Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Retention and motivation of French as a second language among students of varying abilities MacDicken-Jones, Kathleen Susan 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0504.pdf [ 2.44MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078342.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078342-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078342-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078342-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078342-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078342-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078342-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078342-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078342.ris

Full Text

RETENTION AND MOTIVATION OF FRENCH AS A SECOND LANGUAGEAMONG STUDENTS OF VARYING ABILITIESbyKATHLEEN SUSAN MACDICKEN-JONESB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1980A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF EDUCATION(Department of Language Education)We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard.4THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1994© Kathleen Susan MacDicken-Jones, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouv CanadaDE-6 (2188)11AbstractTeachers routinely conduct a period of review after a semester or summer holidaybreak due to expected loss of material learned. In the area of second language (L2)acquisition, this matter is of particular concern to instructors and students because, ingeneral, during the period of disuse students have had little, if any, contact with thelanguage. One factor which has proven to influence the maintenance of an L2 is that ofmotivation. Gardner and his colleagues’ (1959, 1971, 1973, 1985, 1987, 1988) studiesof French as a Second Language (FSL) have highlighted strong correlations betweenattitude and achievement and achievement and language retention. Research on individualdifferences among learners (Brounstein, Holahan, William, & Sawyer, 1988; Gardner,1990) has also contributed to identifying what leads to a successful learner.This study examined the loss of linguistic and reading comprehension skills amonglearners of all ability levels in FSL, with a focus on high ability learners, followingsummer vacation. In addition, between-group comparisons of motivational factors, asbased upon subjects’ pre-test scores were conducted.Tests performed consisted of an analysis of exam questions and components toconfirm an equal level of difficulty of both test versions used, as well as tests ofreliability. Pre- and post-test measures were compared to identify any loss incurred,followed by Pearson correlations and t-tests. Ability groupings were then categorized ashigh, medium, and low according to their pre-test scores. Within these groupings,111questionnaire statistics were calculated and contrasted to highlight any motivationaldifferences between them.Findings from this research suggested that language skills among FSL learners ofvarying abilities deteriorate significantly after a period of disuse. In addition, thesefindings confirmed that highly proficient FSL learners are more immune to attrition dueto their having a more stable language base. With reference to the motivationalquestionnaires, analyses concluded few significant differences among the three abilitylevels.ivTable of ContentsAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables viiiList of Figures ixAcknowledgement xDedication xiCHAPTER ONEIntroduction 1Background of the Study 2Statement of the Problem 6Significance of the Problem 6Research Questions 7VCHAPTER TWOReview of the Literature 8Motivation and Achievement 8Language Retention 10Motivation and Language Retention 13Language Attrition Over Longer Time Periods 20Conceptions of Giftedness 29High Ability Language Learners 33Individual Differences 36CHAPTER THREEResearch Method 43Introduction 43Richmond School District 43Pilot Study 44Pilot Study Results 46Sample 48Instruments 48Procedure 51Data Analysis 53viCHAPTER FOURResults.56CHAPTER FIVEDiscussion 75Limitations 75Interpretation of Results 76Conclusions 80Research Implications 80Pedagogical Recommendations 82References 85Appendix AExam Versions A and B 89Appendix BFSL Questionnaire 102Appendix CConsent Letters 105viiAppendix DTest Component Statistics by Ability Grouping 108Appendix EQuestionnaire Results by Ability Grouping 111viiiList of TablesTable 1: Statistics of Test A vs. Test B Components 56Table 2: Comparison of Means of Pre-tests A and B, and Post-tests A and B 57Table 3: Statistics of Pre- and Post-Tests 59Table 4: Pearson Correlations and t-tests Between Pre- and Post-Test Scores 59Table 5: Pre- and Post-Test Statistics, by Ability Level and Component 61Table 6: Harter Questionnaire Means by Ability Level 63ixList of FiguresFigure 1: Comparison of Test A and B Questions, Pre- and Post-Tests Combined . . 64Figure 2: Differences Between Test A and B Questions, Pre- and Post-TestsCombined 65Figure 3: Comparison of Test A and B Components, Pre- and Post-TestsCombined 66Figure 4: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Test Questions, Tests A and B Combined . . 67Figure 5: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Test Components, Tests A and BCombined 68Figure 6: Linguistic Skills Retention, Group 1 69Figure 7: Cloze Retention, Group 1 70Figure 8: Reading Skills Retention, Group 1 71Figure 9: Linguistic Skills Retention, Group 2 72Figure 10: Cloze Retention, Group 2 73Figure 11: Reading Skills Retention, Group 2 74xAcknowledgementI would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Stephen Carey, Dr. Nand Kishor, and Dr.Marion Porath for their assistance in this research, Mr. Don Lee, for the use ofhis computer, and my husband, Glenn, for his endless patience and support.DedicationThis thesis is dedicated to Mom for helping me get this far, and to Glenn forseeing me through it.xi1CHAPTER ONEIntroductionA common complaint of former students of French as a second language (FSL) isthat after having completed five or six years of study, they retain little of what they hadlearned during that time. Upon exiting secondary school, former French students rarelyfmd an opportunity to speak French in an anglophone environment, such as that of BritishColumbia, unless they choose to study in a French-speaking university, or to live in aFrancophone community. One would hope that the purpose of education is not solely toprovide a final grade, or to learn study habits and mental discipline, but rather to providea basis of knowledge upon which to build in future. Yet, as Gardner points out, “Evenlanguage teachers assume that language material can be forgotten after a period ofdisuse...” (Gardner, 1991, pp. 55).Because Richmond School District, where the study was conducted, philosophymaintains that “our [their] focus is on the learner,” (Richmond School Board, 1990, p. i)many options are open to children in this school district, all of which strive to providethem with the richest educational environment, while responding to their needs, abilities,and interests. At Richmond Senior Secondary School (RSSS), in the area of FSL, thereexist Core French (CF) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes, both of whichhave different syllabi. The content of each programme may be influential upon themaintenance of French after a period of disuse. Hence, in studying retention of the two2FSL programmes, one must look not only at the period of attrition, but also at thecharacteristics of each programme.Although each programme has a different curriculum (particularly in the secondyear), and teaching methodologies, there are common threads that weave throughout thetwo approaches, because they are both second, rather than first, language programmes.The composition of students, however, may be quite distinct. Students in the lBprogramme tend to seek out challenges. In general, they are high achievers who strive toextend their knowledge base and who enjoy working with fellow students who havesimilar interests, attitudes’, and goals. These students are also inclined to have a morepositive outlook on study in general.Background of the StudyFrench has been taught since the early 1900s in B.C. The Secondary FrenchCurriculum Guide, produced by the B.C. Ministry of Education, and current at the timeof this study, was published in 1980. It has, however, recently undergone revisions inorder to reflect the present philosophy in language teaching. The general objectivesstated in the draft document (1992) are to communicate in a meaningful and purposeful‘The terms attitude, aptitude, and motivation are often used almost interchangeably.These terms are used within this report to represent quite distinct attributes of students.For the purposes of this study, these three terms are defined as follows, as based onWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1976):Attitude - a mental position, a feeling, or an emotion with regard to a fact or state;Aptitude - a capacity, an inclination, or a natural ability for learning;Motivation - a need or desire that causes a person to act.3way, using all four language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking), and todevelop a cultural understanding via the language. One should note, however, that at thetime of this study, subjects involved had been exposed to a structured, grammar-orientedapproach to language learning.In B.C., students begin their CF study in grade five, where they may receivebetween one and three twenty minute periods per week. There is no prerequisite for entryinto the programme at the secondary level, but at the senior high level French 10 isrequired. For the purpose of this study, students will have completed French 11. Thelatter runs for three hours per week, with a total of 100 hours of classroom time.Language instruction incorporates as much French as possible.The origins of the International Baccalaureate programme date back to the postWorld War II era. At that time, several International Schools were created toaccommodate the children of diplomats and United Nations personnel. These schools’intentions were to provide the students with internationally recognized curricula and toestablish academic standards acceptable to all countries. As a base from which to work,the schools soon formed the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), with itsheadquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Here, they outlined common syllabi, curricula, andevaluation methods for the programme. The focus of the language component is to enablestudents to think internationally, and use this foreign language learning as both a trainingfor later language acquisition and “a testing ground for tolerance,” (IBO, 1987, p. 1). InNorth America, the TB is often considered to be a programme for gifted and talentedstudents.4The TB is a two year programme, for which some schools require entrance examsand interviews. Once again, depending upon the institution, hours may vary. At RSSS,the sole requirement is that students have a good standing (A,B,C+) in French 10 or thatthey require the credit for the lB diploma. The LB French course runs for three hours,forty minutes per week in the first year. Thus, students entering the programme must beprepared to devote more personal time to the course, as the forty minutes are taken fromtheir lunch break. Secondly, similar to the CF programme, the TB students involved inthis study also encountered the traditional approach to L2 teaching, but in an immersion-style setting. As a personal estimation, ninety to one hundred percent of languageinstruction and learning was conducted in French. In conjunction with the structuredapproach, however, was much discussion of topical issues. Therefore the TB could beconsidered not only a structured but also a communicative programme. As the course istaught almost entirely in French, students must be adaptable enough to overcome thisinitial change. At the junior high level, students are accustomed to most communicationbeing in English.Just as is often the case in specialized programmes, the TB has been criticized forbeing elitist, as it caters to a supposedly select group of students. Consequently, oneoften perceives high achieving children as a homogeneous group. Yet, within that group,one finds many differences in abilities and backgrounds, just as one does among averagechildren, (Matthews, in press). Therefore, children in the TB French programme wouldnot necessarily all be classified as gifted. Students follow the TB for various reasons:5they may be in the diploma programme; they may like to be challenged, or they mightsimply enjoy studying French.As is commonly known, motivation and attitudes towards study are prime factorsof successful language learning. As Gardner (1991) states:Research into the relation of attitudes and motivation with the retention of secondlanguage skills suggests that attitudes and motivation are implicated in retention,even though many of the correlations with change are generally quite low, andoften not significant. Gardner et al. (1987) show that aspects of the integrativemotive (i.e. a positive attitude toward learning French and a desire to pursue apersonal study of the language) are related to second language retention, and thereason seems to be that they tend to account for individual differences in attemptsto use the second language once training ends. Whether language fluency, skill, orknowledge is retained would tend to depend upon such use of the language, andthus attitudes and motivation can be seen to have an indirect effect on retentionthrough the mediator of use. (p. 56)As attitude and motivation are known to be inherent to success in any subjectmatter, which subsequently may lead to improved retention, one must then identify whichmotivational factors are influential upon language learning and retention. As highachievers are perceived to be self-motivated (McVey & Snow, 1988), this group has beenstudied in isolation from the rest and focussed upon more closely to see how thesechildren differ from one another in attitude and motivation. This resulting informationmay allow educators to respond better to the needs of each individual learner.6Statement of the ProblemThe purpose of this study was to identify to what extent an L2 is subject to lossfollowing a period of disuse. In addition, this research sought to determine whichintrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors were influential upon long-term retention of L2reading and writing skills, among students of different ability levels. Finally, the studyexamined individual differences in motivation within the high achieving group. Byanalzying relevant data, the study sought to identify L2 areas that were subject toattrition, and to provide the basis for recommendations leading to the improvement ofFrench as a Second Language programmes.Significance of the ProblemMost teachers, regardless of subject-area, assume that, over the summer break,students lose a percentage of the material learned the year previous. FSL teachers, inparticular, feel that their subject is even more susceptible to loss, given the fact that themajority of students will not even encounter the L2 during that time period, let alone useit. Thus, many FSL teachers conduct massive periods of review during the fall of thenew school year, to ensure that no grammatical structure is forgotten.Yet, one must ask oneself if students could truly lose most, if not all that theyhave studied after only three months of disuse. Perhaps some aspects of language, suchas oral and grammatical skills, are more open to attrition than others. Clearly, attitudeand motivation are influencing factors. Generally, if one is interested in a certainsubject, one explores it more and thinks about it more outside of class than a subject7which is less appealing. Often, with increased study, one finds greater success, and withgreater success, improved retention is a frequent result.Therefore, it would be helpful to pinpoint motivating factors which lead tosuccess. Perhaps students are motivated by marks rather than by sheer enjoyment of thesubject. Other aspects which may affect one’s increased performance in FSL mayinclude career goals, and outside factors, such as parental pressure and a work ethic,specific to a nationality or culture.To have a clearer picture of students’ backgrounds would assist in improvingfuture educational planning of FSL courses. This information may also lead to a betterresponse by the teacher to individual needs and differences among L2 learners. Ideally,one would be seeking a more successful FSL programme which would have greaterpurpose for both teachers and students.Research OuestionsThe following questions were outlined as a basis for this study:- Given the summer months as the period of disuse, to what extent are readingand written language skills subject to loss?- Which motivational factors are influential upon improved retention of FSL?- How does motivation differ among FSL learners of varying ability levels?- What is the nature of individual differences among high ability FSL learners?The literature relevant to the research questions will be reviewed in the followingchapter.8CHAPTER TWOReview of the LiteratureThe literature review is divided into seven sections dealing with Motivation andAchievement, Language Retention, Motivation and Language Retention, LanguageAttrition over Longer Time Periods, Conceptions of Giftedness, High Ability LanguageLearners, and Individual Differences.Motivation and AchievementOne of the initial investigations of the relation of language aptitude, attitudes, andmotivation, and L2 proficiency was conducted by Gardner and Lambert (1959). Theauthors felt that achievement in an L2 was dependent upon essentially the same type ofmotivation necessary as that of a child learning his or her first language. Gardner andLambert believed that there were two fundamental motivational factors for learning anL2, which they entitled the “Orientation Index”: 1) integrative, where the purpose oflanguage study was to learn more about the language group or to meet more and differentpeople; and 2) instrumental, which implied a practical, utilitarian reason for learning thelanguage.An example of an integrative approach to learning would be to connect the L2 in asocial setting and to actively seek out venues where the language is used. Listening toFrench radio or television, following Quebec or French politics, or speaking with nativespeakers living in the community, either at the local French bakery or through a Frenchcommunity centre such as Alliance Française would all constitute an integrative or9process oriented approach to improving language aquisition. An individual using aninstrumental approach would have a vested interest in learning the L2. S/he may betransferred through his/her work to a French-speaking community, or perhaps a holidayin France, Quebec, Haiti, or any French-speaking area may be planned.The distinction between the two methods is thus an interest in the subject matterfor its own sake, as opposed to an interest in the language for some other reason.Students who have a love for the language may therefore seek out opportunites to use it.Students who are taking the L2 for credit or for some other practical reason may notpursue its use to the same degree. Active communication, regardless of errors, may bemore pleasurable, and thus may have a more positive effect upon the invidual’s attitudetoward the L2. The latter, on the other hand, may be frustrating as the individualstruggles with dictionary in hand, only to possibly miss out on that personal touch withthe language, because s/he has been too preoccupied with conveying the messagecorrectly. The end result for the latter, may be a less favourable regard for the L2.Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) sample consisted of 42 male and 32 female Englishspeaking Grade 11 students from Montreal, who had had, on average, 7 years of formalFrench training, and were still studying French. The French instructor of each class wasasked to rate each student on two attributes: oral skills and aural comprehension. Theratings were made on a 5-point scale, from poor to excellent, and since the ratings werefound to be highly correlated, they were combined, then standardized, and this becamethe achievement rating, Variable 1. Variables 2-6 were based on sub-scales from the PsiLambda Foreign Language Aptitude Batteiy (Carroll, 1959), which consisted of various10linguistic aspects, such as phonetic script and words in context. Variables 9-14 includedattitudes and motivation with regard to language learning. Correlations were foundbetween French achievement and language aptitude, and French achievement and socialmotivation, that is, subjects had a vested interest in acquiring the language, such asobtaining a job, understanding French Canadians, meeting and conversing with newpeople, or any other personal reason. The conclusions from this study, not surprisingly,suggested that achievement in an L2 was correlated to both ability and motivation.Language RetentionAlthough the study of memory has been a subject of research since Ebbinghaus’commitment to it during the last century, “it is only comparatively recently (see, forexample Lambert & Freed, 1982) that attention has been devoted to the study of languageloss following a period of disuse” (Gardner, 1991, p. 55). Much of the work conductedin this area has concentrated on the roles of attitudes and motivation and how theyinfluence language loss. Other influencing factors that one must also consider arepractice, use, or attention to the language during the retention interval.With specific reference to retention of an L2, Smythe, Jutras, Bramwell, andGardner (1973) conducted a study in response to a request from the District ModernLanguages Consultant to assist him in calculating the loss of language skills as a result ofthe summer vacation between the end of French 9 and the beginning of French 10.Subjects included 220 students enrolled in the grade 9 French programme at threesecondary schools in London, Ontario. Schools were chosen to represent varyingacademic achievement levels: high, medium, and low. Pre-testing took place in late11May or early June of the students’ grade 9 year, and the post-test in September of theirgrade 10 year. Materials consisted of locally developed achievement tests, focussing onlistening and reading comprehension. Correlated t-tests were conducted separately onsubjects’ listening and reading comprehension scores to identify any differences in preand post-vacation performance. Results from this study concluded that listeningcomprehension, although minimal, showed a statsitically significant increase of 2%.Reading comprehension, however, dropped by approximately 5 %. Hence, it wasgenerally felt that considerable review of these language skills was unnecessary.Although not stated in the study, these results may have been due to the maturationprocess, or perhaps there was also an improvement in students’ Li skills, which mayhave had some influence on their L2 skills as well.In conjunction with the above research, a second study, also conducted in London,Ontario, investigated more extensively the influence of student aptitude and attitudes onL2 acquisition (Gardner, Bramwell, & Smythe, 1973). This research included studentsenrolled in grade 9, 10, and ii French courses at one secondary school. As this schoolhad just introduced the semester system, and because data were available using astandardized test--the 1961 version of the Canadian Achievement Test in French(C. A.T.F.), it was possible to test the generalizability of the results of Study 1, whileexamining the effect of other variables such as time lapse and grade of student.Similar to Study 1, students were first tested in June, upon completion of a fullyear course. Follow-up testing took place either in September or February of the nextschool year, depending upon the semester in which the student had enrolled. The12C.A.T.F. included four language components: Vocabulary, Grammar, Comprehension,and Pronunciation. Due to time pressures, (40 minute periods), each component wasgiven an arbitrary limit, rather than the open-ended 60 minutes that are normally allowedfor the whole exam. Subsequent to applying a three-factor (Grade [9 vs. 10 vs. lii,Time Lag [1st vs. 2nd semester], and Test Session [Pre vs. Post]) analysis of variancewith unequal N’s to all scores and a comparison of means using the Scheffe technique,the conclusion was that the two semester groups did not differ significantly at the time ofinitial testing in June. Hence students were not biased in their choice of semester becauseneither group was superior to the other. Thus one may not assume that the strongerstudents enrolled for the first semester session.As was to be expected, the grade 9s performed more poorly than the grade lOs,and likewise, the grade lOs did not do as well as the grade 1 is. Clearly with increasedtraining one does find increased achievement. However, one did find that students whowere enrolled in the first semester performed better than students who enrolled in thesecond semester. Surprisingly, the first semester group had improved since the Juneexam, whereas the second semester group showed a decrease in performance.These outcomes suggested that the improved achievement in September was aresult of students’ being refreshed from the summer break, and that this short a time spanmay not be detrimental to retention. This may also indicate that, although first semesterstudents may not have been academically superior to their peers, they may have preferredFrench as a course option, and thus enrolled in it in September, rather than in February.The second semester decrease might have been due to not only the longer time lapse, but13also to interference from other subjects being studied during the first semester. Fatigue,boredom, and test weariness may also be factors which contributed to the latter sessions’spoorer results. Thus course selection may have an effect upon retention results of theL2.The above findings would lend support to the notion that since attitudes andmotivation are related to language proficiency, then attitudes, motivation, and languageproficiency may be related to language retention. In other words, if a subject issuccessful in learning an L2 and is motivated to pursue his/her studies of that languagebeyond the classroom, one might conclude that, due to this personal agenda to acquire thelanguage, the subject would ultimately retain more than if s/he were less interested orcompetent in that language.Motivation and Language RetentionGardner, Lalonde, and MacPherson (1985) pursued the study of social factors, butwith specific reference to L2 attrition. The subjects for this study had been registered ina six-week immersion French course in Quebec. Both immediately after and six monthsfollowing their programme of study, students received self-assessment questionnairesbased on their perceived FSL skills. Attitudinal/motivational variables were alsoassessed, as well as their use of French during that six month period. Initially 12 factorswere involved, but these were ultimately reduced to 10 as 2 factors proved to beunrelated to other measures obtained. Of the first four factors, which were related toattitude, the first two were derived from the Attitude and Motivation Test Battery(Gardner, Clement, Smythe, & Smythe, 1979). The latter two items, numbers three and14four, were developed by the authors, specifically for this study. The four factorsincluded: 1) Attitudes toward learning French; 2) Attitudes toward French Canadians;3) Motivational Intensity; 4) French Use Since Trois-Pistoles (the location where theimmersion course took place). Clark’s (1981) Can-do reading, speaking andunderstanding scales comprised the six-item self-assessment component.For the above study, results from the language test showed that for speaking andunderstanding skills, there was no significant loss on low-level or overlearned aspects,such as greetings and weather expressions. Yet, medium-difficulty items did experiencesignificant attrition. No significant loss was noted for reading skills. A factor analysisrevealed predictably, that subjects residing in areas where French was available spentmore time using their L2 skills than subjects living in a non-French-speakingenvironment. “Analyses of variance demonstrated a loss of speaking and understandingskills as a function of attitudes as students with less favourable attitudes and motivationevidenced significant language loss on these skills” (1985, p. 519). Although positiveattitudes were related to retention of speaking, understanding, and reading skills, contraryto expectations, use of the language was found to be independent of attitudes. Clearly,the opportunity to use the language is vital to develop L2 skills, regardless of thelearner’s attitude toward the language.One may thus possibly conclude that language loss takes place with skills thathave some level of competency, but are not completely ingrained. A secondinterpretation might be that language loss befalls recently acquired skills. The final15suggestion offered would be that language loss occurs mostly on active skills, as theyrequire interaction with speakers of the other language.Similar to the aforementioned research, Gardner, Lalonde, and Moorcroft (1987)returned to the London, Ontario school district to further their work on the role ofmotivation and use with regard to L2 attrition (1987). This study involved French 12students and their loss of FSL skills following the summer break. Students were tested inJune of their grade 12 year, and in September of the following school year. Of the total98 subjects, 66 had enrolled in Grade 13 French, whereas the remaining 32 had droppedthe course. Materials for testing not only included various language aspects, such asvocabulary, grammar, style and syntax, but also a questionnaire based on theAttitude/Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, 1985) and the Can-do Scales (Clark, 1981).As one third of the subjects had chosen to drop French, a comparative studybetween the two groups was conducted. At the time of the pre-test, the groups did notdiffer significantly on any of the objective measures of French achievement, and diddiffer only on one (the speaking component) of the self-assessment pre-tests. However,the post-test results did show significant differences for nine of the ten post-test measures,on all of which the drop-out students scored more poorly. As found in earlier studies(Dorian, 1982; Edwards, 1976; Gardner, 1985), the weaker students evidenced lesspositive attitudes toward French Canadians and their study of French. These results maybe due to a negative experience of the French course, which caused the students to have amore negative attitude toward Francophones. The negative attitude of the weakerstudents may also be due to poor self-esteem and self-confidence in French, which then16carries over to a broader negative perception of anything related to the French languageand Francophones.The authors found that positive attitude and positive motivation measures did notcorrelate with loss of skill as indexed by simple change scores. Further analysis using acausal modelling analysis indicated that “attitudes and motivation were implicated insecond language acquisition and retention, the latter primarily because motivationalvariables determine the extent to which individuals will make use of the second languageduring the summer period” (Gardner, Lalonde, & Moorcroft, 1987, p. 29). One mighttherefore consider motivation to be an indicator of time on task.Further research addressing L2 retention and social factors was conducted with thegraduates of a Spanish Immersion programme at the elementary level established inCulver City, California (Snow, Padilla, & Campbell, 1988). The purpose of thisresearch was to examine the relationship between attitudes, motivation, and self-assessment of Spanish proficiency and the retention of Spanish following seven years ofimmersion education. As there had only been five graduating classes of immersion at thetime of the study, there existed only 55 possible subjects, of which 38 remained in thearea. The sample consisted of 18 males and 20 females, ranging from grades 7 to 11, aswell as the current grade 6 immersion class for purposes of a baseline comparison. Thejunior high school students had the option of continuing their bilingual studies in any orall of math, science, or Spanish for native speakers. At the senior high level, traditionalL2 classes were offered. Some students chose to continue their Spanish studies beyondelementary school; others did not.17For the high school students, the Modem Language Association (MLA) Cooperative Test of Spanish was administered, and the elementary school students receivedthe Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills in Spanish (CTBS-Espanol). The MLA consistsof the four language skills: speaking, listening comprehension, writing, and readingcomprehension. Due to time considerations, the oral component, which has to beadministered individually, was given to a randomly selected sub-group. The CTBSEspanol examines reading and mathematics. As the researchers were interested inattitudinal variables, they created a questionnaire with selected items adapted from theAttitudes and Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, et. at., 1979), supplemented by region-specific elements. ANOVA tests revealed that students who continued their studies inSpanish had higher achievement levels than those who discontinued. Although at the highschool level significant differences were found across all four language skills (writing,speaking, reading, and listening), one noted that “the first signs of language attritionoccur with the productive skills of writing and speaking” (Snow, Padilla, & Campbell,1988, p. 188), the oral aspect of which would concur to some extent with Gardner,Lalonde, and MacPherson’s (1985) research. The latter found little loss on over-learnedoral skills, but a significant loss of more difficult items. These losses in skills arerepresentative of the ‘“reverse order hypothesis,”’ (Jacobson, 1962, cited in Yoshotomi,1992). That is, what one learns earliest is best retained. The more knowledge oneacquires, the less new knowledge one retains. Although reading skills showed nosignificant loss, to Gardner and his colleagues (1985), this may have been due to sometransfer from the Li.18A second possible explanation for these results may be that the mind must sortmuch more rapidly with regard to the productive skills, because greater fluency isrequired. Comprehension skills, on the other hand, are not as easily forgotten, for whenone listens to another speaker one has the benefit of body language, and one may ask thespeaker to repeat. When reading, one has time to ponder and infer meaning from thewords and context. If this is the case, it would be important to place greater emphasis onwriting and speaking, thus better compensating for the future loss of those skills.The Snow, Padilla, and Campbell (1988) questionnaire consisted of three factors:Spanish Language Use, Motivational Intensity, and Attitudinal Results. SpanishLanguage Use dealt with the frequency of use, both in and outside of school, the latterbeing clearly voluntary frequency. Questions posed referred to contact with nativespeakers, Spanish media, literature, and frequency of travel to Spanish-speakingdestinations. Interestingly enough, 67% claimed that they spoke Spanish away fromhome, 57% read in Spanish, and 78% had travelled to a Spanish-speaking area.The Motivational Intensity questions inquired about students’ motivation withregard to becoming actively involved in their language learning process. 43 % indicatedthat they would be willing to take part in a Spanish club, and 30% said they would attendoccasionally. When asked if it had been their decision to enroll in the immersionprogramme, 40% answered that they would enroll again, and 50% said that they wereunsure. 12% would not have enrolled.Finally, the initial attitudinal scales consisted of five dimensions: 1) integrativeand instrumental motivation; 2) interest in a foreign language; 3) attitudes toward19other cultures, specifically Spanish/Hispanic; 4) need achievement and anxiety inSpanish class; 5) parental encouragement. From this data, a Pearson correlation matrixwas constructed to determine the internal consistency of the items, and to eliminate weakitems from the scale. From the remaining 66 per cent of the items, a factor analysis wasemployed to construct the attitudinal scales. The four factors were: 1) Interest in aforeign language; 2) Encouragement and pride in work; 3) Integrative orientation;4) Parental/Integrative, which included items such as, ‘“My parents feel I shouldcontinue Spanish all through school”’, and “Study of Spanish helps me better understandSpanish speaking people and their way of life” (1988, p. 192). A Chi-square test wasthen conducted on each of the following: the relationship between the four attitudinalfactors and MLA subtests; factors by Language Use; and factors by self-assessment.For the first test, Interest in Foreign Languages had a significant relationship with writingand speaking retention, and also with the use of Spanish at home. Results for the secondtest showed that Encouragement and Pride in Work was significantly related to writingretention, self-assessment of Spanish academic proficiency, and travel to Spanish-speakingcountries. The third factor, Integrative Orientation, displayed no relationship toretention, use, and self-assessment measures. Finally, the fourth test concluded that therewas a significant relationship between the Parental/Integrative factor and writing andspeaking skills, as well as use of the Spanish media, Spanish outside the Home, andTravel to Spanish-speaking countries.Overall findings from the questionnaire would suggest that “the attitudinalpredisposition underlying the four factors influences the extent to which students retain20their Spanish skills in writing and speaking. These factors appear, however, to beunrelated to retention of receptive skills in Spanish” (1988, p. 182). Thus an activepursuit to use the language in society is definitely beneficial to retention of productiveskills.Language Attrition Over Longer Time PeriodsBahrick’s (1984) theory of “Permastore-Content” may also offer an understandingof language acquisition and attrition. The purpose of Bahrick’s study was to investigateL2 “attrition covering fifty years, and to relate the results of this investigation to aresearch programme which yields benefits to teachers and students of foreign languages”(1984, p. 105). The study included 773 individuals, of which 146 students were, at thetime of testing, enrolled in a high school or college-level Spanish course, or had recentlycompleted such a course. Testing was conducted during the last week of courseattendance or within two months thereafter. Among the subjects, 587 individuals hadtaken one or more courses during their high school or college years and their Spanishinstruction had occurred from one to fifty years prior to testing. These subjects wereassigned to one of eight groups which were identified by the time lapse between their lastSpanish course and testing. Forty other individuals who had never studied Spanish werealso included as a baseline for performance, which differentiates knowledge acquiredthrough formal instruction as opposed to knowledge acquired incidentally, as well ascorrect answers through guessing.The test was comprised of ten sub-tests: 1) Reading comprehension;2) Spanish-English recall vocabulary; 3) Spanish-English recognition vocabulary;214) English-Spanish recall vocabulary; 5) English-Spanish recognition vocabulary;6) grammar recall; 7) grammar recognition; 8) idiom recall; 9) idiom recognition;and 10) word order. In accompaniment to the language testing, Bahrick added aquestionnaire designed to provide information about Spanish instruction, grades obtainedin Spanish courses, and various opportunities to actually put both Spanish and otherRomance languages to use during the retention interval. Both the test and questionnairewere completed, for the most part, in one hour. However, individuals were not restrictedto this time limit.Through an initial comparison of test results, and then by following a procedure ofregression to eliminate inconsistencies, such as length of study, Bahrick discovered that,although a large portion of the language is lost within three to six years of termination ofstudy, no further loss will be incurred for up to 25 years. Bahrick (1984) calls “theportion of knowledge with a life-span in excess of twenty-five years the permastorecontent” Q. 111). From his research, the author concluded that 1) much informationcan survive in the permastore with minimum rehearsals during the interval; 2) theamount of content in permastore is a function of the level of training, that is, the lengthof training, final course level and grade; and 3) a large proportion of semanticknowledge (especially receptive vocabulary) is retained in permastore-content.Even more recently, research in the area of L2 retention in the Dutch schoolsystem has been done. Weltens, Van Els, and Schils (1989) examined the retention ofFSL secondary students over a four year period following their training period. As theDutch system offers two durations of training, four and six years, the authors, assuming22that students with six years of study would have greater proficiency in the language,chose to focus on: a) whether different proficiency levels are equally resistant toattrition, b) the quantitative forgetting pattern, that is, whether attrition sets inimmediately after the learning process stops, slows down after a few years, and thenstabilizes itself, or proficiency initially remains at its original level, or increasessomewhat, then starts to degrade only after some time has elapsed, and c) whetherdifferent skills and varying levels within these skills are affected to the same degree byattrition processes.As the study was carried out over a period of four years, and because there weretwo groups with distinctive training periods, the authors had six groups of 25 subjects,each group with different periods of training and non-use of FSL. Three testing sessionswere held: a) immediately following training, b) two years hence, and c) four yearshence. Tests included: 1) general receptive proficiency 2) listening and readingproficiency, and 3) phonology, lexicon, and grammar. Of the three components, onlythe listening and reading proficiency were taken from tests developed by the DutchNational Institute for Educational Measurement. The other two sections were created bythe authors. Apart from the language test battery, subjects were also given a number ofself-assessment measures in which