UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Individual differences & second language proficiency Higginson, Dorothy Gayle 1991

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_higginson_dorothy.pdf [ 4.51MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086407.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086407-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086407-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086407-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086407-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086407-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086407-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086407-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086407.ris

Full Text

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES & SECONDLANGUAGE PROFICIENCYByDOROTHY GAYLE HIGGINSONB.A. (Psychology), University of British Columbia, 1971Department of Educational Psychology and Special EducationA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF EDUCATIONWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardUNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADecember, 1991© Dorothy Gayle Higginson, 1991In 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.(Signature)Department of  td,“ c su ko ,,,1 R ekjc, , /1The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate JA ,^3I , IYj2.cLta^vtDE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis study examines the language proficiency of Late French Immersionstudents in relationship to the affective variables: self-perceived competency andintrinsic motivation. The sample was comprised of 40 students, ages twelve tothirteen years, who attended a dual-track school in a suburban setting of BritishColumbia. The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale was utilized to ascertaina subscale score of academic self-concept. An estimate of the students'motivational orientation, expressed along an intrinsic./extrinsic continuum, wasmeasured by the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children.Secondary data on affective variables associated with the students' andtheir parents were determined through the administration of self-report itemsselected from the Attitude and Motivation Test Battery of Gardner and Associates.Competency was measured by a standardized instrument, The French ImmersionAchievement Test (FIAT) and the B.C. Ministry Assessments of 1987 and 1988.A descriptive analysis of all the variables (aptitude, linguistic & affective)was conducted. Various statistical procedures (Pearson correlation, chi-square andlinear regression) were effected with attention to the correlational relationshipsbetween: aptitude, language performance, intrinsic motivation, self-perceivedcompetency and integrative orientation. The interrelationship of situationalfactors such as, standard characteristics of the French Immersion environment andpertinent information on parental student support, was presented.iiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT ^  i iTABLE OF CONTENTS ^  iiiLIST OF FIGURES  viLIST OF TABLES ^  viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ^  viiiDEFINITION OF TERMS  ixCHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION ^  1Background to Contemporary Programs and Practices ^ 1CHAPTER II — EMPIRICAL WORK: A REVIEW ^  5Features of Early and Late French Immersion  5B.C. Assessment of 1987 ^  6B.C. Assessment of 1988  8Features of Second Language Acquisition ^  11Conceptual Foundations ^  12Motivation ^  12Motivational Systems ^  17Perceptions of Ability  18^Situational Influences and Individual Differences   19Affective Variables and Second Language Acquisition ^ 21A Socio-educational Model of Language Acquisition  22CHAPTER III — SPECIFIC DISCOURSE LEADING TO THE PROBLEM ^ 28Reward and Motivation ^  28Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy ^  29The Gardner Model and Social Learning Theory ^  31Multidimensional Model of Motivation: ^  32The Problem ^  34iiiQuestions ^  36Limitations of Study^  37CHAPTER IV — METHOD  38Objectives ^  38Sample  38A Students: ^  38B Parents:  38Testing Procedures ^  38Design ^  39Instrumentation ^  41Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test ^  42Intrinsic-Extrinsic (I-E) Scale for Children ^  42Piers-Harris ^  42Reliability of the Piers-Harris ^  43Validity of the Piers-Harris  43^B.C. Assessment 1987 criterion-referenced   44B.C. Assessment 1988: criterion-referenced ^  44Student/Parent Questionnaires ^  44Operational Definition of Language Proficiency ^  46Aggregates of Student Affect ^  46Aggregates of Parental Influence  47CHAPTER V - RESULTS ^  48Analysis ^  49A PRIORI QUESTIONS ^  49Affect and Achievement (Question #1) ^  49Abilities and Achievement (Question #2)  50Intellective Factors ^  50Non-Intellective Factors  55Motivation and Achievement (Question #3) ^  56Motivation and Affect (Question #4)  56ivParental Support and Student Affect (Question #5) ^ 57Motivation and Proficiency (Question #6) ^  57Emergent Questions ^  58Motivation and Goal Orientation (Question #1) ^  58Relationship of Orientational Goal Factors (Question #2) ^ 59Addenda (Table E) ^  64Parental Influence  64CHAPTER VI - DISCUSSION ^  69Special Features of the