 29.5 18.6 10.1 3.4- 2.1 1.1
83. Read title/guess content 12.3 21.0 30.3 25.5 11.0 3.0 1.2
84:. Look familiar words/guess 3.3 11.0 30.7 38.7 16.3 3.5 1.0
85. Read each word one at a time 8.9 19.7 30.9 26.9 13.5 3.2 1.2
86. Feel satisfied that I understand some 1.8 5.7 25.5 4:7.2 19.8 3.8 0.9
87. Look at endings on words 8.7 16.0 34:.1 29.3 11.9 3.2 1.1
If an NS of Spanish were to speak to me, I would probably ...
VERY UNLIKELY TO VERY LIKELY
ITEM 1 2 3 4: 5 X S.D.
88. Try what I've learned 2.4- 7.5 24:.0 37.3 28.9 3.8 1.0
89. Understand most 2.8 21.7 4:6.6 23.0 5.9 3.1 0.9
90. Try to speak back 2.2 6.2 22.9 4:2.9 25.8 3.8 1.0
91. Avoid conversation 31.9 35.7 20.6 8.2 3.5 2.2 1.1
92. Listen for key words 0.3 1.9 15.9 50.6 31.2 4:.1 0.8
93. Get frustrated 19.4: 33.9 25.2 13.9 7.6 2.6 1.2
94:. Try to translate all in my head 11.3 29.0 27.9 23.5 8.3 2.9 1.1
95. Ask to slow down 2.0 4:.7 12.7 32.0 4:8.6 4:.2 1.0
96. Listen to get gist 0.4- 1.7 13.4- 4:9.6 34:.9 4:.2 0.8
97. Speak back in English 11.7 26.7 35.5 16.0 10.1 2.9 1.1
98. Get embarrassed 20.6 24:.3 30.2 15.1 9.9 2.7 1.2
99. Be satisfied I can communicate 4:.4- 12.4- 4:0.3 30.9 12.0 3.3 1.0
100. Get gist of what is said 1.0 5.1 28.5 4:8.1 17.4- 3.8 0.8
101. Feel study of Spanish had helped 1.6 4:.8 21.0 4:3.6 29.0 3.9 0.9
102. Try to hear verb endings 8.5 24:.0 36.5 23.9 7.1 3.0 1.1
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 473
103. Not be interested in conversation 41.4 32.9 17.7 5.9 2.1 1.9 1.0
104. Ask questions to help me 2.3 4.5 17.9 41.6 33.8 4.0 0.9
I have ...
NEVER TO OFTEN
ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 X S.D.
105. Heard people conversing 0.5 7.4 36.6 36.4 19.0 3.7 0.9
106. Seen newspapers/texts for NSs of Spanish 7.9 32.3 34.4 18.1 7.3 2.8 1.0
107. Had an NS speak to me 21.5 23.7 25.6 18.0 11.1 2.7 1.3
ITEM A B C D N/A
108. Last grade in Spanish at this institution 37.6 32.4 18.3 2.5 9.2
109. Grade expected this quarter 38.0 43.6 16.5 1.8

From the Editor: A Word of Thanks

TRUTH, ACCURACY, AND QUALITY ARE THE Ehrman, Gerard Ervin, Stephen Gaies, Nina
heart of any first-rate scholarly publication. Garrett, Claire Gaudiani, Fred Genesee,
The extent to which they are present in The Harry Gradman, Gail Guntermann, John
Modern LanguageJournal results from the com- Gutierrez, JoAnn Hammadou, Charles Han-
bined efforts of authors, referees, staff mem- cock, L. Kathy Heilenman, Kay Herr,
bers, and the editor. But without the expert Elaine Horwitz, Charles James, Elizabeth
advice of the numerous scholars who donate Joiner, Randall Jones, Richard Kern,
their time and their expertise as a professional Constance Knop, Claire Kramsch, Stephen
service, the reliability of a publication such as Krashen, Robert Lafayette, John Lalande,
this one would be constantly in doubt. The Dale Lange, Diane Larsen-Freeman, James
individuals listed below served as field con- Lee, Winifred Lehmann, Timothy Light,
sultants and referees at various times during Donna Long, Pardee Lowe, Sally Magnan,
the preparation of volume seventy-four of the John McCarthy, Myriam Met, Suzanne
MLj. In printing their names here, the editor Moore, Genelle Morain, Terrell Morgan,
expresses publicly his sincere gratitude for Howard Nostrand, John Oller, Solveig Olsen,
many hours of reading and evaluating manu- Alice Omaggio, Rebecca Oxford, June
scripts submitted for publication: Leslie Adel- Phillips, John Purcell, Charles Quinn, Joe
son, Mahdi Alosh, Lyle Bachman, Harry Ree, Charles Richardson, Mark Roche,
Bahrick, Marva Barnett, Simon Belasco, Carmen Rogers, Henry Schmidt, Renate
Virginia Benmamin, Diane Birckbichler, Schulz, Constance Shaffer, Elana Shohamy,
Susan Bland, Therese Bonin, John Bordie, Ellen Silber, Wm. Flint Smith, Steven Spur-
Richard Brod, H. Douglas Brown, Heidi ling, John Staczek, Charles Stansfield, Earl
Byrnes, Frederic Cadora, Mary Call, Stevick, Steven Stupak, Janet Swaffar,
Patricia Carrell, Kenneth Chastain, Craig Merrill Swain, John Swales, Heimy Taylor,
Chaudron, Clay Christensen, John Clark, Robert Terry, Richard Teschner, Christine
Mark Clarke, Thomas Cooper, Helena Cur- Grosse, John Upshur, Rebecca Valette, Bill
tain, James Davis, Mary Donaldson-Evans, VanPatten, Galal Walker, Joel Walz,
Patricia Dunkel, Trisha Dvorak, Madeline Kenneth Wells.