they were to rate their proficiency of French on a 5-point scale from (1) very bad to (5) very good. The authors also included Clark’s (1981)Can-do Scales for listening and reading proficiency.A comparative study was conducted among the various groups, the results ofwhich demonstrated that the number of years of training had a definitely positive23influence upon language proficiency, regardless of the number of years of non-use.However, it is interesting to note that with the period of non-use, an actual increase inproficiency of global skills occurred, particularly for the subjects with four years oftraining. This may be due to the influence of the subjects’ first language (Li), topossible contact and use of the L2 during the summer months, or simply the aging andmaturation process. The only component that demonstrated any remarked loss was thatof lexicon and grammar, for which 10 to 15% of the original knowledge had decreased.Unlike the test results, subjects’ self-perception of language proficiency was much morenegative. The reported loss was about the same for both the four and six year groups,and the loss was concentrated in the first two years of non-use. This too, was reflectedin the Can-do scales.In response to the authors’ initial questions, the amount of attrition wassurprisingly small. Possible explanations for this may be due to the study of otherforeign languages, further academic training, or simply cognitive maturation. Subjectswere also given no time limit, and were only tested on receptive skills. Thus, it wasfound that no serious drop in proficiency occurs after four years. Secondly, the dataseemed to suggest, for the training levels studied, that attrition is independent of traininglevel. Finally, the authors were able to identify specific areas of knowledge that weresusceptible to attrition. With regard to the self-assessment, it was felt that the subjectswere perhaps thinking of real communicative situations in which they would have torespond on the spot, rather than having much time to think, thus causing them to have apoorer perception of their knowledge-base.24Subsequent to this initial effort, Schils and Weltens (1992) pursued their study oflanguage loss, but with specific reference to levels of proficiency. Having taken theoriginal data, the two authors analyzed the tests they had administered to identify anyinconsistencies that may have existed, and which areas were sensitive to differences inlanguage proficiency. Schils and Weltens tried to answer the question of why the dozetest indicated no change in general proficiency and the listening and reading tests showedan increase. Earlier research attempts at an explanation suggested that the increase mayhave been a result of “an increase in ‘universal’ language proficiency - not just French -as a result of continued learning of other foreign languages and continued acquisition, tosome degree, of the mother tongue” (Schils & Weltens, 1992, p. 179).The reliability of the results was assessed by using a computer-based bootstrapapproach. This method is used to study the “sampling distribution of statistics, especiallyin situations where an analytical sampling theory of the particular statistic is (as yet)lacking, or where the assumptions underlying an existing sampling theory are not met”(1992, p. 179). As a result of this analysis, the authors found that the doze test was amuch more valid indicator of French language proficiency than the listening and readingcomprehension tests. The reading comprehension component appeared to be quitesensitive to differences in universal language proficiency, whereas the listeningcomprehension test tended to hold an intermediate position in this respect. The authorsacknowledged that the reading selection may have been less suitable for adults, as it wasinitially directed to an adolescent audience. With regard to the listening component, itwas discovered that indeed two thirds of the material tested listening comprehension, but25there were strong indications that the other third tested not only listening skills, but also ageneral intelligence or knowledge of the world. These factors may explain the lack ofloss of language skills, as identified in the original research.The one item that remains inconsistent is that of the doze test. Although theanalysis showed that the test relied heavily on the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary,those items being the areas which apparently suffer the greatest loss from disuse, thedoze test itself failed to reveal any loss. Gardner et al. (1987) had found similar resultsin their research. Schils and Weltens thus concluded, as had Gardner et al., that theslight loss of language, and in some instances growth of language, only highlighted thedifficulty of measuring change using objective measures.Once again one sees the parallel between the loss of productive skills versus theretention of comprehension skills. Similar to the results found from the study conductedon Spanish Immersion graduates (Snow, Padilla, & Campbell, 1988), Schils and Weltens’(1989, 1992) research, which focussed particularly on comprehension skills, has shownthat these skills suffer little attrition after a period of non-use. This may be due either tothe fact that the measures used were not sensitive enough to loss, and therefore the resultswere less obvious, or that listening and reading are simply less interactive skills than arespeaking and writing. Bahrick’s (1984) theory of permastore-content, as mentionedearlier, which identifies a certain percentage of knowledge immune to attrition, may alsoassist in explaining the improved retention of receptive L2 skills.Age and the maturation process must also be factors to consider when assessingL2 attrition (Carey, 1984; Olshtain, 1989). Olshtain (1989) conducted a longitudinal26study of the attrition of English as an L2 among Hebrew-speaking children, aged 5 to 14,living in an English-dominant environment. Upon their return to the Hebrew-dominantenvironment, Olshtain found that those children with native-like fluency in Englishsuffered gradual attrition of the L2. Results also revealed that the younger children, aged5 to 8 years old, showed a reversal process of acquisition in their uses of irregular nounplural forms and verb past forms, whereas the older children did not. Olshtain (1986)suggested “that the older children’s knowledge of irregular forms had reached a level ofstability which reduced the possibility of losing them despite the lack of positivefeedback” (cited in Yoshotomi, 1992, p. 299). Oral and written skills also demonstratedgreater loss among the younger children. “Thus it may be hypothesized that the youngerthe learner and the more limited the learner’s level of literacy in the target language, thestronger attrition might be under similar circumstances (Berman & Olshtain, 1983;Cohen, 1989)” (cited in Olshtain, 1989).Further explanation of the aforementioned results may relate to the “reverseorder” and “inverse relation” hypotheses (Jacobson, 1962, as cited in Yoshitomi, 1992),which are two related but different characteristics of language loss. The reverse orderhypothesis “states that attrition is the mirror image of acquisition, that is, the last thinglearned is the first to be forgotten” (Yoshitomi, 1992, p. 295). This process wouldparallel that of L2 learning, for one acquires the receptive skills of listening and readingfirst, followed by the productive skills of writing and speaking. The inverse relationhypothesis suggests that “there is an inverse relationship between proficiency level priorto the onset of attrition and the rate and/or the amount of loss. In other words, what is27learned best is least forgotten, and those who have learned better, or become moreproficient, are less vulnerable to loss” (Yoshitomi, 1992, p. 296). This hypothesis wouldlend support to the notion that a proficient learner would have a more stable grasp of thelanguage, and would thus be less susceptible to language loss. A weaker learner, on theother hand, due to his/her more unstable knowledge-base, would be more apt to forgetthe L2 after a period of disuse. This type of situation creates the same measurementproblem as a ceiling effect. When one tests overlearned aspects, little loss of the L2,following the holiday break, may occur, because these items are so ingrained.It is noteworthy that, apart from the Schils and Weltens (1989,1992) studiesmentioned, which do not focus on attitudes per Se, attitudes are influential upon retentionof writing and speaking skills, but appear to be unrelated to listening and reading. Themore positive the attitude, the greater the retention of the productive skills of writing andspeaking. Students who enjoy learning other languages will seek out opportunities to usetheir new language skills. The main goal of any language learning is to communicate,and there are few better ways than by practising with native speakers, either by letter, orface-to-face.It is this personal link that may hold the key to tomorrow. As the awareness of aworld economy heightens with the approach of the year 2000, one sees a greateremphasis placed upon foreign language instruction and study. Nations may no longerthink of themselves as isolated, for with the advancement of technology, a globalcommunity is a reality. To maintain a competitive edge, improved communication,particularly in the international target languages, is becoming a necessity.28Consequently, language attrition is of great concern on a much broader scale.The U.S. government has encountered continual difficulties both in finding staff who arecompetent in other languages, as well as English, and in maintaining their competencylevels of those languages (Lowe, 1982). How can one conduct foreign policy effectivelyif language loss increases with time? Lowe has found that in the U.S., school languagerequirements have diminished. Consequently, the number of foreign languageprogrammes have been reduced, and in some instances eliminated. As a result, personnelfully qualified for work in foreign service are difficult to find. The remainingalternatives are to retain existing employees, or to hire employees with foreign languageskills who may have shortcomings in the standard language. Lowe points out that theU.S. government has thus had to expand its budget continually, to guarantee that suitableforeign language skills are accessible when needed.The U.S. shortfall in foreign language programmes, which was a finding of thePresident’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1982), receivedseveral responses. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (1982) focussed upon“Foreign Languages for the Gifted and Talented.” Their position was not one of offeringthese options only to gifted children. On the contrary, they were in favour of equalopportunity for all. Yet, the committee felt that they should take “advantage of thespecial qualities of academically gifted children to help produce something this countrysorely needs: a cadre of real bilinguals competent in the languages widely usedinternationally in today’s increasingly interdependent world” (p. 1). The NationalCouncil of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages (1982) also felt that, although29language study should be encouraged for all students, the lack thereof would be mostdetrimental to the gifted. Because the Council envisioned these children as leaders of thenation’s business, governmental, and educational sectors, the members believed the giftedshould be allowed to broaden their educational experience by providing them withopportunities for personal enrichment. Yet, in order to create this cadre of bilingualspeakers, the U.S. Congress needed to establish a certain criteria for its gifted andtalented foreign language programmes.Conceptions of GiftednessWhen speaking of giftedness, one enters upon a complex issue. Many attempts toanswer the question, “Who are the gifted?” have been made, some with greater successthan others. Basically, there exist two schools of thought: the implicit and the explicittheorists. Implicit theorists offer definitions of giftedness, that is, explanations ordescriptions of what constitutes a gifted individual, according to their own perceptions.Due to their definitional nature, implicit theories cannot be tested, simply because theyare exactly that: definitions. “Explicit theorists presuppose definitions, and seek tointerrelate such definitions to a network of psychological or educational theory and data”(Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, p. 3). Such theories may therefore be tested, and proventrue or false; however the definitions upon which they are based may not be falsified.One must thus always keep in mind the underlying conception of giftedness that hascreated the theory and data, and determine whether this conception is a valid one.Implicit theorists, such as Tannenbaum, Renzuffi, Gallagher, Courtright,Feldhusen, Haensly, Reynolds, and Nash (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986) maintain four30main themes : 1) one must first identify the domain that serves as the basis of one’sdefinition, that is, from a society’s, individual’s, or psychological perspective;2) cognitive abilities form an essential part of giftedness; 3) motivation is a primaryprerequisite to giftedness; 4) the developmental course of one’s talents is extremelyimportant; that is, how one responds to rewards, nonrewards, and punishments (whichmay be related to cultural influences, such as a work ethic) will determine in some partwhether an individual is gifted, and in what respect s/he is so identified; 5) coalescence,that is, the combination of one’s abilities working together in a motivated way andoutside societal forces which may allow for a demonstration of one’s giftedness.Explicit theoretical approaches are divided into two categories: cognitive theoryand developmental theory. Cognitive theorists, such as Jackson, Butterfield, Borkowski,Peck, Davidson, and Sternberg (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986) highlight four mainthemes: 1) one concentrates not on the lexical meaning of giftedness, but rather on themechanics behind the term; that is, in order to be identified as gifted, what is it that aperson can do well? 2) one uses an isolation-of-variables strategy for understanding thecognitive mechanisms underlying giftedness; that is, one will gain depth in theunderstanding of a single characteristic while emphasizing the cognitive in intellectualfunctioning; 3) there is a greater emphasis on higher- rather than lower-level processesin understanding giftedness; 4) one is committed to theory-driven empirical research asthe means to advance one’s knowledge of giftedness.The second heading under explicit-theoretical approaches is that of developmentaltheory. Gruber, Ciskszentmihalyi, Robinson, Erikson, Feldman, Walters, H. Gardner,31Albert, and Runco (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986) maintain six common themes:1) development of giftedness carries on throughout one’s lifetime; it does not stop atlate adolescence; 2) gifted individuals excel in one or more areas; they do not progressrapidly through the Piagetian stages of development, mastering various operations morequickly than do others; rather, extraordinary individuals excel in one or more domains oftalent, in which their progress may be quite idiosyncratic; 3) giftedness is defined,shaped, and adjudged in a societal milieu; 4) case-study analysis of gifted individuals isessential; 5) naturalistic or biographical observation rather than laboratory techniques isthe preferred method when studying the gifted; 6) socio-emotional aspects ofdevelopment are of equal importance as are cognitive aspects.Given this variability in conceptions of giftedness, and because a consistentworking definition was essential, the U.S. Congress passed the following:Gifted and talented children are now referred to as, “children who give evidenceof high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic,leadership capacity, or specific academic fields, and who require services oractivities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop suchcapabilities” (Sec. 582, cited in Clark, 1988, p. 6).During this research, an explicit theoretical approach to studying high ability L2learners was used. Assessment in the area of language content may identify strongerlanguage capabilities, but as to why these children may be more talented than averagelearners is aided by observation and ascertaining their personal objectives in studying theL2 and their inner motivation and drive to pursue study beyond the basics. Empiricalmeasurements may give us a broad picture of high ability children. However, a closerlook at the individuals may offer greater detail. Each child is different in his/her32approach to learning an L2. By offering a venue, a specialized programme, such as theInternational Baccalaureate, one may explore students’ options, develop further skills, andultimately achieve functional bilingualism in the L2. Through this focussed study, withina classroom setting, one may attain greater insight into the individual aspects of eachlearner. Once isolated and identified, one may better understand what is befitting of thetitle of gifted.Just as the definitions of giftedness are multi-faceted, so are levels of giftedness.As McVey and Snow (1988) have pointed out, one may not think of students as equally‘gifted’, as, in effect, it is their performance that is considered gifted. Gifted cognitiveprocessing differs not only from that of average performance, but also there may existmany styles and degrees of gifted performance. Research has shown that many highability individuals tend to be more idosyncratic when processing information. As aresult, their knowledge system is often well organized and may be readily tapped. Theseindividuals work well both in familiar and foreign or complex situations.Given this flexibility in thinking and organizing information, persons of highability would have an obvious advantage in learning an L2. To be constantly confrontedwith the unknown can be rather intimidating at the best of times. Having the capabilityto classify this knowledge with ease could only facilitate such a situation. Such skillsmay well lend to superior retention of an L2 after a period of disuse. The data from thiscurrent study may illuminate L2 areas which may benefit from this greater flexibility incognitive processing.33High Ability Language LearnersHow then might a good L2 learner be different? As the Ontario Institute forStudies in Education (OISE) (1975) has researched and outlined, the successful L2 learnerhas a specific set of characteristics, some of which may apply to good students and giftedlearners in general:1. Field independence--the students’ facility in separating information from noise,that is, selecting appropriate linguistic stimuli while ignoring inappropriate ones.2. Ambiguity tolerance--the learner’s ability to cope better with the new, thedifferent, the paradoxical in a given task.3. Balanced generalization--the ability of good second language learners to classifylinguistic data in neither too wide nor too narrow a manner. Good languagelearners use the target language as a separate reference system independent of thenative language.4. Extroversion--students who are successful in oral fluency in the target languageusually possess a degree of aggressiveness and daring.5. Good language learners know something about their learning style. Regardlessof the teacher’s style or the style of the materials, the learners can integratethings into their own cognitive styles.6. Successful language learners feel comfortable taking risks, and they do so often.They are willing to place themselves in situations where they might feel silly inorder to communicate their intentions by any means with their power.7. A successful language learner actively seeks arenas in which to use the targetlanguages.8. They are excellent guessers. They manipulate linguistic clues to form hypothesesor guesses, which are then tested and evaluated.9. Successful language learners pay attention to form as well as meaning. Theyconsciously want to know about underlying patterns and rule-governedrelationships. They are excellent monitors of their own target language use, andthey request judgment and correction from native speakers of the target language.10. Good second language learners quickly adjust to the new target language as earlyas possible.3411. A marked degree of empathy is a major characteristic of successful secondlanguage learners. They are sensitive to others and have outgoing relationshipswith people around them. (Cited in Bartz, 1982, p. 330).It has also been suggested that gifted children can deal with extraordinaryquantities of information and, in particular, have unusual retentiveness (Clark, 1988).Studies in neurobiology and the efficiency of language processing (Haier et al., 1988cited in Yoshotomi, 1992) have shown that “people with high scores on intelligence testsrequire less brain energy than people with lower scores” (Yoshotomi, 1992, p. 306).Through use of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, Haier et al. (1988) examinedthe intensity of brain activity by recording the amount of injected substance (aradioactively tagged glucose compound) absorbed by brain cells while subjects wereinvolved in cognitive tasks. Results from this research found that not only did proficienttask performers show the least active