Research ^  69The Research Questions Revisited  71Intellective Influences ^72Non-Intellective  Influences  73Summation ^  83Educational Implications ^  84Suggestions for Future Research ^  85EN DNOTES ^  86BIBLIOGRAPHY  87APPENDIX A ^  98APPENDIX B  100APPENDIX C ^  121APPENDIX D: TEST REVIEWS ^  124vLIST OF FIGURESPageFigure 1: Garner's Socio-educational Model (1985) ^  24Figure 2: Expanded Design of the Gardner Model (Colletta, 1983) ^ 26Figure 3: Interaction of goal orientation & motivational preference ^ 34Figure 4a. Student Instrumental Orientation as Dependent Variable ^ 60Figure 4b. Student Integrative Orientation as Dependent Variable ^ 61Figure 5a. Parental Instrumental Orientation as Dependent Variable ^ 62Figure 5b. Parental Integrative Orientation as Dependent Variable ^ 63v iLIST OF TABLESTABLE A —TABLE B —TABLE C —Page .CORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR ALL PUPIL VARIABLES(N=40) ^  51CORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR SUBSET * OF 23 PUPILS ANDTHEIR PARENTS (N=23) ^  52FIAT ACHIEVEMENT FOR COMPREHENSION & SPELLINGDISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE (N=40) IN RELATION TO AGE-COHORT PERCENTILE NORMS (From Early Immersion Pupils) . 53INTERRELATIONSHIP OF INSTRUMENTAL AND INTEGRATIVEORIENTATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS ^ 65PERCENTAGES FOR PERCEPTION OF ENCOURAGEMENTGIVEN ^  66FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SAMPLE (N=40) ^ 67FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SUBSAMPLE (N=23) ^ 67PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS WITHIN STANDARDDEVIATIONAL RANGES ^  68TABLE D —TABLE E —TABLE F-1—TABLE F-2—TABLE GviiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTo the following, I express my sincere thanks and regards:• Dr. LeRoy Travis, Research Advisor, for his intuitive judgement, thoughtfulcounsel, and appreciation of the creative process• Dr. J.A.B. Allan, and Dr. B.E.J. Housego, for their gentility, support andencouragement in-committee.• Dr. W. Ardenaz, for his inspiration, direction, and forbearance while Iconducted this research on-the-job.• Dr. D. Allison, Program Advisor, and Dr. H. Ratzlaff, for their aptcontributions along the way.And to my family, especially my father and Deborah, friends (Beth and May),neighbours and colleagues, for their care, assistance, and understanding.Thank you.viiiDEFINITION OF TERMScommunicative competency - the formal and logical representation of what aperson knows or can do in an ideal environment (Flavell & Wohlwill, 1969, p.71).communicative performance - the demonstration of actualized communicativecompetency.discrete-point response mode - a matching, true-false, multiple choice or fill-in-theblank format in which a response is either selected from among alternativesprovided or otherwise restricted by the nature of the context provided.discrete-point task - one that focuses on an isolated bit of language, typicallyfeatures of phonology, morphology, syntax or lexicon. (Savignon, 1983, p.249)dual-track school - a school in which English and French programming generallyfunction separately.integrative task - several features combine to convey the meaning upon which aresponse is then based.(Savignon, p.250)language proficiency - may be used interchangeably with communicativeperformance.ix1CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTIONBackground to Contemporary Programs and PracticesThe Quiet Revolution in the Province of Quebec during the 1950's and1960's embraced the French language and culture within Quebec andencouraged the federal government's affirmation of French language rightsthroughout Canada as a whole. The political climate of the time precipitated theemigration of a significant portion of the English business population to Ontarioand elsewhere. Confronted with the necessity of educating their children inFrench, a number of the remaining Anglophone parents came together toresearch a means of instruction which could be an effective alternative to thetraditional forms that had been practised for half a century.Wilder Penfield, an expert in the knowledge of neuroanatomy andlanguage, as well as Wallace Lambert, a scholar in the socio-psychological aspectsof bilingualism, formed a team with the parents and so gave impetus to thedevelopment of French Immersion (FI) training in Canadian schools and beyond(Genesee, 1984, p. 34). The new approach to language instruction was influencedby a model of natural, meaningful and interactive first language learning(Penfield, 1965). Since the inception of the first Canadian immersion class in1968, enrollment outside the province of Quebec has grown to 203,692 students,according to the latest census information (Statistics Canada, 1988).A sense of historic experience in second language (L2) training helps oneview the Canadian experience with more understanding. It is not commonly2known that education in a language different from the home actually dates backto antiquity (Lewis, 1977). More recently, linguistic practices similar to theCanadian immersion experiment have occurred in Ireland, Wales, the Philippinesand Africa. In the early 1920's there was an attempt in Ireland to re-establish theuse of Gaelic (the Irish language) for English speaking students. Although