brain metabolism, but also that this informationimplied that highly proficient L2 learners may be energy-efficient as well.In sum, proficient L2 learners may have a rich connection of networks in long-term memory which enables energy-efficient processing when acquiring new L2knowledge. The neuronal connectivity in long-term memory is better developedand more extensive, thus, less immune to loss. In the same vein, the criticalthreshold of L2 knowledge may correspond to a certain amount and strength ofstorage in long-term memory which enable acquisition to be more energyconserving (Yoshotomi, 1992, p. 307).These superior skills in processing language are extremely beneficial, particularlyin the early stages of learning an L2. Although all students acquire knowledge in adifferent manner, each individual excels in his/her own way. A gifted language learnermay have most if not all of the above-mentioned talents; thus teachers must be prepared35to answer a wide range of needs among both average and gifted students (Garfinkel &Prentice, 1985).To date, research in language loss has focussed mainly upon attitude andmotivation as inherent factors to superior retention after a period of disuse of the L2.Work has also been done in the area of gifted and talented L2 learners, and inneurobiology and language learning. Yet, very little study has seen an interconnectednessamong these subjects. Achievement motivation, however, may offer that link. Fromstudies which combined cognitive and motivational aptitudes (Snow, 1987), oneconcluded that “among highly able students the instructional treatment that works bestdepends on differences in need for achievement and fear of failure” (McVey & Snow,1988, p. 105). Thus, motivation may not be considered a force separate from cognitiveprocessing, but rather an “integral aspect of learning that affects both immediate cognitiveperformance and long term or cumulative achievement” (McVey & Snow, 1988, p. 105).This latter aspect may offer insight into whether or not superior performance maynecessarily predict superior retention.With respect to individual differences (McVey & Snow, 1988), one may expect tosee motivational processes to be distinct both within as well as between individuals.Aspects such as seeking out challenges, fighting boredom, and wanting to explore beyondthe boundaries may well offer important sources of individual differences in giftedperformance.Results from this present study may offer an improved understanding of L2retention afer a period of disuse, and how motivational factors may influence improved36retention, both among average and high ability learners. As each individual has his/herown pursuits, interests, needs, and personality, these differences should form the basis ofa teacher’s educational planning. Providing a response to those needs and differencesmay also lead toa superior performance by all, students and teachers alike.Individual DifferencesIn Gardner’s (1991) review of L2 learning in adults, he highlights four classes ofindividual difference variables: attitudes and motivation, language aptitude andinteffigence, language learning strategies, and personality variables.Initially, Gardner points to the question of an optimal age at which to learn an L2.His discussion centres around results from past research (Smythe, Stennett & Gardner,1975) which included subjects at different ages. Conclusions were rather mixed.Although they found older individuals to be more efficient learners than younger ones,they nonetheless favoured the early introduction of L2 learning. Reasons given were:a) the greater time factor to absorb the language; and b) young children are less likelyto have already developed attitudinal/motivational characteristics that could impedesuccessful language learning. Gardner (1991) suggests that although there are differentproblems facing adult L2 learners from those facing children, the underlying processesare not that different.Gardner’s study of adults used college-level students of 18-19 years old. Theresearch conducted at RSSS involved late adolescents, of 16-17 years of age, and withinthat group focussed on high ability students. As Gardner noted, language learningprocesses differ little between adults and children. Consequently, one may deduce that37the older a child is, the closer his/her attributes resemble those of an adult. Manycharacteristics of adults, as highlighted by the author, are identical to those from OISE’s(1975) description of gifted L2 learners. Thus, when comparing attributes of an averageadolescent L2 learner, a high ability adolscent L2 learner, and an average adult L2learner, one finds that the high ability adolescent is much more like the adult learner thanis the average adolescent.Gardner speaks of the conceptual development of adults as both an asset and adrawback to language learning. Because many adults have problem-solving experienceand a well-developed level of intellectual functioning, they are accustomed tocommunicating on a relatively sophisticated scale. Writing, speaking, or processinginformation in an L2 can often be cause for frustration, as ideas may be in one’s mind,but expression thereof may be awkward or impossible. Yet, with maturity comespatience; adults may be willing to pace themselves better as they understand that languagelearning is a long and on-going process. High achieving adolescents are faced with asimilar situation. From personal experience, the TB is treated like a super-late immersionprogramme; consequently, it is not uncommon to find students tongue-tied andstammering over the simplest of phrases, when it would be so much easier to expressthemselves in English. Yet, the high achievers’ tolerance level (OISE, 1975) often seemsto be greater than that of an average student, thus their coping skills are obviously betterrefined. Gardner (1991) notes that these types of individual differences in conceptual andaffective development should be considered when interpreting data.38Attitudes, as mentioned earlier, may greatly influence language proficiency.Consequently, as Gardner points out, adults’ well-articulated sense of self-identity mayinfluence L2 acquisition. Because language is an integral part of one’s being, for someindividuals learning an L2 may be considered “an attack on their perceptions of self”(Gardner, 1991, p. 3). Fear of losing touch with one’s own culture has been found tocorrelate with low self-ratings of L2 proficiency. Thus, depending upon how anindividual perceives the L2 may well predict his/her success in the target tongue.Although the adoption of immersion programmes has widened the appreciation ofstudying French, the teaching of FSL on the west coast of British Columbia has longbeen an uphill battle. Prejudices exist and are passed on from generation to generation.Therefore, for most children, FSL is simply a requirement or prerequisite to furtherstudy.Personality variables are Gardner’s last consideration in his review of L2 learningin adults. Highlighted aspects include elements from OISE’s (1975) list of characteristicsof good language learners: a) they have a willingness for risk-taking; b) they are goodguessers; and c) they make active use of the language. Gardner (1991) points toBeebe’s (1983) argument that this risk-taker trait is linked with perceptions of selfidentity, feelings of self-esteem and motivational determinants of L2 proficiency.Certainly submitting oneself to a foreign environment can be risky. A feeling ofembarrassment and awkwardness as one fumbles for words is not uncommon. Gardnerstates that most studies conclude that anxiety has a negative effect upon L2 proficiency.39A second discussion dealing with individual differences focusses on theexpectations and motivations of students involved in a summer programme for the gifted(Brounstein, Holahan, & Sawyer, 1988). Subjects for this study included 612 extremelygifted adolescents from 16 states who were accepted to the Talent Identification Program(TIP)--two three-week terms of high-level academic courses offered at Duke University inNorth Carolina. This programme has been running since 1981 and has stringent entrancerequirements. Students must first of all score in at least the 97th percentile on agenormed achievement tests, and, to be accepted to the programme itself, students mustscore at or above the 70th percentile of college-bound seniors on Math and Verbalsubsections of the Scholastic Aptitude Test.The purpose of the TIP study was to determine if any differences in expectations,motivations, satisfaction, and performance existed among the 612 candidates. Although“the public, and many researchers as well, seem to view highly able students ascomprising a single, homogeneous group, simply referred to as ‘the gifted’ “(McVey &Snow, p. 99), Brounstein et. al. (1988) discovered three discernible groups among theparticipants: a) Academically-Oriented; b) Socially-Oriented; and c) HighlyMotivated-Gregarious. These characteristics were derived from analyses of aquestionnaire developed specifically for this research. Assessment included academic andsocial expectations and attitudes of students as well as outcomes of their participation inTIP’s summer residential program. Specifically the questionnaire covered demographicinformation, reasons for attending, expectations about quality of course content and40teaching and social activities, satisfaction with amount learned, academic performance,and attitudes regarding their subsequent return to the program.Initially, a comparison of the two semesters was conducted. Few differencesbetween the two groups were found within the demographic and ability variables.Having concluded the groups to be alike, the authors continued their principalcomponents analyses first for each semester, and then for the group as a whole. Resultsfrom this study showed that students were extremely satisfied with their social life andwith their academic performance within the program. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 5being the most positive rating, social activities scored a mean of 4.5, and academicability scored 4.5 and 4 for the two semesters. Further, 91 % of students stated that theybenefitted from the program, and 94% said that were it their decision, they woulddefmitely return the following summer. Finally, almost all participants (97.3%) claimedthat academic challenge was a motivating factor in their attending the program. This lastfinding, more than any other, led to the conclusion that the program is a success.Teacher evaluations of student performance also correlated highly with the five traitsrated.From the original grouping of extremely gifted adolescents, statistical analysesproduced three distinct clusters of students. The Academically Oriented group, whichwas the largest of the three, representing 54% of the sample, was composed of studentswhose main focus regarding expectations, satisfactions, and outcomes was on academics.Although this group reported high expectations of its academic performance, it reported41rather low levels of academic motivation to attend the program, and evidenced the lowestrate of gregariousness and social motivation.The second group, Socially Oriented, which comprised 35 % of the whole,displayed the lowest levels of Academic Expectations and Outcomes. These studentswere only moderately motivated to attend TIP relative to others, and they weremoderately gregarious. Consequently, this cluster tended to stress social as compared toacademic expectations and outcomes.The final and smallest group (11 %) represented the Highly Motivated-Gregariouscomponent. These students demonstrated a high degree of motivation both socially andacademically, and they were exceptionally gregarious. Their academic expectations weremoderate, and they achieved moderate levels of academic success.The aforementioned research has clearly discovered that many distinct groupingsdo exist among a high achieving population which may initially appear homogeneous.These results have obvious implications for educators and for society in general. Nolonger may one perceive persons of high ability as a single cluster. Nor may onecontinue to instruct them as such. Even within a group of academically comparablestudents, one will find individual needs, attitudes, and motivational characteristics. It isto that which one must respond, for these aspects have proven to be influential upon bothlearning and an individual’s development of personal and professional goals. Withrespect to L2 learning, one can see significant benefits to all students. By identifyingparticular objectives for themselves, students may better direct their learning, leading toownership of the, language and consequently improved interest and retention. Once42discovered, an instructor may assist a student in exploring this new language and culture,and to encounter a world which before may have been unknown or ignored. To that end,one achieves language acquisition, active language use, and retention of language.Although the area of L2 retention is a relatively new field, throughout the above-mentioned research factors that seem to predominate as predictors of retention are attitudeand motivation. Given this information, one may then apply these attitudinal andmotivational factors to one’s classroom situation. It is not uncommon for a teacher to beinstrumental in awakening a student to a subject area. As research has shown thatattitude and motivation are related to language proficiency, and that language proficiencyis related to language retention, one may conclude that, given a stimulating learningmilieu, greater long-term success may be achieved. Given a greater number of bilingualspeakers, one may eventually see improved global communication.As this study focussed upon retention of an L2 and motivational factors influentialthereupon, the following hypotheses were outlined prior to beginning this research:- A loss of knowledge in written language and reading comprehension skillswould be found after the point of disuse.- Students with a more positive attitude toward the language would have betterretention of written and reading comprehension skills in FSL.- Because little is known about the nature of individual differences among highability FSL learners, no formal hypothesis was stated. Rather, this part of thestudy has addressed the question of what attitudinal, motivational, andachievement differences exist among high ability FSL learners.Methodology used to test these hypotheses is presented in the following chapters.43CHAPTER THREEResearch MethodIntroductionIn this chapter the research method is presented. The chapter begins with a briefdescription of the Richmond School District and follows with a summary of a pilot studyconducted the year previous to this research. Subsequent to the pilot review is adescription of the sample of FSL students involved in this research, and of theconstruction of the instruments used. The data collection procedures are explained andthe method for analyzing the data is outlined.Richmond School DistrictRichmond is a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Its school districthas currently a junior-senior school system. The junior grades run from eight to ten, andthe senior schools complete with eleven and twelve. This study took place at one of thesenior high schools, Richmond Senior Secondary (RSSS). Richmond has a broad rangeof nationalities, and the socio-economic standing of the district, as a whole, is middleclass. The catchment area for RSSS, on the other hand, tends to be upper middle-class;many families have professional backgrounds, and this school does have a wide ethniccross-section. Approximately 40% of the population may be classified as Asian, 40% asCaucasian, 10% as East Indian, and 10% as mixed nationalities.44Pilot StudyDuring the second week of September, 1992, a pilot study was conducted atRSSS, involving students entering French 11 and TB French 11. At that time, studentswrote an exam consisting of four components: listening comprehension in the form of adictation, linguistic questions with multiple choice options, a reading comprehensionpassage with multiple choice answers, and finally a written dialogue composition. Thisexam was part of the French 11 curriculum, and was based on the French 10 contentmaterial. Its purpose was not only to assess retention, but also to act as a placementexam at the beginning of the year. By administering such a test, teachers had a betteridea of students’ backgrounds, and could thus direct their planning and teachingaccordingly. To assess pure retention of the language, students were not told of the testin advance. They were reassured that this was purely an evaluation of the knowledgethey had retained, and that the results could only enhance, not hinder, their standing.The aforementioned exam constituted the post-test of this pilot study. As studentshad come from various junior high schools, a pre-test was not feasible. Therefore thestudents’ final Grade 10 letter grade, calculated as a percentage, was the standingidentified as the pre-test result. In some cases an actual percentage was obtained, butwhere this was not possible, the median of the letter grade percentage equivalent (asidentified by the B.C. Ministry of Education), was the value given to that letter grade.Letter grade equivalents are as follows: A = 86% to 100%; B = 73% to 85 %;C+ = 67% to 72%; C = 60% to 66%; C- = 50% to 59%; D = 40% to 49%;E = 39% and below. Hence, if a student received a B as a final letter grade, the median45value, that is, 79%, was the pre-test score given. As this was clearly not an exact valuefor the pre-test, this rather vague assessment was avoided in the subsequent study byengaging subjects who were exiting French 11 and entering French 12, thus allowing forboth a pre- and a post-test.In conjunction with the test, students were asked to complete a questionnaire basedon their likes and dislikes of FSL, their use of the language beyond school, and theirreasons for taking French. The first section, Enjoyment of Studying French,incorporated that precise question, followed by seven items regarding specific likes anddislikes of their study of French, such as grammar, oral, listening, and reading practice.Section 2 involved use of the language outside of class. For both sections one and two,students responded Yes, It’s OK, or No. Section 3 inquired about students’ enrolling inFrench 12, and reasons for their enrolment. Section 4 offered a list of 15 possiblereasons for students’ taking French, which subjects checked if applicable. Section 5inquired about the use of studying FSL in B.C. or at all, and, finally, section 6 regardedthe number of years students had studied French, and if any or all of that time had beenin an immersion programme. Students were informed that the data provided to theirteachers would be extremely important, and would serve as a basis for the improvementof future FSL programmes. Students were also told that the information would be keptconfidential and that this would be achieved by coding subjects by number.Tests of correlation were first conducted on all questionnaire results, the post-testmark, the Grade 10 final mark, the difference between the two marks, and the sum of thepositive attitudes. The validity of each correlation was determined by using a t-test.47flaws in the questionnaire format, as no true numerical value could be attached to anyresponses when calculating results. Consequently, the questionnaire was restructured forthis present study, by using a scale format of 1 to 5. Nevertheless, the results did concurwith former research in the area of how attitudes and motivation are influential uponsuccess and achievement.Although there tended to be a preponderance of females within the random sampleselected (21 females to 15 males), gender proved to have no correlation with retention ofthe L2. Ability was not influential upon choice of furthering one’s studies, as studentsfrom a wide range of skill levels chose to enrol in French 12. There was also nocorrelation between skill level and the thought that there was a use for studying French inBritish Columbia.For the top 20% grouping, results suggested that high ability subjects have greaterretention of an L2 than do average ability subjects. However, of the top 20%, only38.9% of the subjects had selected the lB French programme. This finding suggestedthat many of the high ability students prefer CF to the TB. This may be due to the factthat these students have already a heavy academic load and do not wish to be furtherburdened, or perhaps they are under the impression that they will be more successful inCF than TB because it is supposedly easier. This is an unfortunate illusion, for, as apersonal estimation, students from the TB invariably receive better marks on provincialexams than students from the CF programme, not because they are of higher ability, butbecause they have had a broader and deeper exposure to the language. These findingsmay also suggest that although students may receive comparable scholastic results, one48may not perceive them as a homogeneous group. High ability students have manyindividual differences, rationales, and preferences for studying French and a specific FSLprogramme, just as do average ability children.Although all students within the high ability range believed it important to studyFrench, of the CF group, one found a more skeptical attitude about the usefulness ofstudying French in B.C. These students felt that because B.C. is an English-speakingsociety, there was really no need to use French. With regard to their decision abouttalcing French 12, all TB students answered yes, whereas 3 CF subjects chose not tocontinue on, mainly because they did not need it for their programme.Having conducted a pilot study helped to foresee possible problems that couldarise during the actual study. Thus, the year after the pilot study marked the beginningof the main research. What follows is a description of the study and analyses performedon the data.SampleFor the present study, students were taken from four classes of French 12students, and one class of TB French 12, at RSSS. Students ranged from sixteen toeighteen years of age and included 52 females and 27 males, to give a total number of 79subjects. The mean age of all subjects was 17 years, 2.5 months.InstrumentsIn order to obtain data that was curriculum-specific, both the pre- and post-tests,which were derived from products of the Richmond School District, but developed forthis research, concentrated on written language skills and reading comprehension. The49test consisted of three components: a) grammar and vocabulary; b) a doze passage;and c) a reading comprehension passage. The grammar section contained 30 questionsand the doze and reading sections posed 8 and 7 questions, respectively, to give a totalof 45 questions. Section one was based on the French 11 curriculum, which includedstructures and vocabulary covered throughout the year. Section two, the dozeparagraphs, was taken and adapted from the workbook that accompanies Le FrancaisInternational 4 (Calvet, Germain, LeBlanc, & Rondeau, 1975) text. Levels 1 to 4 of thispublication were those that the students had followed throughout both junior and seniorhigh school. Section three, the reading comprehension passages, were selected fromHeath’s (1992) reader, Tous Ensemble! Réflexions, and the questions for the readingwere composed specifically for this research. AU questions followed a multiple choiceformat, (see Appendix A for copies of the tests). To assess motivation toward the studyof FSL, two questionnaires (see Appendix B) were used: a) Harter’s (1980) Scale ofIntrinsic VersuGs Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom, which asked students torespond to various items centered around motivational aspects within the classroom, whilefocussing on their study of FSL; and b) a questionnaire developed for this study whichconcentrated on likes arid dislikes of studying FSL, use outside the classroom, andreasons for studying French.For the Harter questionnaire, students were asked to check the box which bestsuited them. Statements were of a two-choice format: one half represented intrinsicmotivation, and the other half extrinsic. Boxes ranged from 1 to 4, where 1 and 4meant “Really true for me,” and boxes 2 and 3 signified “Sort of true for me.” A value50of 1 or 2 referred to extrinsic orientation, and 3 and 4 to intrinsic. Sample questionsincluded references to: 1) Preference for Challenge vs. Preference for Easy WorkAssigned, e.g. “Some kids like hard work because it’s a challenge BUT Other kidsprefer easy work that they are sure they can do;” 2) Curiosity/Interest vs. Pleasing theTeacher, Getting Grades, e.g. “Some kids work on problems to learn how to solve themBUT Other kids work on problems because you’re supposed to;” 3) IndependentMastery vs. Dependence on the Teacher, e.g. “When some kids don’t understandsomething right away they want the teacher to tell them the answer BUT Other kidswould rather try and figure it out by themselves;” 4) Independent Judgement vs.Reliance on the Teacher’s Judgement, e.g. “Some kids almost always think that what theteacher says is O.K. BUT Other kids sometimes think their own ideas arebetter;” 5) Internal Criteria for Success/Failure vs. External Criteria, e.g. “Some kidsknow when they’ve made mistakes without checking with the teacher BUT Other kidsneed to check with the teacher to know if they’ve made a mistake.”The second questionnaire, developed for this research, made specific reference toFSL. Unlike the pilot study, responses to this questionnaire were based on a 1 to 5scale, whereby 1 strongly disagreed with the statement, and 5 strongly agreed with it.The first section was comprised of nine items regarding students’ likes about FSL.Sample statements included: “I enjoy studying French grammar and linguistics; I enjoyspeaking in French; I enjoy reading French literature; I enjoy writing in French.”Section 2 incorporated six statements of use of the language outside of class, forexample, “I use my French outside of class with friends; I use my French with family;51I watch French films.” Section 3 inquired about students’ reasoning behind theirenrolling into French 12. A sample of the 15 statements included: “I am taking French12 because: a) my parents wanted me to; b) I wanted to; c) I need it foruniversity; d) it’s an easy credit; e) it will help my career.”A fourth aspect which may foster success in language acquisition is the priorknowledge of another language. Many of the subjects involved in both the pilot and thefinal study did not have English as their native tongue. Therefore French was, in effect,their third or possibly fourth language. As all languages have commonalities, the processof language learning becomes increasingly easier with practice which results in improvedachievement (Schils & Welten, 1992). Although this question was not touched upon inthe pilot, it is an important issue and was addressed in this study’s questionnaire.One last item included in this research inquired as to whether or not the subjecthad been exposed to the language during the summer break, that is, s/he had travelled toa French-speaking area and had used the language, or the subject had enrolled in asummer course. Any encounter with the L2 could influence the post-test results;therefore it was felt that these subjects would have to be treated separately whenconducting the analysis.ProcedureFor the purpose of this study, approval from both students and parents wasreceived prior to beginning this research (see Appendix C). Students and parents wereinformed that the information gathered throughout the study would prove to be most52helpful in improving future French programmes and that all information would be keptconfidential by coding data by number.This project took place at Richmond Senior Secondary School in June andSeptember, 1993. As this research focussed on retention of an L2 after a period ofdisuse, an evaluation of students at the end of their Grade 11 French or TB French 11course and at the beginning of their French 12 or TB French 12 course was necessary,thus identifying the summer break as the period of disuse. For ease of tracking, onlystudents who had chosen to enroll in French 12 or lB French 12 were included in thestudy.Pre-testing occurred in the second last week of classes, in June of the students’grade 11 year. Seven French 11 classes and one lB French 11 class were tested at thistime. Two versions of the test (A and B) were administered on a randomly selectedbasis. As in a standard exam situation at RSSS, students had prior knowledge of thetesting date. To lessen an already stressful week test-wise, students were informed thatthese exam results would only raise their standing at the time, not lower it. The teacheroutlined clearly all instructions, noting that she could not answer any questions ofcomprehension, but only those related to the structure of the exam itself. Students hadthe full hour to complete the exam, although most finished within forty-five minutes.Post-testing took place in the second week of the new school year. As moststudents had been pre-tested, this predicted which version of the exam they wouldreceive, that is, the inverse of the June exam. For the post-test, 36 subjects wrote examversion A, and 43 wrote version B, to give a total of 79 subjects. Of that total, 52 were53females and 27were males. Students who had not been involved in the pre-test sessionwrote a post-test exam, but their results were not included in the research. The purposeof the post-test was not only to assess retention, but also to act as a placement exam atthe beginning of the year. By administering such a test, teachers had a better idea ofstudents’ backgrounds, and could thus direct their planning and teaching accordingly. Asthe exam was part of the curriculum, it was treated like all exams: students had advancewarning, but they were also reassured that this was purely an evaluation of the knowledgethey had retained, and that the results could only improve their standing. Testinstructions mirrored those outlined in June, and students had the full period to write theexam if they so needed. As in the post-test session, most students completed the testprior to the end of the hour.In conjunction with the test, but during the following class period, students wereasked to complete the two questionnaires. Attached to the latter, in the form of acovering letter, was a letter of permission, (see Appendix C) to be signed by the studentif s/he so desired. At this time, letters of parental/guardian consent (see Appendix C)were also passed out to all subjects, to be collected within the following week.Data AnalysisPre- and post-tests were scored and results were tabulated. An initial comparisonof both pre- tests showed little difference between overall scores. Post-test scores werealso studied, and again little difference was found on total scores. To confirm that thetests were reliable, a test, using the split-half method was conducted on the pre-testscores. To establish that the test versions were of equal difficulty, an item analysis was54conducted comparing tests A and B, where pre- and post-tests were combined, that is,pre-test A with post-test A, and pre-test B with post-test B. This analysis was achievedby comparing the mean score of each question of each test. A similar analysis wasconducted on each component (linguistic, doze, and reading comprehension) of the testversions to verify that they, too, were of comparable difficulty.As the above-mentioned item analysis failed to show large differences in difficultybetween the two exam versions (A and B), it was possible to collapse pre-test A with pretest B, and post-test A with post-test B, thus treating them as simply pre- and post-tests.Similar to the initial analyses of the exams, a comparison of test question means andsubsequently, a comparison of test component means were performed to identify meanlosses of the L2, following the period of disuse. As each question of the pre- and post-tests was not identical, these items could not be compared individually. However, whenquestions were grouped, it was possible to compare sections within the exams. By doingso, one could assess significant losses within the components for the entire group ofsubjects. To test whether or not this attrition was attributed to individual subjects; lossesof the L2, Pearson correlations and t-tests were conducted. A positive correlation wouldindicate that the two test were consistent on a component by component basis, in thatstudents would do comparably well on the two tests.At this point, individual groupings of high, average and low ability wereestablished, based on their scores achieved in June. As there were three distinct groups,and as the sample size was not exceptionally large, it was felt that subjects should beequally divided in number. These categories were thus identified as 33 %, 34%, and 33%55of the subjects, respectively, giving 26 subjects each to the high and low ability groupingsand 27 to the average ability grouping. Of the high ability grouping, 12 of the 26subjects were from the lB programme. Two lB students were in the low category andnone fell within the medium ability section. Independent t-tests were conducted toidentify significant differences between the pre- and post-test means. The groupingresults were then studied in detail with a particular focus on the high ability grouping.With reference to the questionnaires, the Harter (1980) scoring guide was used todetermine each student’s orientation to FSL. Using the above-mentioned groupings, forboth the Harter (1980) and the FSL questionnaires, a study of significant between-groupdifferences was conducted using a t-test. Again, the high ability grouping washighlighted to identitfy not only differences from the average and low ability groups, butalso differences within the high ability grouping itself. The results of all analyses arepresented in the next chapter.56CHAPTER FOURResultsTable 1 presents the mean scores of each test, by component and in total. Inorder to address the research hypotheses, it was necessary to demonstrate that the twoexams used in this study were equal in difficulty. To do so, a question-by-questioncomparison of means of each test, where pre- and post-tests were combined, wasconducted (see Figures 1 and 2). As there was a non-significant difference between themeans of both tests, (Test A: M = .52; Test B: M = .54, 1(78) = .78, j > .05), itwas felt that a similar analysis should be performed on the components of each test toTable 1: Statistics of Test A vs. Test B ComponentsTest A Test BComponent M M ILinguistic 15.46 4.79 16.38 4.93 .47 1.95Cloze 3.95 1.62 4.44 1.40 .19 2.60**Reading 4.28 1.48 3.30 1.28 .18 5.41***Total Score 23.68 6.57 24.13 6.31 .57 .78Note: 1(78) = 1.994, < .05. ** < .01. < .001.57identify possible weaknesses within these sections of the exams, (see Table 2 andFigure 3).Results from the latter analysis showed a non-significant difference between theTest A and Test B linguistic components (A: M = .51; B: M = .55, 1(78) = 1.95,p > .05), but a significant difference between the two doze components (A: M = .49;B: M = .55, 1(78) = 2.6, p < .01), and a signficant difference between the readingcomprehension sections of the two exams (A: M = .61; B: M = .47, 1(78) = -5.41,p < .001).To confirm that the test versions were reliable internally, an alternate formreliability test was performed using the split-half method. Results from this analysisshowed that both test A, .89, p < .001, and test B, j .72, p < .001. wereTable 2: Comparison of Means of Pre-tests A and B, and Post-tests A and BMeanPossible Pre-test A Post-test A Pre-test B Post-test BScoreTestComponentLinguistic 30 16.65 14.03 16.75 16.07Cloze 8 4.09 3.78 4.36 4.51Reading 7 4.58 3.92 3.39 3.23Total Score 45 25.33 21.72 24.50 23.81Note: n = 79; subjects included 27 males and 52 females.58reliable, overall. Results from a standard error of measurement analysis showed that testscores fell within one standard error of the true scores (Test A: Sm = 2.26; Test B:= 3.26, where overall score loss was 3.6).Although the reading component of Test A appeared to be substantially easier thanthat of Test B, overall differences between the exam versions were small enough andtheir reliability was high enough to test the first hypothesis, that is, a loss of knowledgein written language and reading comprehension skills would be found after the point ofdisuse.To identify attrition of the L2 due to the summer break, a comparison of the preand post-tests was conducted. As there was little difference in overall difficulty betweenTests A and B, it was possible to collapse pre-test A with pre-test B, and post-test A withpost-test B, thus treating them simply as pre- and post-tests. Similar to the initial analysisconducted, a comparison of questions and a comparison of components were bothperformed (see Figures 4 and 5). Results from the latter analysis showed an overall lossamong questions, 1(78) = 4.0, < .001, as well as linguistic, 1(78) = 3.45, < .01,and reading comprehension, 1(78) = 2.42, < .05, components (see Table 3). Thedoze results were non-significant, 1(78) .19, > .05.To determine the relationship and significant differences between the pre- andpost-tests, Pearson correlations and t-tests were performed upon the pre- and post-testmeans. Means were divided into two groups: Group 1 represented pre-test B vs. posttest A, and Group 2 referred to pre-test A vs. post-test B (see Table 4 and Figures 6 to11). Results from these analyses concluded a significant positive relationship between all59Table 3: Statistics of Pre- and Post-TestsComponent rLinguistic .60Cloze .33Reading .13Note: Group 1: (34) = 2.03,*** < .001.1434*** 752.04* .42.76 .51Group 2: 1(41) = 2.02, * < .05.t7.28***2.93**3.78**p < .01.Pre-Test Post-TestComponent M SJ2 M SJ ILinguistic 16.70 5.08 15.14 4.54 .45 345**Cloze 4.22 1.65 4.18 1.42 .20 .19Reading 4.04 1.43 3.54 1.47 .20 2.42*Total Score 24.95 6.55 22.86 6.16 .52 4.00***Note: 1(78) = 1.994, < .05. ‘i < .01. < .001.Table 4: Pearson Correlations and t-tests Between Pre- and Post-Test ScoresGroup 1: Pre- B vs. Post- A Group 2: Pre- A vs. Post- B60components except for reading comprehension of Group 1 (j = . 13, p > .05). Havingcollapsed Groups 1 and 2, significant positive relationships were also found between thepre- and post- linguistic components, and the pre- and post- doze components. Thereading component correlation again proved non-significant (r = .22, p > .05).To test the second hypothesis, that is, students with a more positive attitudetoward the language would have better retention of written and reading comprehensionskills in FSL, subjects were first divided into three ability groupings: high, medium, andlow, according to their pre-test scores (see Table 5 and Appendix D). Means, standarddeviations, and t-tests were performed. Overall significant losses of the L2 were foundfor the high, 1(25) = 9.76, p < .001, and medium, 1(26) = 6.36, p < .001, abilitygroupings. In contrast, the results for the low ability category showed a significant gain,1(25) = 0-2.34, p > .01. Table 5 outlines results of components per ability grouping.To test the attitudinal factor of the second hypothesis, a comparison ofquestionnaire means using t-tests (see Appendix E) was conducted of which there wereeight significant findings: 1) when comparing the high to medium ability groups, FSLquestion 5, “I enjoy listening to people speak French”, proved statistically significant,1(51) = 2.41, p < .05; 2) FSL question 7, “I enjoy working with other students inFrench”, was significant when comparing the medium to low ability groups,1(51) = -2.10, p <.05; 3) FSL question 16, “I am taking French 12 because myparents wanted me to”, showed significant results when comparing the high to mediumgroups, 1(5 1) = -2.20, p < .05; 4) FSL question 19, “I am taking French because Ienjoy it”, was significant when comparing the high to low groups, 1(5 1) = 2.78,61Table 5: Pre- and Post-Test Statistics, by Ability Level and ComponentPre-Test Post-TestAbility Component M M 1High Linguistic 21.65 3.53 18.77 4.25 .36 7.30***(n=26) Cloze 5.42 1.21 5.00 1.30 .17 2.50**Reading 5.08 1.23 4.23 1.34 .20 4.17***Total 32.15 3.71 28.00 5.69 .43 9.76***Medium Linguistic 17.22 1.85 14.33 3.75 .40 7.22***(n=27) Cloze 4.00 1.44 4.22 1.19 .22 -1.01Reading 3.81 1.78 3.33 1.39 .19 2.49**Total 25.04 1.56 21.89 4.74 .50 6.36***Low Linguistic 11.19 2.68 12.34 3.01 .41 2.80***(n=26) Cloze 3.23 1.50 3.31 1.29 .20 -.38Reading 3.23 1.24 3.08 1.47 .22 .72Total 17.65 2.84 18.73 4.07 .46 =2.34**Note: High: t(25) = 2.06, Medium: t(26) = 2.06, Low: t(25) = 2.06,* < .05. < .01. < .001.62p < .05, and the high to medium groups, 1(51) = 2.48, p < .05; 5) FSL question 20,“I’m taking French 12 because I’m good at it,” was statistically significant whencomparing the high to low, 1(50) = 3.41, p < .01, and high to medium abilitygroupings, 1(51) = 2.19, p < .05; and 6) FSL question 21, “I am taking French 12because it’s an easy credit”, proved statistically significant when comparing the high tolow groups, 1(50) = 2.90, p < .05. None of the Harter (1980) findings weresignificant (see Table 6 and Appendix E).As it was clear from the questionnaire fmdings that the high ability grouping wasnot distinctly different in motivation and attitude toward FSL, differences within thisgroup would also not be distinct from the medium and low ability subjects. Thus nostudy of within-group differences among high ability learners of FSL was conducted.Discussion of the above-mentioned results is found in chapter five. Conclusions,implications, and recommendations will follow.63Table 6: Hailer Questionnaire Means by Ability Leveln Challenge Curiosity Mastery JudgmentHigh 26 2.72 2.81 2.80 2.88 3.22Medium 27 2.83 2.86 2.92 3.01 3.20Low 26 2.53 2.66 2.64 3.02 3.23Note: The coefficient used to determine the measure of internal consistency wasthe Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. r = .78 to .84 for Challenge subscale, .68 to.82 for Independent Mastery, .70 to .78 for Curiosity, .72 to .81 for Judgement,and .75 to .83 for Criteria.Ability CriteriaI-tC C C)C z aComparisonofTestAandBQuestions(Pre-andPost-TestsCombined)%Correct100%80%60%40%20% 0%AvgA=2352AvgB=24.1613579111315171921232527293133353739414345Question#•t:1 H CD C,.) CD C-, 0 C-, 0 H CD C-i C-, (.) 0 a%DifferenceDifferencesbetweenTestAandTestBQuestions(Pre-andPost-TestsCombined)13579111315171921232527293133353739414345Question#66Comparison of Test A and B Components(Pro- and Post-Tests Combined)Avg Mark70% —_____________Test ATest B60%___ __ ____50% -40% -30% -20% -10% -0%-— —Linguistic ReadingI I IClozeFigure 3: Comparison of Test A and B Components, Pre- and Post-Tests CombinedI-.CD 0 I 0 C’, 9÷ ci, ‘C C’, 0 C’, (t C-, ci, CD 0 aComparisonofPre-andPost-TestQuestions(TestsAandBCombined)%Correct100%80%60%40%20% 0%AvgPre=24.91AvgPost=22.7713579111315171921232527293133353739414345Question#0Comparison of Pre- and Post-Test Components(Tests A and B Combined)Avg Mark70% —60% —50% —40% —30% —20% —10% —0% —68Linguistic Cloze ReadingFigure 5: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Test Components, Tests A and B Combinedrj —-(d I.00246810121416182022242628Post-testScore(max45)LinguisticSkills-GroupI(Pre-testB,Post-testA)Pre-testScore(max45)32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4I-..CLOZE-Groupi(Pre-testB,Post-testA>N (t 0Pro-testScore(max8)02468Post-testScore(max8)rj 00 C r—) I:ReadingSkills-GroupI(Pre-testB,Post-testA)Pre-testScore(max7)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 001234567Post-testScore(max7)LinguisticSkills-GroupII(Pre-testA,Post-testB)0246810121416182022242628Post-testScore(max45)Pre-testScore(max45)C.) C,) I—10 N CCLOZE-GroupII(Pre-testA,Post-testB)Pre-testScore(max8)8 6 4 2 00246Post-testScore(max8)8—1Reading-GroupII(Pro-testA,Post-testB)Pre-testScore(max7)C5 4 3 2 0r=.508,t=3.78x X2X3X4X2XX3X4X4xX2><X201234567Post-testScore(max7)75CHAPTER FIVEDiscussionLiterature in the area of retention, of motivation, and of high ability learners ofFSL has offered much in the former two topics, some in the latter, but little discussing allthree simultaneously. Results from this research offer a spring-board for future study ofthis subject. This chapter presents limitations of this work, an interpretation of theresults, as well as research and pedagogical implications in all three areas.LimitationsThere appeared to be three limitations to this study. As the questionnaire wasadministered in September, rather than in June, most of the questionnaire items could notbe included in determining a relationship with motivation and retention of FSL, asattitude and motivation may have changed in the interim period. Therefore a betweengroup comparison was all that could be made. Secondly, due to the logistics of tracking,it was not possible to include FSL drop-out subjects in this study, which may haveaffected these results. Finally, due to political and teaching time constraints, it was notpossible to identify subjects by external measures, such as final term percentage. Abilitygroupings were therefore determined by subjects’ pre-test score, which may have been anincorrect assessment of each subject’s ability, thereby misclassifying each student fromthe start.76Interpretation of ResultsAs was anticipated, a significant overall loss of 8% of the L2 did take placefollowing the summer break however, due to inconsistent results between the tests’ dozeand reading sections, these components may be considered unreliable. As well, andconcurrent with the findings of Weltens, Van Els, and Schils (1989), loss of overall L2linguistic skills did take place during the summer break. This is possibly becausequestions posed in an isolated format offer little to the L2 learner in terms of quantity oflanguage. An L2 learner has difficulty enough in following a passage given in context.Without the benefit of the situatin surrounding the statement, an L2 learner must grapplewith the unfamiliar, as his/her vocabulary is so limited. S/he may recognize the oddword or verb form in isolation, but his/her knowledge often ends there.From the research of Gardner, Lalonde, and MacPherson (1985), an increase inreading comprehension skills, following the summer break, was found. The authors feltthat this gain reflected not only the difficulty in measuring change using objectivemeasures, but also subjects’ prior knowledge and experience of the assessment procedure.Similar to the work of Smythe, Jutras, Bramwell, and Gardner (1973), from thisresearch, one found that reading comprehension skills in the L2 suffered overall attrition,as a result of the period of disuse. Although Smythe, Jutras, Bramwell, and Gardner(1973) felt that a 5 % loss was not worthy of considerable review, results from this studyshowed that a loss of 12% was significant. As SL students are not in the habit ofreading casually in French (or in English, for that matter), it is highly unlikely that theywould do so during their vacation time. Thus continued practice and encouragement in77this area appears to be a worthwhile endeavor. A second explanation may be due to theunequal level of difficulty between the two reading passages. The selection from Test Awas substantially easier than that of Test B. Therefore students who wrote test A in Junewere more open to loss of the L2 skills than if they had written it in September. Thiscomponent of the exams may thus be unreliable.The odd result was that of the doze component. Although an overall loss wasnoted, when analysed statistically a significant result was not found. The latter may bedue to random fluctuation as scores fell within the standard error of measurement. Schilsand Weltens (1992) found similar results in their research, and concluded that this mayhave been due to an increase in general language proficiency, not just FSL, but also aninfluence of the mother tongue.With reference to the ability groupings’ results, the high level attained significantlosses on the overall test, as well as on all three components, the medium students lostsignificantly, while the low students gained significantly overall. The explanation may bedue to having used the pre-test, rather than some independent measure, to classifystudents into ability groupings. Random fluctuation may have also contributed to the gainin knowledge.A counter-balancing effect that may have occurred among the high ablity subjectsis that of overlearning. Certain items, ingrained with time, are not subject to loss.Therefore structures and vocabulary that these students had been exposed to repeatedly,would have experienced less attrition than linguistic items that had been more recentlyacquired.78Although the majority of the questionnaire findings was insignificant, it isinteresting to note that one’s perceptions of students, even those considered gifted, mayoften be incorrect. With regard to the Harter (1980) study, which aims at determiningstudents’ intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientations toward a subject-matter, results from thisresearch suggest that most of these students, regardless of ability, prefer the easy route tosuccess, that is, to please the teacher, rather than to challenge her/himself.Unfortunately, at this grade level and within this age bracket, students are highly drivenby marks. Students who are headed toward post-secondary institutions are particularlysusceptible. As competition increases, so do universities’ entrance requirements. Hence,it is not unusual to find FSL students’ sole objective to be to attain an “A” in the course,as these students are, more often than not, those who choose to further their studies.When comparing the means of the significant results from the FSL questionnaire,the high ability group had the most positive reactions for the majority of the eightfindings. This factor may suggest that although these high ability students may not beexceptionally intrinsically motivated, according to the questionnaire results, they doappear to enjoy their French experience and feel confident in the subject. Questions 19and 20, “I am taking French because it’s an easy credit”, and “I’m taking Frenchbecause I’m good at it” proved significant for comparisons between both the high andlow, and high and medium ability levels. These results may suggest that high abilitystudents have a strong sense as to their capabilities in French and can thus justify theirpurpose for studying FSL.79The only grouping which showed a higher response than those mentioned abovewas the low ability group, on question 7, “I enjoy working with other students inFrench”. The latter finding may suggest that a weaker student appreciates the supportand assistance of his/her peers, as this cooperative effort and collegiality may render atask, which at first may appear onerous, quite palatable.Although an individual analysis of the high ability grouping was not conducted dueto insignificant questionnaire results, it is noteworthy that not all TB students wereclassified as high ability. Nor were all CF students rated in the medium or low abilitycategories. This finding may suggest that although these students may be scholasticallyinclined, they may not choose the most challenging course of study. Perhaps thesesubjects prefer to take courses which they find easier, and thus be judged as high ability.One must also not assume that because a student is enrolled in a gifted and talentedprogramme that s/he is gifted and talented.Results from the FSL questionnaire also highlighted varying attitudes toward FSL.One found students who were exceptionally keen on studying French, some who wereindifferent, and others who were quite uninterested. This finding does not seem unusual,because although students may be clever academically, it does not necessarily imply thatthey love studying French. Nor can the reverse be said of the weaker subject. Onecannot assume that a student dislikes French simply because s/he is not brilliant in thecourse.80ConclusionsThis study may assist in ameliorating the style of future FSL classes. Through in-service workshops provided by the author, this research may increase teachers’ abilitiesto review effectively the previous year’s material, and to clarify which aspects oflanguage may be more susceptible to attrition, allowing for better concentration in theseareas. Having a clearer picture of students’ attitudes toward and interests in French maybetter direct teachers in their educational planning. The results of such workshops mayalso inspire teachers to encourage continually a positive attitude among FSL students, andin particular to maintain a sparked interest among high achievers. Although one assumesthat these children are relatively independent, and capable of autonomous learning, theytoo, have distinct needs, which unfortunately are often neglected, just as are gifted andtalented programmes.Research ImplicationsAlthough attitude and motivation and their relationship to learning an L2 has beenstudied for some time, retention of the subject-matter and its relationship to motivationhas been little touched upon. As results from the literature have been variable, furtherresearch is needed, particularly over longer periods of time, in order to clarify thesediscrepancies.In addition, it would be helpful to see the results of an implemented readingprogramme in FSL. At present, no formal policy exists; it is at the discretion of theteacher to include or not include reading in his/her programme. Not only might these81skills improve as a result of greater exposure, but also students’ attitudes might improvetoward reading in the target language and the study of the language itself.A third factor which has received little or no attention is that of individualdifferences of L2 learners. One suspects that because research into the retention ofFrench among L2 learners is a relatively new field, little thought has been given tostudying varying levels of ability within the larger group. Future study incorporating anextremely gifted group of subjects, as classified by I.Q. and further questionnaires mayallow insight into individual differences within that grouping. Continued research in thisarea may dispel any misbeliefs as to the homogeneity of the gifted. By accomplishingthis task, one may see an improved regard for not only high achievers, but also for alllevels of proficiency.Since this research was conducted, the communicative methodology has beenintroduced into both the FSL and lB programmes at RSSS. As the philosophy behind thecommunicative approach (Jean, Anderson, Bandet-Prebushewski, Condon, Moscovich, &Park, 1993) is based on communication rather than on an objective study of the language(that is, the rules of use that govern the language), it would be interesting to see ifretention after holiday breaks improves with this communicative style of learning. Froma personal perspective, having now had a year’s experience with the communicativeapproach to L2 learning, there appears to be an improvement in students’ listening skillsand vocabulary; however their formation of the language, particularly in written form,and general comprehension skills seem to have weakened. A follow-up study may shedlight upon the advantages and pitfalls of both the structured and communicative82approaches. This subsequent research may lead to a combination of both methodologieswhich would enhance future FSL programmes.As always in Education, changes occur. Therefore continued evaluation of thesechanges is needed. As was mentioned above, the IBO is currently changing itsmethodology of the L2 component. In addition, as of September 1995, the TB will adopta new curriculum for FSL. A comparative study between the old and new programmes,similar to that needed for the structured and communicative approaches, may proveworthwhile. If an improvement in general communication L2 skills is the result, then thechange is beneficial. However, from a personal perspective, the present programmes’subjects have achieved very good results to date both on the provincial and TB exams.One must thus ask oneself why the change is required. At the IBNO conference inSeattle, (October, 1993), it was suggested that many of the U.S. schools found the TBliterary component of the L2 curriculum too difficult. Although it is at the discretion ofthe instructor to continue with the study of literature, it has been formally removed fromthe new programme, to be replaced by a series of themes to be studied and discussed(IBNO, 1993). This loss may or may not affect reading comprehension skills. Resultsfrom a comparative study of the two programmes would be helpful to teachers, as thisinformation may validate their decision to study literature in the L2.Pedagogical RecommendationsThis research stresses the importance of studying further the interaction of abilitylevels, motivation, and retention in FSL. Through continued research and workshops onthese three areas, FSL teachers may in future offer more effective review periods83following the holiday or semester break. Greater emphasis on aspects lost over time,such as the more recently learned linguistic skills, and continued reading practice, such asa form of USSR (Uninterupted Sustained Silent Reading) in French, may prove to be amore worthwhile and productive assignment.Teachers of high ability students must also seek continually to maintain theirstudents’ interest, particularly if they are adolescents, as keenness to study seems todiminish in this age bracket. Perhaps by undermining the value of marks, andemphasizing the advantages of experiencing a variety of methods of learning, studentsmay better appreciate and understand the process of acquiring knowledge, rather than theend product of a letter grade. Encouragement toward a pupil’s goal and purpose forstudying French may also contribute to an increase in proficiency. As the literature hasshown, improved proficiency leads to improved retention, which is hopefully the goal ofany teacher.A study, such as this, allows one to improve methodology by combining the bestof the communicative approach, FSL, and research. FSL teachers have observedmethodologies change over the course of time. Former CF programmes were consideredinadequate because students could read and write in the language, but never speak.French Immersion was thus the response. There, one found students who couldcommunicate verbally, but who had a weak knowledge of the structure of the language.Immersion students’ written skills were thus plagued with fossilized errors, as emphasizehad been placed on oral skills.84Today, we find a swing in CF programmes toward a more communicativeapproach. Teachers are to encourage students to speak, and to worry less about minorerrors, both in verbal and in written form. In the opposite direction, Immersionprogrammes are stressing increasingly an emphasis on written and reading skills, and topay greater attention to details of grammar.As discussed in the introduction of this work, the lB has been offering the best ofboth programmes for some time. Not only does it encourage oral production of the L2,but also highlights in detail how the language is structured. At the end of the two yearprogramme, students are functionally bilingual, both verbally and in written form.Thus, through further research of these programmes’ advantages anddisadvantages, one may offer realistic techniques and approaches that FSL teachers mayuse in future which would enhance and improve upon methodologies that are currently inuse.85ReferencesAlexander, P. (1985). Gifted and Nongifted Students’ Perceptions of Intelligence,Gifted Child Quarterly, (3), 137-143.B.C. Ministry of Education. (1980). Secondary French Curriculum Guide. Victoria,B.C.: Queen’s Printer.B.C. Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and HumanRights. (1992). Primary through Graduation Curriculum/Assessment Framework:Humanities Strand. French as a Second Language. Victoria, B.C.: Queen’sPrinter.Brounstein, P.3., Holahan, W., & Sawyer, R. (1988). The Expectations andMotivations of Gifted Students in a Residential Academic Program: A Study ofIndividual Differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. XI(3), 36-52.Calvet, P., Germain, C., LeBlanc, R., Rondeau, F. (1974). Le Francais International 4(10th ed.). Montréeal, Qué: CEC.Calvet, P., Germain, C., LeBlanc, R., Rondeau, F. (1975). Le Français International 4Cahier d’Exercices. Montréal, Qué: CEC.Carey, S.T. (1984). Reflections on a Decade of French Immersion, The CanadianModern Language Review. 4 1(2), 246-259.Carey, S.T. (1991). Languages, Literacy and Education, The Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 47(5), 839-842.Carey, S.T. (In press). Academic Achievement and Reading Comprehension inMinority and Second Languages. In R. Short & L. Stewin (Eds.), CanadianIssues in Education. Toronto: Copp & Clark.Carison, N.N. (1981). An Exploratory Study of Characteristics of Gifted and TalentedForeign Language Learners, Foreign Language Annals, 14(5), 385-391.Clark, B. (1988). Growing Up Gifted (2nd ed.). Colombus, OH: Charles Merril Co.Forsyth, P. (1987). A Study of Self-Concept, Anxiety, and Security of Children inGifted, French Immersion, and Regular Classes, Canadian Journal of Counselling,j(2-3), 153-156.86Gardner, R.C. (1991). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. InA.G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism. Multiculturalism. and Second LanguageLearning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gardner, R.C. (1991). Second-Language Learning in Adults: Correlates of Proficiency,Applied Language Learning, (1), 1-28.Gardner, R.C., Lalonde, R.N., & MacPherson, 3. (1985). Social Factors in SecondLanguage Attrition, Language Learning, ,(4) 5 19-540.Gardner, R.C., Lalonde, R.N., Moorcroft, R., & Evers, F.T. (1987). SecondLanguage Attrition: The Role of Motivation and Use, Journal of Language andSocial Psychology, (1), 29-47.Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-LanguageLearning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Garfinkel, A., & Prentice, M. (1985). Foreign Language for the Gifted: ExtendingCognitive Dimensions, Meeting the Call for Excellence in the Foreign LanguageClassroom. Selected papers from the 1985 Central States Conference on theTeaching of Foreign Languages. U.S. Department of Education, NationalInstitute of Education, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), 2-8.Harter, S. (1980). A Scale of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom.Denver, CO: University of Denver.International Baccalaureate Office. (1987). Language B Teacher’s Guide. New York,N.Y.: IBONA.International Baccalaureate Office. (1993). Language B Teacher’s Guide. New York,N.Y.: IBONA.Jean, G., Anderson, B., Bandet-Prebushewski, M., Condon, P1, Moscovich, B., Park, B.(1993). En Direct 1. Teacher Resource Book. Scarborough, Ont: Prentice Hall.Kaplan, S.N. (1982). Myth: There is a Single Curriculum for the Gifted!, Gifted ChildQuarterly, (1), 32-33.Lambert, R.D., & Freed, B.F. (1982). The Loss of Language Skills. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.Matthews, D.J. (In Press). Beyond Identification: Toward Assessing DevelopmentalAdvancement by Domain. In F.D. Horowitz & R.C. Friedman (Eds.), Th87Gifted and Talented: Theories and Reviews, Z. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in Education A ConceptualIntroduction. Harper Collins.McVey, M.D., & Snow, R.E. (1988). Aptitude Theory as a Framework for Researchon Individual Differences in Gifted Performance. In G. Kanselaar, J. van derLinden, & A. Pennings (Eds.), Individual Differences in Giftedness:Identification and Education.Moorcroft, R., & Gardner, R.C. (1987). Linguistic Factors in Second-Language Loss,Language Learning, 7(3), 327-340.Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1982). Foreign Languages for the Gifted andTalented. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Curriculum Services.Peel, R. (1987). Remarks of the Director General. New York, N.Y.: IBONA.Renzulli, J. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing DefensiblePrograms for the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative LearningPress.Richmond School Board. (1990). Policies and Regulations for School District Number38. Richmond. Richmond, B.C.: Richmond School Board.Richmond Senior Secondary School. (1989). I.B. Booklet. Richmond, B.C.: RSSSPress.Smythe, P.C., Jutras, G.C., Bramwell, J.R., & Gardner, R.C. (1973). SecondLanguage Retention Over Varying Intervals, The Modern Language Journal,Lvii, (8), 400-405.Snow, M.A., Padilla, A.M., and Campbell, R.N., (1988). Patterns of Second LanguageRetention of Graduates of a Spanish Immersion Program, Applied Linguistics,9(2), 82-197.Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E., (1988). Conceptions of Giftedness. New York,N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Strength through Wisdom, A Report to the President from the President’s Commission onForeign Language and International Studies (November, 1979). (1982). ForeignLanguage Annals, 15(5).88Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian CaseStudy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Weltens, B., (1987). The Attrition of Foreign-Language Skills: A Literature Review,Applied Linguistics, (1), 22-37.Ullmann, R., Carter, B., Goodman, S.I. (1992). Tous Ensemble! Réflexions. Canada:Heath.Weltens, B., Van Els, T.J.M., & Schils, E., (1989). The Long-Term Retention ofFrench by Dutch Students, SSLA, II, 205-216.Yoshotomi, A. (1992). Towards a Model of Language Attrition: Neurobiological andPsychological Contributions, Applied Linguistics, (2), 293-318.89Appendix AExam Versions A and BReading passages for the exams used in this research were taken from Heath’sreader, Tous Ensemble! Réflexions (1992). Selections for Tests A and B were: “Toutce que pensent vraiment les enfants--sans jamais oser en parler” (pp. 36-17), and “Lesenfants du divorce” (pp. 3 1-32), respectively. The linguistic and doze sections of bothexams follow.TEST AANSWER QUESTIONS ON SCANTRON SHEET, NOT ON TEST COPY.SELECT THE BEST ANSWER FOR EACH. SECTION 1 (LiNGUISTIC) ISNUMBERED 1-30; SECTION 2 (CLOZE) IS NUMBERED 51-58, AN]) GOES ONBACK OF SECTION 1 ANSWERS. SECTION 3 (READING COMPREHENSION)IS ALSO NUMBERED 1-7, BUT PUT ANSWERS ON SEPARATE SCANTRONSHEET.SECTION 1: LINGUISTIC1-30. Read each question and select the letter that BEST completes the statement.1. Est-ce que tu m’as pane? Oui pane.a) ii t’a b) vous m’avez c) je t’ai d) nous t’avons2. Veux-tu du pain? Ouia) donne-m’en. b) m’en donne. c) donne-le moi. d) donne-lui-en.3. Si nous avions le temps, nous au cinema.a) irions b) allons c) irons d) sommes allés4. Il faut qu’ila) part b) partira c) partait d) parte905. Je ne sais pas . ii a dit.a) qu’ b) quoi c) ce qu’ d) de quoi6. Qui as-tu vu7 Je n’ai vua) rien b) personne c) quelque chose d) quelqu’un7. Quand nous aurons 19 ans, nous a l’université.a) serons b) serions c) soyons d) étions8. Queue chemise préferes-tu7 -ci.a) celle b) celles c) celui d) ceux9. Marc n’est pas assez grand sortir le soir.a) * (nothing is needed) b) a c) de d) pour10. Les enfants sont que leurs parents.a) pleurent plus souvent b) pleurent le plus souvent c) plus petits d) les pluspetits11. Les flues que vous étaient très belles.a) avez rencontrées b) rencontrerez c) racontez d) avez rendues12. Tu as une auto, Marie? Quel cadeau!a) nouvel, beau b) nouvel, belle c) nouvelle, bel d) nouvelle, beau13. Quelques étudiants ne réussissent pas en chimie. Pour , la chimie est difficile.a) les b) leur c) eux d) ils14. Cette étudiante pane bien le français. Elle pane de toute la classe.a) mieux b) la meilleure c) le mieux d) meilleur15. Nathalie a cheveuxa) les, blonds b) des, blonds c) le, blonde d) de, blondes9116. La tarte aux pommes que Paul nous a . était délicieuse.a) apporté b) apportée c) apportés d) apportées17. Je viens de les gants noirs que tu as ici hier soir.a) trouver, laissé b) trouver, laissés c) trouvé, laissé d) trouvé, laissés18. Est-ce que mon frère peut emprunter tes skis, Henri? Demain, peut-être, mais jeaujourd’hui.a) ne les lui peux pas donner b) ne les peux pas lui donner c) ne peux les luidonner pas d) ne peux pas les lui donner19. fis ont hate partir avion leurs amis.a) de, par, avec b) a, par, chez c) de, en, avec d) a, en, chez20. Aimes-tu ?a) si b) ci c) ceci d) celui9221 .-30. Complete the paragraph by choosing the appropriate verb form.Quandj(e) ...21... jeune, ma famille et moi, nous ...22... alacampagne, dans un petit village européen. D’habitude, nous . . .23... aumarché pour .. .24... nos provisions. Ii .. .25... bien sür, qu’on . . .26... ala pâtisserie, parce qu’on . . .27... toujours un petit gâteau du monsieur qui.28... là. Un jour il nous . . .29... une tartelette aux fraises! Quel délice!Nous .. .30... très contents ce jour-là!21. a) ai été b) serai c) serais d) étais22. a) avons habité b) habiterons c) habitions d) habiterions23. a) allions b) irons c) irions d) aller24. a) achetions b) acheter c) achèterions d) avons acheté25. a) faut b) falloir c) faflait d) faudrait26. a) aller b) va c) aille d) irait27. a) recevait b) recevoir c) a reçu d) recoive28. a) travaillera b) travaillait c) a travaillé d) travaillerait29. a) a même donné b) aurait même donné c) a même donnés d) avons mêmedonné30. a) avons rentré b) sommes rentrés c) rentrions d) serions rentrés93NOW TURN OVER THE SCANTRON COPY. ANSWERS FOR THE CLOZEPASSAGE ARE NUMBERED 51-58. PLEASE PUT THEM ON THE BACK SIDEOF THE LINGUISTIC SECTION ANSWERS.SECTION 2: CLOZE51-58. Read the following news article, “Ils ont été les premiers Américains” andselect the best word that fits into the passage.us ont été les premiers AméricainsMOSCOU (AFP) ---- Des archéologues soviétiques ont . . .51... des preuves dupassage des anciennes tribus de la Sibérie du nord-est . . .52... Amérique du Nord, enétudiant les ruines des installations de l’homme de l’époque paléolithique au Kamtchatka,a annoncé l’agence Tass.Le professeur Nikolai Dykov, .. .53... a conduit une mission d’archeologues, adéclaré que celle-ci avait trouvé des objets identiques a . . .54... utiisés par les anciensIndiens de L’Amérique du Nord dans . . .55... vie de jour en jour. II pense que lessavants soviétiques ont déterminé l’origine asiatique du “wampoom” -- coutumeindienne de porter des colliers, des . . .56... et divers pendentifs de perles et de verre.L’Académicien Alexei Okladnikov a qualiflé de “stupéfiants” et d’ “inattendus”: lesrésultats . . .57... fouilles’ faites . . .58... la mission d’archeologues au Kamtchatka.Le professeur Nikolai Dykov considère qu’à l’époque glaciaire le detroit deBehring n’existait pas et que les hommes alors passaient a pied de Sibérie en Alaska.*fouilles = excavationsAdapted from an article in, Le Français international 4, Cahier D ‘Exercices. 1975.Montreal: CEC, p.5951. a) découvert b) découverte c) découverts d) découvertes52. a) a 1’ b) en c) dans d) pour53. a) que b) qui c) ce que d) ce qui54. a) celui b) celle c) ceux d) celles55. a) sa b) notre c) votre d) leur56. a) radios b) télévisions c) voitures d) ceintures57. a) de b) des c) deux d) dé58. a) sur b) derriere c) par d) pour94NOW TURN TO THE SECOND SCANTRON COPY. ANSWERS FOR THEREADING COMPREHENSION PASSAGE ARE NUMBERED 1-7. PLEASE PUTTHEM ON THE FIRST SIDE OF THE SECOND SCANTRON.SECTION 3: COMPREHENSION1-7. Read the passage, “Tout Ce Que Pensent Les Enfants “, and choose the bestanswer for each question, according to the text.1. Dans ce passage les jeunesa) offrent leurs opinions sur les parents, les amis, et la vie.b) critiquent sévèrement leurs parents.c) cherchent a se connaltre.d) parlent de leurs relations passionnelles.2. Les adolescents ont besoina) de vivre seul et d’avoir le respect de leurs parents.b) d’argent et d’affection de leurs parents.c) de manquer les cours et d’être libres.d) d’être libres et d’avoir de l’affection de leurs parents.3. A quoi les jeunes veulent-ils s’échapper?a) aux problèmes des copains et des parentsb) aux problèmes de famille et d’écolec) aux problèmes des copains et d’écoled) aux problèmes de finances et de famille4. A l’avenir, qu’est-ce que les jeunes aimeraient faire?a) se marier et être parents.b) travailler comme médecin dans la region oü us habitent.c) voyager loin.d) trouver d’autres amis.955. Pourquoi les adolescents peuvent-ils parler a leurs copains et non pas a leurs parents?a) parce que les parents ne veulent pas les écouter.b) parce que les copains les comprennent mieux et peuvent tout expliquer auxparents.c) parce que les parents préferent parler avec leurs propres amis.d) parce que les copains leur ressemblent et respectent la confiance entre eux.6. Qu’est-ce que c’est que “le jardin secret”?a) c’est un endroit oü on peut mécliter.b) c’est un petit jardin qu’on cultive quand on est jeune.c) ce sont les relations personnelles entre les copainsd) c’est l’amitié entre les parents et leurs enfants.7. Pourquoi les adolescents cherchent-ils de l’indépendance?a) parce qu’ils veulent être reconnus.b) parce qu’ils aiment mieux être avec leurs amis.c) parce qu’ils ne comprennent pas le temps de leurs parents.d) parce qu’ils veulent être parents un de ces jours.96TEST BANSWER QUESTIONS ON SCANTRON SHEET, NOT ON TEST COPY.SELECT THE BEST ANSWER FOR EACH. SECTION 1 (LINGUISTIC) ISNUMBERED 1-30; SECTION 2 (CLOZE) IS NUMBERED 51-58, AN]) GOES ONBACK OF SECTION 1 ANSWERS. SECTION 3 (READING COMPREHENSION)IS NUMBERED 1-7, BUT PUT ANSWERS ON SEPARATE SCANTRON SHEET.SECTION 1: LINGUISTIC1-30. Read each question and select the letter that BEST completes the statement.1. Est-ce que vous m’avez téléphone? Oui téléphone.a) us t’ont b) tu m’as c) nous lui avons d) je vous ai2. Voulez-vous de la viande? Ouia) donnez-la-moi. b) donnez-m’en. c) donnez-lui-en. d) m’en donnez.3. S’ils avaient le temps, us au cinema.a) vont b) iraient c) iront d) sont allés4. Il faut que nousa) partons b) partirons c) partions d) partirions5. Je ne sais pas elle va faire.a) ce qu’ b) qu’ c) quoi d) de quoi6. Qu’as-tu vu? Je n’ai vu.a) quelqu’un b) quelque chose c) personne d) rien7. Quand ii aura 19 ans, il a l’université.a) serait b) sera c) soil d) était8. Quels souliers préferes-tu’ -cia) celui b) ceux c) celle d) celles979. Jeanne n’est pas assez vieille . conduire.a) a b) de c) pour d) * (nothing is needed)10. Les parents sont que leurs enfants.a) plus grands b) les plus grands c) pleurent moms souvent d) pleurent lemoms souvent11. Les garcons que vous étaient très gentils.a) avez rendus b) racontez c) rencontrerez d) avez rencontrés12. Tu as une auto, Pierre? Quel achat!a) nouvel, bel b) nouvel, belle c) nouvelle, bel d) nouvelle, belle13. Mes cousins patinent bien. Ah oui, pour c’est facile.a) les b) eux c) ils d) leur14. Cette étudiante pane C’est pourquoi elle va recevoir le prix d’excellence.a) le meilleur b) la meilleure c) la mieux d) le mieux15. Marie a yeuxa) les, bleus b) des, bleus c) le, bleue d) de, bleues16. La glace au chocolat que Jean nous a était délicieuse!a) donné b) donnée c) donnés d) données17. Nous venons de les dossiers blancs que tu as ici hier soir.a) trouvé, oublié b) trouvé, oubliés c) trouver, oublié d) trouver, oubliés18. Est-ce que Nicolas peut prendre les clefs de l’auto, Papa? Demain, peut-être, maisje ce soir.a) ne peux pas les lui donner b) ne peux les lui donner pas c) ne les peux paslui donner d) ne les lui peux pas donner9819. J’ai réussi .obtenir un billet . train . Calgary!a) d’, en, a b) a, de, pour c) d’, pour, a d) a, pour, en20. Veux-tua) ciel b) celle c) sel d) celle-ci21.-30. Complete the paragraph by choosing the appropriate verb form.Quand j(e) ...21... petit, chaque été, ma famille et moi, nous . ..22...au bord de la mer pour . . .23.. .nos vacances. D’habitude, il . . .24... trèschaud, alors on .. .25... tous les matins. Bien sür, l’après-midi, ii . . .26...qu’on . . .27... la sieste, parce qu’on ne . . .28.. .pas travailler a cause duchaleur. Un jour, Maman nous .. .29... de la limonade pour nousrafraIchir. Alors, ce soir-là, nous . . .30... en ville, en très bonne forme!suis b) serai c) étais d) ai étéirons b) irions c) sommes d) allionspasser b) sommes passes c) avons passé d) passionsferait b) faisait c) faire d) a faitnage b) nageait c) nagerait d) a nagéfallait b) faudrait c) faudra d) faillefait b) fasse c) a fait d) faisaitpourrait b) pourra c) pouvait d) a pua méme donné b) avons même donné c) a même donnés d) aurait même21. a)22. a)23. a)24. a)25. a)26. a)27. a)28. a)29. a)donné30. a) avons quitté b) sortirions c) sortirons d) sommes sortis99NOW TURN OVER THE SCANTRON COPY. ANSWERS FOR THE CLOZEPASSAGE ARE NUMBERED 51-58. PLEASE PUT THEM ON THE BACK SIDEOF THE LINGUISTIC SECTION.SECTION 2: CLOZE51-58. Read the news following article, uLa ‘Joueuse de guitare’ retrouvée andselect the best word that fits into the passage.La “Joueuse de guitare” retrouvéeLONDRES (AFP) ---- On a . . .51... la joueuse de guitare, le chef-d’oeuvre de JanVermeer, maître hollandais du XVIIe siècle, . . .52... Londres dans Ia nuit de lundi amardi.C’est dans le petit cimetière de Saint-Bartholomew, dans la cite de Londres.53... un policier a découvert le chef-d’oeuvre dérobé il y a deux . . .54... dans unmusée du nord de Londres. C’est un coup de . . .55... anonyme qui a mis Scotland Yardsur la piste.Le tableau formellement identiflé . . .56... des experts, a ensuite été remis auMusée.C’est le 23 février que la toile* avait été volée. Quelques jours plus tard,plusieurs journaux de Londres recevaient des demandes de rancon contre la restitution dela toile. . . .57... des lettres promettait la restitution du chef-d’oeuvre contre le transfertde leur prison londonienne dans un établissement de l’Ulster, des soeurs Marion etDolours Price, condamnées a Ia prison a vie pour . . .58... participation aux attentats a Iabombe de mars 1973 a Londres.*toile =painting, canvasAdapted from an article in Le Français International 4, Cahier D ‘Exercices.1975. Montreal: CEC, p.5951. a) retrouvé b) retrouvée c) retrouvés d) retrouvées52. a) a b) dans c) en d) au53. a) qui b) qu’ c) ce qui d) ce qu’54. a) moi b) moms c) mois d) mon55. a) voiture b) téléphone c) boîte d) papier56. a) sur b) derriere c) par d) pour10057. a) ceci b) chaque c) celle d) une58. a) sa b) notre c) votre d) leurNOW TURN TO THE SECOND SCANTRON COPY. ANSWERS FOR THEREADING COMPREHENSION PASSAGE ARE NUMBERED 1-7. PLEASE PUTTHEM ON THE FIRST SIDE OF THE SECOND SCANTRON.SECTION 3: READING COMPREHENSION1-7. Read the passage, “Les Enfants du Divorce “, and choose the best answer foreach question, according to the text.1. Dans ce passage, on panea) des enfants et de leur espoir d’un amour étemelb) des enfants des parents divorces et les effets sur euxc) des enfants abuses physiquement par des parents divorcesd) des enfants d’une famille idéale2. Est-ce que le manage jusqu’à la mort est une réalité de nos jours?a) Oui, parce qu’il y a trop de risques de maladies.b) Non, parce que tout le monde se divorce mantenant.c) Oui, mais on accepte que ce n’est pas nécessairement pour tout le monde.d) Oui, mais d’après les statistiques, ii y a plus de manages qui se terminent endivorce..3. Quand un parent decide de se remanier, queue est la chose la plus difficile pour1 ‘enfant?a) vivre avec un nouveau membre de la familleb) accepter la nouvelle personne comme père ou merec) avoir moms de place pour ses chosesd) pantager l’amour de son propre parent4. Quelles étaient les relations entre Gabrielle Coutu et son père?a) il vivait avec elle et puis ii est partib) ii était souvent dans sa viec) ii était rarement dans sa vied) il gandait contact de temps en temps, puis ii a complètement disparu1015. Comment la famifle de Gabrielle est-elle structurée maintenant?a) elle vit avec sa mere et son beau-pèreb) elle vit avec sa mere et son pèrec) elle vit avec sa mered) elle vit seul6. Qu’est-ce que les enfants du divorce pensent du manage?a) us le voient plus sérieusement que leurs parentsb) ils le voient de la même facon que leurs parentsc) ils sont moms sérieux que leurs parentsd) ils ne veulent rien en savoir7. Comment les enfants du divorce voient-ils l’amour?a) us croient qu’un vrai amour n’existe pasb) ils croient qu’un changement d’attitude est nécessairec) us préferent la cohabitationd) us refusent d’en panler102Appendix BFSL QuestionnaireThe questionnaire used for assessing intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in theclassroom and its scale were taken from Harter (1980). The FSL questionnaire follows.Student No.: Teacher: Block:Last year’s teacher:__________________GRADE 12 FRENCH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE QUESTIONNAIREPlease respond honestly to this survey. This does not count for marks. You will not begraded on this questionnaire. All information will be kept confidential.Please rate all statements listed below from: 1 = Strongly Disagree;2 =Somewhat Disagree;3=Neutral or No Opinion;4=Somewhat Agree;5 = Strongly Agree.I enjoy studying French grammar and linguistics 1 2 3 4 52. I enjoy speaking in French 1 2 3 4 51039.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 53. I enjoy reading French literature4. I enjoy writing in French5. I enjoy listening to people speak French6. I enjoy learning about French culture7. I enjoy working with other students in French8. I have enjoyed working with my past FrenchteachersI enjoy being able to speak another languageI use my French outside of class with friendsI use my French with familyI watch French filmsI use my French when dining at FrenchrestaurantsI watch French TN.I listen to French musicI am taking French 12 because my parents wantedme toI am takingI am takinguniversityI am takingI am takingI am takingI am takingcareerFrenchFrench12 because I wanted to12 because I need it forFrenchFrenchFrenchFrench12 because I enjoy it12 because I’m good at it12 because it’s an easy credit12 because it will help my10423. I am taking French 12 to be able to communicate 1 2 3 4 5with my family24. I am taking French 12 to be able to communicate 1 2 3 4 5with friends25. I am taking French 12 for travel purposes 1 2 3 4 526. I am taking French 12 to grasp an appreciation of 1 2 3 4 5French culture27. I am taking French 12 to be able to study in a 1 2 3 4 5French-speaking university or city28. I am taking French 12 to grasp a better 1 2 3 4 5understanding of what’s involved in learning asecond language29. I am taking French 12 to help me understand 1 2 3 4 5other languages or their structure better30. I am taking French 12 because Canada is a 1 2 3 4 5bilingual country31. I used my French this past summer 1 2 3 4 532. I speak another language other than English at 1 2 3 4 5home105Appendix CConsent LettersTHE UMVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADepartment of Language Education2034 Lower Mall Ponderosa Annex EFaculty of EducationVancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2Dear Parent:I am doing a study of second language retention after a period of disuse, for a graduatethesis at UBC, and I would like to request your permission for your child to take part.This study will be useful in increasing our ability to foresee needs to be reviewed in thefall semester, and to include children’s perceptions in educational planning.This study involves testing of your child during regular classroom time. The testingcontent was part of the French 11 curriculum and will be part of the French 12curriculum, therefore all students will write the exams. However, for those children whodo not wish to participate, no data will be included in the research. Your child will alsobe asked to complete two questionnaires indicating his/her interests in, use of andattitudes toward his/her study of French-as-a-second-language. This will be done in classin consultation with your child’s teacher. The total time required will be approximatelyone and one half hours.All of the data will be coded by number to ensure confidentiality. Your child maywithdraw from the study at any time if he/she wishes. Withdrawal or refusal toparticipate will not influence your child’s class standing. If you should consent, but yourchild should not wish to participate, he/she will not be penalized in any way. While theother students are completing the questionnaire, your child may select some Frenchmaterials to read.106I would greatly appreciate your assistance with this study. Please sign this letter in thespace provided below indicating whether you do or do not agree to let your childparticipate and return it to your child’s classroom teacher. Please also sign and retain thesecond copy for your own records. Should you have any questions, I would be pleasedto discuss them with you, or you may speak with either of my faculty advisors at UBC.I can be contacted at 668-6400, Dr. Stephen Carey may be reached at 822-6954, or Dr.Marion Porath may be contacted at 822-6045. Thank you very much for your interestand cooperation.Sincerely,Kathleen MacDicken-Jones, RSSS French TeacherI, , parent or guardian of__________________________________ ________dodo not consent to the use ofmy child’s assessment data for research purposes. I acknowledge that I have received acopy of this consent form.Signature: Date:______________________107UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONA Study of French-as-a-Second-Language Retention in Reading and Written LanguageSkills of Average and High-Achieving Language Students from Core and InternationalBaccalaureate ProgrammesAs I am doing a graduate thesis at UBC pertaining to the study of French-as-a-Second-Language, the following questionnaires seek information which may lead to abetter understanding of how you learn French and how and to what extent you use yourFrench. Once having received a clearer picture of your study of the language, teachersmay be better prepared to include your perceptions in their educational planning. Youwill not be graded on this information, nor does it have any bearing on your mark forthis course.The completion of these questionnaires will take approximately one half hour.Please note that you may decline to participate or you may withdraw at any time withoutjeopardizing your standing in class. All information will be kept confidential by codingthe data by number. Should you complete these questionnaires, it is assumed that youconsent to participate in this study. Should you not wish to participate, you may selectsome French materials for quiet reading.Thank you for your cooperation in this project.Sincerely,K. MacDicken-JonesI, , student number , of RSSS,_____________donot consent to the use of my assessment data for researchpurposes.Signature: Date:___________________Appendix DTest Component Statistics by Ability Grouping108. 1% U) L CD CD e U) F-. e CD 0) F-. CD U) U) U) CD t- CD — 0). pC F-. CD IS) U) 0d CD CD U) CD 0)0) U).— C’) C’) 04C 00)0) 0c’JC’,‘ —a) F’. CD C’) F’. F-. F— CD CD CD F’. CD CD U) U) CD U) U) CD U) C’) CD U) 0) U)CD0F-.) 00) 0404 CD‘a.—U) —CD F- F-. U) CD CD C’) CD F’- F— U) CD U) C’) ‘ IS) CD IS) C’) U) CDO(5a) 0 U) CD C’) U) 04 CD ‘ C’) 0 04 — 04 0)0) CD 0) 0 CD —00) U) CD CD —C’) 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 — — — ‘- 04 ‘- 04 04 ‘- .- — CDZ) C’)C’)U) CDCD;C)a) r-. CD 04 U) U) 0— 0 CD CD C’) ‘ 0 CD 0) CD F— U) U) C’) CD 04 0.1 F’- F--— CD0) 04—— 0.IC’JC.J 0)0)C C’JC%J= 0)0)C CDC%J.!a) CD CD CD U) U) C”) C”) C’) C”) C’) 04 0.1 —0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CD CD F-. CD IL)C’) C’) C”) C”) C’) C’) C”) C”) 0) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) 04 09 0.1 04 0.1 0.1 0.3 (‘.1 0.1 04 F-.)C%JCDC’) C’)1_Cl)F-.0 (“1U) C’) —IS)C’)C)C>— U.‘O)Cc _ E ._ ._ £ E _ E £ £ £ ,._ ,,_ £ £010 - .0 ( .0 C .0 (v.0 C C .0 ( .0.0 C .0 C ( .0 C .0 C .0.0.0.00.000)1090 C ; D) CD ‘ C) C) U) C%i D) U) C) U) C.J U) CD U) U) U) U) 1 CD U) 0)=z —)Cd U) U) C.J U) ‘- CD CJ U) — U) C) U) CO CD U) U) U) C.J U).., C)CbJ0),U) —0 U) CD C’) C’) U) U) ‘ CD ID ID C’J 0 C’) C’) CD CD — CDC’)z —-) CI.‘ U) CD CD C’) ID U) U) . U) C’) U) C’) C’) U) U) Ij.- C’) C’) ‘ U) C’) C%I C’) C’J C’Jo(CC’)C’J U)C%i CDc..J —, —CD 0 0) 0 F. CD 0) 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD F.- CD F.- CD CD CD It) CD CD C’) C’) U) ciC — C’bJ — — — C%J C%J ..)CJ CUCU —CD 0) F... 0 F.- CU CD — U) CD 0) 0) ‘ CD CU CD 0) 0) CU C’) CU C’) F.- CD C’) C’) F.I, —— CU —r— F.- F.- F-. F-. F-. CD CD CD CD CD CD U) U) U) U) It) ‘ C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) CU F.- CUCU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU (‘1 CU CU CU CU CU CU CU C’) CD-)C’) rO CDCU2I-U) C’) 0 F..U) U) CD CUCDO)U)CU 0C>- LI..)CEEEEEE.-EEE EE..__E °1C) C .0 .0 .0 .0 CU CU CU (U .0 .0 CU (U .0.0 CU .0.0.0.0.0.0 CU CU CU.0.00.0‘2,CDG)0Ctototototototototototototototo1%)totototototo0010—.011010010--.0.010)-toC.)0101%.)00)-0)..-J-(71COCD--..C.)0)C.)0)100)0)01tO--‘0)00)0)CD0)COO)(710100)100)010.01001-‘-0)CcOCO010)D)Q)O))OO)DO)t))OD)ØO)0CCj)3-4.33—g)øQm ,1—<*(DCC04(0-4(71C,)—-‘101010tOMM1’)0)0)-aC.).01C))010)0)•.J0)0)0)CDCDCDCD(0CD0000-’101%)10-’COt%)CO..J2010)cn(0C))=--(0-.‘2CO..0)C.)0.J0)0100C,)10tOMC.)-J0-’1010.0104‘-J4D100)CO-CCflC,)C(710-‘-‘MOCD0)J0)00)00-JOCD01001COMC)).C.)CO100101..CO—C.)II)C,)0)0Q -4CD(0CO0)COtO.(71.0110C.).0110...(0-‘C,)C.)-.10.-CO...10 4.4C.)(710014C.0)C0(0CO8-1%)—CO1010100101(0—to.hCOtoCO010)-01—-C.)10M10CO01-’10.CO.0)0)COCO1010-b.CO.CO1%)..0OTT.-C),C)LI)C’) 0)C) CJLI) CDa) 0)C) IS—F—C\I(I) C%10 CDa) F-_c.,CDg C)rCDCLOC,0 0)C’) OC) CDa) aa- F—dLi)C)Z CDc3-ICl)LL.. C) CDLi)r—.Lr)C)CDCDC)a)r’-. CD0 O C) CDLI) 0C) C, C) C) C) C) C’.) C’) C’.) C) C’.) C) .< r—r--Wa)o-. C).- C)CDCDF- U)F-_C)F—F-_I)JF--F’-.U)LDLi)Li)Lf) C’.)OCDCD CD-CD’-CD•C) ‘- —— r.C%JC’) CD1) C) C) c’ C’) ‘) C’) ‘) U) C) CDE c’.-g-- Li) C’.)..- U) U) C) F-- Li) F-. Li) F-. C) F-- C’) C’) F-. C’) C’) LI) U) U) C’.) F-. F-. F-- LI) C.) C) U) CD CD U)0 •CO’C’) CDCD.sj “C)8‘) ‘) ‘) C’) ‘) C’ C) CD U) LI)•a) LWv 0—a) c)C’.I- LI) C’J— CDU) F-.C’)C)C’)F--C’)C)C’)r’-F--Q)CsJ C)0 C’J(D rC’) ‘-CD C’) ‘C’)CDCDCDC)C’)C)CsJO C’.)C’..) C’)C) C’)C%) C.) Cr C’iC)C’)•L, F-w2 0 0C’,)C’.).-. F-CDC)CDCDc’JC)r—r--CD—cDr-ODC)CDCD C’)C’)CDCD C)C’)CDCD ‘CDCD CD——C’J0)CsJr--cJcJc’) C)C’J C’JC’.i C’.j c%J.— c’J c’ic.Jc’.ic.F--.C’.)CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC’.J---Z--.r’— F-— F—. i— 1’— F-- F— F— F-. F--. F--. F-— F-. I— F--. F-.— r— F-— F-— F--. r’— r— r— r—. r— F-- C’.) ><*__c- IEEEEE..EE...EE0(!) - o 0 a) D a) 0 a) . a) a) .0.0 a).0 a) .0 .0 .0.0 a).0.0 a) a) a)a) C’.) C’.) Li) C.) 0) a) CD 0) U) C) CD — Li) CD 0— U) CD 0) 0) 00 ) 0 F-- U) 0 CD — CD 00 0) CD C’.) C’.) F-. 0) LI) C’) Ci) 0 C’.) CD Cs) CS)ZsjU). )0U)a)a)U)oQa),-Csj,--,-,-- ),-(J) CS) C’) C’.) CS) CS) C’.) CS) CS) C’) C’.) C’) Cs) CS) CS) C’) CS) C’.) CS) C’,) CS) CS) Cs) C’) C’) Cs) C’)Appendix EQuestionnaire Results by Ability Grouping111I)000)0zC,)a)a)CC0(I)a)a0tCD010CDCDCDCd)Co=(000F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)P.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)-.C,)—--.-.F’)COO0001.0.01F’)ZF’)P.)0)F’)0(.11C,)01CD1COF’)F’)0).CD000)-.0)001J0CDo 0CD(00)01-00)01.-0).C,)01(DO)COCDF’)(31F’)P.).CO.-J01-(3101.01.F’)C,)C,)0101-’...01.(31.01(71010101C,)0101‘-IlC,)I-‘0 0.COCDCo .0)0)0101.C,).C,)(TI.C,)(TI.TO(31F’)01.01(,)C,)0101.F’.....O)-I,.C,)I-0)0 CD-.F’).0.1’)CDC,).C,)(00)0).001.0C,)C,)(3101C,)C,)0)01(3)C,).0.0C,)(11..C,)(71.0....0C31.J—-TIC))I-00-JF’)C0).0-CDCD0)0Cd)F’)F’)00101.0C,)COCO(71C,).0.001C,)(31.0.0(7101.01.0.0(3101C,)0101CD.ICO-‘0 0C,)0)01(0CD-‘.0.F’)Co01!‘I-0)0 ..0C 0)TOC,)CD --‘(0 01TOO)C,)COCOCOTOTOCOF’01TOCO..0101r’)F’.)O-..!‘I-F’)0 C,)C,)0-.F’)CD-JCO.0CO—.0COF’)--’-’0101-’-’.CO---.!‘I-1’)0 COCOC0-‘1’)CD.-.J0).0C0-J—‘(DCO.0TOC,)-(,)COCO-F’)!‘)81’)CD-’-’C)1F’)C,)---C,)I F’)P.)2C,).0.F’)--‘CO4COiTT0C0000(0C(0(0G)0Ciir.,rsi’.i’.rrsrsrorirs.ir’rrriI’.)rsI3Irsrs3r-.-)-.a)000014’zF’3r%)0)r.)001C.)(31(0J0)r)F%)a).(0000)a)001J00)00(0(00)01-00)(Y1.-‘a).C.)01(0010)(011301I’.)F’).0),,!2-001F’)C,)OlFs)-o10)(001C,)-F’)F1U)I-‘0 01C,)CC,)01.Ct)0)C,)01Cn010a)0101.C,)C,)0101.01C,)010101..(7).01(31.010101.(31...J‘C.)fl(00)t1(710C01-.(0(31-0101(7)01.0101(3101F’)01...(31(31F’)Fl)-C,).a)jI-(310-0)-.(001(31..C,)0101C,)II)C,)01(.301...C,)C,)010101.01..01CD—J 11)(3101C,)01C,)C,)-‘C,)(31-.C,).01...01..C,)(.3...(31C,)..0—!•‘II”)0 C,)C,)C0-r’)0-J0).113o.,.J-F’ $.)C’)ICo0COFI)CD41130.—Ja)O)C31a)0101C,)01COCO01rl)—--F’.Cl)itI- C,)00-.C—JC,)CDa)-J0)F’30CDC,)CO—.-.*-.Cl)2]CO—--------C,)Ii a).0)CY)CYIC,):i CoOO)O1 10101.F’Q)—LII0Co033CoCCO3:G)0C-aF’.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’.)F’)F’)F’)F’.)I’.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)-.F’.)-0100o(r1-F’.01r’.)zF’)1’.)0)F’)001C,)01CD011’)F’)0).(0000)-0)001-J0010(0(00)01-h00)01.-.0).(001(00)01CDF’)01F’)F’).CO-riC,)[218.01.F’).--C,)C,).C.)-F’)-‘C,)F’).-01C,)..C,) ,)I-0)0 (00)CF’.)F0.CDC.)(DOF’)Cfl—O)OO101(0(.)-01F’CF’.)CØ:F’),, F’)I- 0)0C.)C01-“JCDC.)(01’)(00CO0101-C.)C.)----’F’)-.----I,Cl)I-0 01CC,)(OF’)CD.(00)(0001(0C.)0101010101C01—01oi.oi—01(0.01ro—1711115— CJ C’J 0) U) OJ 0) 0) 0) C) C) C) C) C) 0.10) C’J C) C’) 0.1 C’) C’) 0.1 U) CO I’.Co 0.JCD 0)a> r-.c.i(o— C’) C’) C’) C’) C’J C’) C’) C’) 0.1 C’) C’) C’) C’> — U) C’) C’> C’) C’) C’) — — — U) — — CD(I) C’> 0)Cu oc’> 0.1— C’> C’) C’) 0) C’> C’) U) Cs> U) C’> C’> U) — U) C’) U) C’) C’> U) U) (0 CO (00)U)g C)— — * C’> C’) C’) Cs> C’) C’> C’> C’) C’) C’) C’) C’> — C’> U) (5> C’) 0) C’> C’> U) 0 C’)Co 0(0 (0a> ‘-C’J 0)(0. -. C’) C’) U) I— r. U) r-. C’) U) C’) j’-. U) C’) C’) r C’) C’) r- C’) t’. r-. r.. r-. 0) U) CO° -: C,U)U) C) —. —CO —C’)COU).-CD OC’)Cu‘) C’) C’) C’> C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’> C’> C’) C’) C’> . COr-.CsiWa> COCO 0C5J.o 1’. C’). C’) C’) U) U) U) C) F-. F. C’) C’— C’) C’) U) C’) C’) C’-.. U) F’.. C’) C’) F’-- F’- C’) F— C’) U) C’> U)OCOCO0jCOU)U) (0(0 (0(0.—0 C’).C’)C’)C’>O COa> C’.> CS> CS> C’> C’> C’) C’) C’> C’) C’> C’> C’> C’> C’) C’> C’) CS> C’) C’>E CO)._) C’)F— C’) F F— F C’) C’) F’- C’) C’) C’) U) C’) ‘. C’) F’- U) — F U) C’— C’) U) U) C’) U) C’)0 (OCCr(Ø0) C’)(’> (0 ,(0COCOCsJ’- 0C’> Cs> Cs> CS> C’) C’> C’) C’) C’) CS> C’> C’) C’) C’) C’> C’> C’) C’) U) C’)‘°WO .C’) C’>cu C’>C’>(0 C’>.- C’) U) C’) U) C’) C’) I— F’.. C’) U) C’-. C’-. C’) U) F— F-. C’) C’) F’- C’) C’) Cs> C’) C’-.. C’) C’) U) 0) C’) —0 COc,j C’> 0)’ CO•’C’)CO• C’). C’> C’> CS> C’) C’> C’) C’> C’) C’> C’> C’> C’) C’) C’> C’> C’> C’) C’) 0. 0)L(w2 r-.c’.>O)Cs>.o— U)U)U)C’>r-..C’)0Cu(00)(0COCOU).’>C’) CO(0 —C’)(0U)—r-CDCO C>OC’.JC’)c0.>C’> >‘C’C C’) CSjCSi C)C)0)C’)C’>C\>0.I C’.1. (0”-C’)W U)C’>Cs>.o C’>IEI>C: EEEE..EEEEEEEE.._...C!3 - Cu Cu - - - - Cu 0 Cu .0 .0 Cu .0 Cu Cu Cu Cu .0 .0 Cu .0 .0 Cu .0 .0 .0(0 C’> 0) C’) C’> C’) CO (0 Cs> C’> 0 C’> C’) (0 C’) U) U) — 0) U) — C’) — C’) 0) 0 (00 o CO 0 CO CO — C’> CO U) Cs> 0) — U) C’) Cs> C’> U) (0 (0 U) U) CO C’) (SI C’) — U)ZCOC’>.-0U).-.-CO0)-0),-U)U)U)U)C)’>C5J..C’> CS> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> CS> CS> Cs> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’> C’.> — C’> Cs> Cs> C’>0.0IDCoCoII)CuC0U>Cu0000100IDID01(000(1100F’)F’)F’)F’)-.1’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)I’.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)1’)F’)F’)F’)-‘F’)F’)F’)-.C.01F’).01-CflCliC,)-.C’)CO-.-.0)0-‘F’)COz 01-.C’)F’)C,)0)01Cli0)0)01F’)F’)C’)01CDF’)01COF’)—0)0)0CO00 0)0COC’)C’)-010)-(3101C’)0)C’)F’)0F’)F’)0)COC’)F’)C’)COF’)0)CO.C’)O)ID.Cfl.0).-.l(001.F’)C’)CliC’)C’)01-’01C’)C’)..F’)CliF’)...(71.C’)C’)C’)C’)01-Il C,)I0.i.o C,)—‘0(0—J010C31C)i-.F’)01C71C’)C31010101C’Cji--0iC’).0)—C,)j -.1•-0 —J00(0COF-.)I-CO-.0 COCO.D.0IDCliC’).-F’)F’)(31(31-..F’)Cli.-C’)-.C,).(7101C’)01..-COI-F’)0 0101CDO1C,)IDF’)010)CO0101(310101.0101-(310101(310101-..010101Cli-..C’)01(0—)I..D.COF’).ID-‘-“CO(31CliCD.-F’)-.C’)F’)C’)01-‘F’).F’)-‘-01.C’)-.-.C’)F’)F’)0-nI-010 COF’)F’)—‘JCli-0-‘coCOCO-(--‘--‘--‘-‘C’)Ol—’C’)-’-‘--‘--CYIF’)-IlC)I-F’)-‘CDIDCli-”-“coF’).0)--F’)-C’)--’-’C31-”IC’)—--l’)--’-.C’)F’)-C’)--’-’C’)-’C’)C31;9110CCD00CDCDXI(V0C0CD0CF’)I’)I’)F’)-F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’.)-.C.)01F’)01.-‘0101-‘C.)-C.)01-‘0)0-.F’).0101-.C..)F’)C.)0)01(11010101F’)F’)C.)01—’CDF’)(1101F’)0)0)00100 0)001C.)-’C.)0101-0101C.)0)C.)F’)0F’)F’)0)01C.)F’)C.)01F’)0)-ricjI-F’)-‘CDCD01-..-‘0F’)0)0)0141.—C.)C.).D.C11F’)--’.D.0)---I,U)I-0.D.0)0)0)-‘Co.F’).(11C.)(11C.)C.)C.)(11...01C.)01.01C.).C.)01C)1C7)C11-0101C.)C.)jI-.0 ‘F’)C--DC.)CD-‘0)f’.)-‘Co-‘C.)I-00 C.)01C —JC.)rs)CD,,U)j CO0101-—rO.--‘-I,.U)00 JF’)C .—‘F’)CD 0-‘0r’)Co-.-n.(I)I010-‘C010CD01.D.F’)F’)CnF’)0)I-C.)-.iJ C.)F’)0.C.).D-‘C.)-‘.D01-.C.)C.)C.).D01-01-’-.D.D.D--D.-‘F’)(111i .D.D01F’).D-‘C.).D01.D-D.DF’)-.F’)CO•01.D.D.D-..—-‘LITL)1’.)I)I)-‘1’)I’)r%3I\)IF%)Fr’.)I’31’)I’.)r’331I)rjr%)irorororo01-.-.a)O--ro.01Z 01-C,)1%)C,)0)01(710)0)01F’)F’)C,)01CD31)(3101F’)0)CD00)00)001C,)-C,)-0101(71(31C,)0)C,)31)031)31)0)01C,)31)C,)CD31)0)-I,r00 C,).C.10CD001(0.101-—I’.)F01(31C01F’)C0CDC,)311 —0)01...31.0131).-.C,)-C,).C,)C,)C,)C,).C,).0131)C,)--C0m C,)I0)-1(.)(l)CD.31’001C,)Cn-CD.-‘C,)-...01C,)-(31.-.C,).(71F%)C,)-....(31F’).31.C,)31)0—‘1“)Ci)ICD0F’)C,)C(71-“1CD(a0131)(00C,)(D—’01-.-’.-’.(311’)F’)-Il C,)C,) (71I0 01CDC-..31.0CD01Fs)Fs)Coo(31(0(3101F’)01(31(31(31-.(31(71-.(31-C))..01(71(71(3101(310131)—0CCD0)00CDCD0CCo0CDG)0C811119.; CU CD CU CU CU CD — CU CD CU CU CU CU CU CD 0) CD(I) 0) CDU) U)-Jg— CD CU — CU —0)0) CU CD — CD CU CD CD CD CD — CD 0) CD — — CU U) 0) U)CU‘3—jci)Ut; CU CD CU U) — U) CD CU CU CD — ‘ U) U) CD U) 0) .a) CU‘3 CDU)— — 0) CU 0) CD — CD CU CD CD 0) CD CU CU ‘ CU 0) U) rC cOCO F-a CDC’J 00g C’).- F— t— CD F— r— CD F-. C’) F-- F-- CD F— U) 0) r— U) U) CD F-- F— CD I—. CD - CD F— 0) U)0 c)—CD (CCD• ‘0)0) 0) CU CD CD CD CD CD CD C’) CD CU CU CD CU CU CD CD CD C’)•.= 0)r.—CU.o F— CD— U)U) U)CDF-CDC’)CD0),-- 0)OCDCD’)CDcDCD JCDCDCD C) CD 0)0)00) CD(1) CU CU — CD CU CU CD CD CU CU CU CU CD CU CU CD CD CU CD 0E CDw U) —.CU-- CD 0)F- CD CD F— U) CD - - - CD r- - CU CD - U) F-- CD - - CD U) CD CD CD0 CDCDCD CDCD— CD DCD.—CDCDa)0U>CUCUCUCU CDCUCU0)CUCUCUCUCUCU CCU CDC’)C’CU CU. ‘aaCU. CD C’) CD CD U) U) F-— U) C’) F- CD r CD F-- F-— CD CD CD U) CD F-. U) U) F—. CD F-— CD CU CD0 00 C’CU ‘-COCDQ CDCU CU CU CD CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CD — CU CU CUø C__ccw2 0)00F.-—. CD CD U) CD F.— U) CD CU F.-. CD F- U) U) F-. U) F--. CD CD — CD F.-. CD F.— F-. F-. CD CD CD CO000) CDCD —.--CD CD ‘CD’-CDUCUCDc CU CU — CD CU CU CD — — CU CU — CU CU Fc’ CD(.j- CUCD’-£0 C__iCD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD F.-. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CU ><EcE EEE..EEC!3 - a) Ca . Ca . Ca .0 Ca .0 Ca.0 Ca .0 .0 Ca Ca Ca .0 C.0 Ca Ca Ca .0 .oCD Cr) U)U) CDCO CU CD 0) CD CD CUCD 0U) 0)0U)CD CDO ‘ l CD0 — 0) CD CD ‘Cl CU — F--. — U) — CD CD 0) 0 ‘Cl CD U) CD CD CU U) CDZCUCUCU0Cl.0OOCUOU),...CDU)U)O_CDCDCUU)_CUC\ICUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU00-SfJ)CO‘a‘aCa0COa)a0010:ij(0C01G)0CF’I\I\)1’)I”)I\)rI)r%)I\I’.)I1%)I”3I”)I’.)r%Iirr’I’i-.0).01(C,)<001C,)..0(0CT,0)01-‘-<0<00C,).--‘00)C,)010.CD0100)r%0)0)(00)r)<00)010101C,)CD;I- C’)-.0 0)-.C..0)CD0101C,)010101C,)01..-01.01--01010101..-.0)-n:(I)I(00 rrcC,).C,)CD0C0()(00)0101010101r)..01010101..C,)C,)Cl)-Cl).C,)01..‘J—‘-I ç.)C’,I(00,)I\)CD:::j0101010101D.D.03-‘1--cj)I.-.0 0)r’.,C-‘01(01%)01.01C,)01(31(l)..C,)...(31.(11(31-D.-010101(31.C,)(31.(0-n!“)Cl).I-.0 01.CC,)P00CD0)0(00100)C,)C.)-P0P0..C,)-.C,).r3.C,)-‘.C.)-P.)-.-Il.Cl) 0)I (31C’)0<0-C.D.<0CD0)C0--0)P.)(0(0-I,.Cl)I—10 0)P0(0F’.)-0C,)--D.-P.)!<0C.)C-.P.)0)0)—C,)--’CO-.C,)C,)C,)r’IC’)0C.)F’.)(00)CO—-P0C,)-C,).D.-D.P0--C,)-C,)-1,Cl)-I P.)0)COP0-’r0C,)-C,)-.rs)oT0CCD0CDCDCDC.,C0G)0CI’.)I’.)r’I’.)I\I%3r%)F’)I’)I’)F’)F’)F’)F’)r)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)I’.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)—a).01F’.)C,)a)01C..)..0CDa)0)-.—a)-.0CO0)C,)01O01Oa)F’)a)a)CD0)F)a)0)010101,).-I,.Cj)IQ0 --.C 0)a)CD -(DoC)10—“-‘-“-..C31---C,)F’)C,)F’)-..:--ICo-.0 I’.)F’)CC,).C.)CD21.F’)0101.0101.01.....0).F’..010101C))01.01..J-n($)I—J0a)F’)C(00101CDF’.)0.D.C.)..-01.01F’)01C))C)).(31.C,)01F’.)C))C,)0101.(71.C))OC))..¶)—c,)C.)a).0 a)4C—C,)ICD.C,)01F’)C,)..F’)F’)-‘...1’.)..(,)C,)..(71C,)C,)C,)..(0fl F’)Co8I- C,)0a).C.F’.F’).jCDa)-0)F’)C,)C,)F’)-I,.Co2] 0)0 CDCr.)a)CDC,)0)a)I\)0-r’)C,)F’)-I,C’)!-.0 0C.a)CD.-F’)0-F’)0).C))..01...(71..F’.C,).01F’).01..(7CC))F’)C)).F’.)-Il.Cl)I—C))0 C,)Ca)a)CD.C,).F’)Cna)—1l•l.Cl)i:J C))01(O0101F’)F’)F’)F’)01—F’)CCDJT0CD(00CDCD:o‘1,(0CO00CVi\)r’I’)FOI)I\)I’..)r’)\)I’.)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’)F’.)F’.)O01-OF’)Ooo.D..or’)r)r’)Z —0).I.01F’)C,)0)01C,)..0CD0)0)-.(71-.-0)(0-0 (0OOCD0100)O)CD0)F’)O)0)01C31(31C,)!‘)I-(310 C,)C,)c 0)-0CD .F’)F’)(n 0)--‘-C,)J-Il !‘)I-0101cC,)r’.)(DCD 0)0)F’.)010101(0(0(0 )-,.‘1 !‘0)0 C,).C0)F’0O)CD-1\)0)01 (0-I’.CD-IIC,J (3101.0101F’).C,)4.C,).I’.).C,)C,).C,)-.F’.)(00—‘1 !‘)IC,)C,)CD 00)0))---01-C..)I-010 C,)0C0)(001CDI’00)(0(00)(31—-.Cj)C,)-01-0171)01-C31-(71-’--01-*F’)01F’)z10Co0zCoCo00r’.r’irr’iirr’iiirriiriIr’r,irO01OrOOOOrrZ 0).01F\C,)0101C,)..0CD0)0)-01I’,).0)C.)0)-.C.O0o)oC,,oF’)jI-010 C,)C,)c 0)-0CD .D.•F’)I’.)Cn 0)D01--‘.--.‘1 F’)(0I- 0)0101C.)Fs301CD0)0)F’)F’)Co01I’)0)0 C.).0)F’)0)CD01P01--“a01.01(71F’).C.).C.).F.).C,)C,).C.)-.D.F’)C,)0I--I-(00 r’)C.)C C’)-CD 0(00101---’-.)-.I-(110 C.)0)C(0C’)Ol.F’),))(‘)Co0)(fl—’--01F’)C—0I(%)(JI4,,-.01-’C7I----01-’F’)01F’)’liTa)Co==0a)a‘C’,C,Co(1)Co00)Ca)a)a)123- Co F- LI) F-. U) 0) C’) C’) CO0 — Co cli — C.- Co F- C’)CD Co F- C’) Cli CO CD 0.1 0.-C’4 CoF-0) .‘C’.JCo(3 cli — C’) F- F’- C’) 0)0) —C-CD 0).0) OCOC’)C•Ccl ,•CDu_.- F- 0) Co CO CO Co Co 0)0 Co — F’- CO C’) ‘ — 0CD Co 0)0) 0) 0) 0 0 C’)— C’) Co Co CD C’) CO(3 Ci) Cl) Co U) Co F- Ci) Cli CO040)0) 000 —F’-CoCl104C1J dc000 — CCD Co 0) Co 0)0) Cl) ‘CD F-C’) C’) ‘- C’.) 0.1 CO CO F- F-Cl) CO.-CO COOl—U) CO Co C’) C’) C’) Co(3 Co CO F- C’) Co C’) F- F- F-CD “C’) CO C’) C’) 0 CoClC”C’ doLl. 000 0. CO F- U) C’) CO Co Co CO CliCl) Co 0) C’..) Co Co CO C’)Cl) C’.) C’) 0) 0 0) COU) 0) 0) C’) 0) F- C’) 0(3 CII 0 Cli CO 0) U) Co —COO) COLI) 00CllLI. 0 00.1 0’— * 0) CII CO ,C’) U) ‘CD CO0 Co—Co COCO F-C’JCD CII Co 0) CII U) F- Co 00)D Co Co 0) C’) 0) 0 CO F- C’)(3 U) CO CD CII CO C’) Co —C’)’ CO F- Cli 0) CO F- FC’)0)C’J C’ doLl. 000 .“.‘0.-C’) CD 0)’ Co CO CII 0) C’)0 F- — — U) 0 F- CO Co 0CD C’) 0 C’) 0) Co ‘ 0)Z — F- 0 C’) U) 0 0 CII F-(3 F- F- 0 0) F- CII F- 0 F-C’) ‘CD 0 C’) 00) 0 U) COC’)C’C’) 0)U)000CII 0) U) CO CO C’) CII U) — COCl) C0Co0) 0)0)0 COCOO)CD LI’) Co CII 0) C’) 0) 0 F- 0C’.) F- CII CII CO 0) CO(3 0)CD CO ‘C’).C’.I 0F-0 CoO)C’C’C”) “d 0—Ll 000 —_..— CoCoF- 0)’D’O)0 CD0)U) FCD CIIC’)F- CIICO 0)—D ‘CD CO F- 0 CD 0) U) 0(3 0)COC’) COCO F-CIIC’.1C’)CO 0)00C’)C’)C 0).LqLI. 000 00)0)0) — C’.) CO 0) CD0 F- C’) C’.) CO CO F- C’)F- — F- 0) CD 0) 0)’) 00 C’) CII F- C”.) F- CII F.- CO — CO I)) — U) CO 0)w dC’ 0.”CII 0)CoF-000.90 0 0.- CO Cli Cli U) ‘CD F- U) CO Cli0 — 0 — — 0 0 F- 0) 0) CDc C’) CO 0 —CD COU)F- ‘-Co COCOFE C’) CO CO CO 0) CII U) 000 Co U) Co 0 — ,. 00 ‘‘ d’09.9 ooo ‘ 00) U) C’) Cli CO C’) CII Cli F-0 C’) CD U) Co CO C’) 0 C’) CO- 0 C’) 0) 0) CO C’) 00)C. C’4F-’— COF-C’) COC’JCO) CO CII F- C’) F- — C’) 0)w COU)L1) CoF-CO—-:-: 0—09 000 —C’) 0) ‘CD 0) CII 0) C’) CD Cli0 0)0) CO—F0) Cli U) U) 0 Co 00) CO0 F- 0) 00) ‘CD 0) 0C’) CD 0) U) CII 0) 0 CD U)0 — 00 0 U) CO F- —‘-‘C’)o•9Q 000 —. C’) CD CII F- CO F- 0—.’ — U)0 CD U) .1) C’j CO CO U) U) U) C’) 0)C C’) F- CO CO 0) 0 Ii) 0 CSJC 0) CO U) F- CO CoCD Co C’) Co C’) LI)” Cli CO CoU) CoF-C’J F-C’.)—‘‘d C’.dCO..90 00 —‘- ‘0 CCC0. ‘‘Cl)rrIDco0C0(0000C)0U)(00.z00)I124CD F.. CD CD — C’) CDCCCSJI C’JO CDCi0C) CD CD CD 0 CD r- U) C’.JCSJ U) CD 0)0 0) CD U) 0) — C’)C%J,-CD CDC’)— CD,.dC’N O’CCD 0•00— e C%J C’) C’) CD CD C’) CD CDCC C’.,) ‘ C’) C’) F- CD — t. CD 0C) — ‘C’ ‘C’ CD 00) CD 00) F’- F-- 0) 0 U) 0) -0 F-.0 C’.) F’. F-. C’) CD C”,) ‘) CD ‘C’0)0)0) “CDCD 000C’JCC ‘C.-L1 0 0 0 C’) C.) — — 0— CD CD ‘C’ CD “C’ U) CD ‘C U) C’)0— 0CD.- 0U)C) U) CD CD C’) C’) — C’) C’)D CD C’) CD C’) C”) CD C’) C”) C’)o C’.) 0 0) CD 0 ‘C’ ‘. 0 CDCD00 F--CDQA CCC’c000 C’J 0’— CD C’.) C’.) U) 0)0) CD — — CD0 — 0) 0 C’.) CD — CD C’) CD C’)C) 0 0 r— CD 0 0) — 0) 00 CD C’) CD F’. C’) — C”) CD( CD ‘C C’) 0) ‘C’ 0) — CDC’)CD 0’CCD 0)U)C’)C’)C’C”J000I’. ‘C’ — CD CD — C’) CD CD F-.0.- C’.JCDO ,- 0—CDC) LX).- 0)0)0 0CD0) F’- CD CD CD CD CD0 C’) 0 0 0 CD CD CD 0C’)U)0 C’.JC’.SC 0,0),,000 0.-CD CD C’,) CD F’- F”. CD CD ‘C’CC — 0 C’) U) CD 0 U) — CD CDC) ‘C’ ‘C’ C’) CD 0 C’)Z —r--’C’ .-CD 0)00( 0) F-- CD F’. 0) — C’) CD C’)‘C’ 0) C’) F’. — F-- C’) CD CDCC’JC’) dC’.C”,000 ‘— ‘O’— CD — ‘C C’.) 0 CD F”. — C’) C’)0.- CDC’)— 00 OF’,)—C) CDCDU) F--CD ‘—C’)D 0)”- F—c’) ,F-.CD0 CDF-- CDCD CDU)C’,JC’.j,- C’)C’) ‘CD(‘C’ C’)LI. 000 0C’,) CD C”) CD C’,) CD CD ‘C’ 0)0 F-.C’)F’. C’)OO CJC’)C’)C) — F-- U) F’-. CD CD C)) U) U)Z C”J.’O) r’-W CDC’)CDa F- F’. — ‘C’ F” 0) —CD U) C’) F’. 0) U) ‘ FC’)C’)C’ ‘COCJu, 000 ‘0— C’) C’.) — ‘C’ C”) ‘C’ C’.) CD U)0 — U) 0) C’) CD CD F”. U) C’) C”.)C) 0) CD 0) 00 0) 0) 0)D U) F- 0 0 ‘C’ 0) U) U) 00 C’)C’)-, ‘CC’)C’J 0)r-.CDLDU)C’) .“CD U)’C’CDC’C’(’000 —— C”.) 0) C”) F-. CD CD C’) CS) CD0 — CD C”) CD F-- C’) F- 0C) C”) 0) U) C’.) 0) CD ‘- C”.)D CD’C’ ‘COr- —CDv0 C’)CD U)’-U) CJU)C’) CDU)CD-I (‘)C’ .LI. 000 ‘‘0,‘. — C”) F--CD CD F-- U) C’,) CD C’)0.- C”J.F’-O) ‘C’C’F- CflC’)C) C’.) CD C’) U) U) CD F’— ‘C’D C’)—CD 0C’JU) —Or-.0 0) C’) ‘C’ 0) 0) C’S) — C’) CDU)0)C’) , U)C’).C’)C’C’) ,CDCDLI. 000 00.-0 — CD CD CD ‘C’ U) CD CD U)0 OF--C —C’)U) ‘C’CDCS)0) CD ‘C’ ‘C’ CD CD F’- CD CD F-.D D C’)C’,i O)-OCD0 U) — 1”. 0 ‘0) 0) CDCDF’.CD — U) F-’;’O)-) CC’C’ C’S) 0— 0) U) CD— — CD ‘C’ CD U)0 CD C’.) CD CD C’) U) — CD C’,)C) C’4CS)C’) CDD)F..D CD CD 0) I”- C’) CD U) F”. —Q CD F”. ‘C’ C’.) CD 00 C’.)CD CD F-. C’) C’) CD — CD CD‘‘ °d”LI, 000 0 —=‘ — = C’ “.‘= — C0 ,&)0 “ ‘0.0 .C,EC))(I)a)(CC0Coa)0Ci,00a,Ci,00)CI125ZR’.;0 C’) CD C— 0 CD 0) 0 CD 0 CD0) 0 C’) 0 0) C’) CD 0 —CD I.)) CD C’) CD CD C’) 0a U) 0 C-- CD C’) 0) 0 C-- 0C--0O) 000 CJ0)CJ‘CDLi 000 0 ‘0— (N CD C-. — C’) ‘‘ CD CD CDCO C’) CD — — Ct) — 0) ‘ CD0) CD CD C-- 0 U) CD CD CDC’J 0 — (N (N C--0 0 0) — C-- (N 0 — CD 0)0)C’)CD 0)C’4 CDr-.,.- C’)oC’)g 0 0 000 0) C- C’) (N r’- 0) CD CD C’)OC’) 0C-- C)J0)CD CDC’)0) CD0) —NCD 0CD0)D 0 CD CD 0) CD 0 CD 0)0 C— C--. C’) CD CD CD —CD C-. C-- (N —0) ‘0’ ,. 0)-J C’)C’)C’ CDCa0000 000-.- 0) ‘0’ (N C-- (N (N ‘0 CD CD CD0 (N — — CD ‘0 CD (N U) — C-.0) CD r— CD ‘0 C’) CD U) CO 0’—0 CD (N 0) 0 C-- 0o CD CD (N 0)0) CD — —CDC--.C’) 0)0 C0)CDC’)C’C’LI. 000 —— CD 0) C-I ‘- ‘0’ CD — CD 0)CO (‘Ci 0 CD 0) — CD C’) CD CD0) 0 CD 0 CD C’) 0 — COO)C’) CD CD CD — C’.) CD C--0 CD C’) 0 C’) (Ci (N C-. CD CDC’)CO ‘0C’) CDCDCDCDC’.C’ ddd00.I’-. 0)C”JCO 0)C-- C’)0 (N C-- C-- CD 0) ‘0’ (‘1 CD U)0) CD C-. 0) C’,) — 0 I’-.D ‘Ci’ 0) CD ‘Ci’ — CD —0 C’) ‘0’ — C’) C’- CD C-- C’) —‘Ci’C’)C’) C’)OO) CD0)(N‘)0 o.-0 ‘0— CD ‘Ci’ C-. U) CD ‘Ci’ CCI CD’0’0 (N CD — r’- LI) — CD C—0) CC) C’J CD C-. — CCI CD 0) 0) — CD C-. C’) CCI C-.. C’)0 CD CD 00) 0.’ 0CDO)CD —CC)- C”CC’)C’) ddLi. • ‘CD— CD — CC) CD (N ‘0’ CD - CD CD CDCO CC) 0) 0) C’.) 0) CD ,- 0 C’) C’)0) — 0) CD CD CD C’) —D CDCDCD 0)—CD OCDCD0 CC) CD CD 00) C’) 0 CDC’- ‘0’ CD C’) CC) 0 I’- C’- CDC’)C”I ddCD.LI. CD 0 0—‘0’ C’) CD 0 C’) CD — CD C’.)0 (Ci 0) CD Li) C’) 0 CDa) .-CDC’) CDC’) ‘C—CDD CDCDC’) C-lCD ,CD(3 CD(C)0 ‘-0CDCDCD C’)CN (‘-CDNC-1C’ -—LI. OCDCD CD— C’) — C’) CD — CC) 0) — CD ‘0COC’.) CDU)CD 0)CDCD C--DO)0) — — (N C’) 0) CD CD CCI’0’Z ——C- O)C--.CD0 CD CD C’) CD 0) CD ‘0’ U) CD0) CD’ CD CD 0 CD It)“C’id q’ CDd.00 ——0C’) ‘0’ ‘0’ CD 0) ‘0’ CD —‘a CC) C’- CD CD CD — C’- ‘Ci’ CD CC)0) CD C’) CD CD CD CD C’)D CD C’) CD C’) CC) CD C— I’-.(3 CD CD ‘- CD C’) 0) 0) CD)‘.—CC) — ‘0) CD ‘0CC)C’)C’) —d000=‘— CD’CD CCC0 ‘.‘‘: •‘a ‘DCl)

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078342/manifest

Comment

Related Items