thenumber of immersion schools in Ireland reached a total of 300 in the 1930's,within a decade they dwindled, due in part to the perception of educators thatthe academic performance of students had suffered from L2 instruction (Cummins,1983).The implementation of bilingual instruction in Wales is particularlynoteworthy. Parental choice and support of programs is a distinguishing featureof this system which is nationally organized and has continued for almost acentury. Interestingly, Welsh bilingual education was motivated by educationalgoals, not political ones (Lewis, 1977).The Canadian immersion experience is distinguished from internationalprecedents, by, among other things, the ongoing practice of systematicevaluation of Fl programs. From the outset, researchers were keen to observe thecomparative effectiveness of programs within Quebec and those in otherprovincial settings where there was a smaller or even minimal French socialpresence in the community.This evaluative feature, however, has not always encompassed designs thattake into account individual differences among young language learners. Theattention directed to individual differences, in second language and educational3research at large, amounts to a change in focus from learning outcomes andinstructional procedures to learner characteristics. Early evidence of this transitionin thought was apparent at the symposium on Intrinsic Motivation in Education, alandmark occasion when an overview of theoretical positions on the subject waspresented (Day et al. 1970). Inherent to that discussion was a concerted effort onthe part of the authors to relate their theoretical positions toeducationally-relevant problems.At the beginning of the last decade researchers in the domain of English asa Second Language (ESL) acknowledged the importance of examining how thelearner learns, with attention to such matters as communicative competence andstudent self-esteem (Haskell, 1980). Even earlier, Gardner had encouraged secondlanguage specialists to examine the language learning process from asocio-psychological perspective (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1979).Through the years Gardner has drawn attention to the intuitively obvious positionthat language learning comes more easily for some individuals than for others.Perhaps there are factors, he would argue, underlying a learner's motivation thatgo beyond a certain combination of aptitudes: namely, "attitudes and readinessto identify" and orient "to the whole process of learning a foreign language"(Gardner, 1985, p.132). Noting that successful Fl students in British Columbiareported high levels of motivation for L2 learning, Shapson recommended in hisprovincial assessment of student attitudes that further studies be undertaken toexamine the ability and background characteristics of Fl students (1987).4Of current and timely significance is the question put by the 1988 SullivanRoyal Commission on Education: "Who are the learners of British Columbia ?"(Marx et al., 1988, p. 5). The Sullivan Commission explored the B.C. schoolsystem between March, 1987 and July, 1988. In the ensuing report, A Legacyfor Learners, the commission considered societal changes that have impinged onthe learner over the past twenty years. The members of the panel emphasisedthe importance of educators helping the learner to develop a positive self-regardand a willingness to participate in the learning environment. Furthermore theychallenged educators to gain a comprehensive understanding of the student byseeking information pertinent to the individual's home language, family incomeand the family involvement in support of learning.Apparently the Commission sensed it had a well-timed opportunity forgiving emphasis to the importance of individual differences. This perspectiveseems fitting for research in the world of language learning in general, andsecond language learning in particular.A review of research, pertinent to second language learning in the FrenchImmersion milieu, follows.5CHAPTER II — EMPIRICAL WORK: A REVIEWIn a broad sense this study deals with certain characteristics of adolescentstudents in a particular second language setting. More specifically it focuses onthe self- efficacy or intrinsic motivation of a sample of late French Immersionstudents. The intent in the following review is to consolidate current psychologicalwork on motivation and learning, with relevant data from the domain of FrenchImmersion research. The review begins with a discussion of the latter research.Features of Early and Late French ImmersionPrior to 1976 in the province of British Columbia, French second languageinstruction took one of two forms: either core or early immersion programming.The former is the teaching of the French language as a subject; the latter is theteaching of school curriculum in French. The standard early immersion (El)program commences in kindergarten and continues with one hundred percent L2instruction through the second grade. French instruction is reduced to eightypercent in grade three and varies between fifty and seventy percent in gradesfour through seven. By contrast late immersion (LI) is only a two year programthat extends through grades six and seven with instruction in French rangingbetween sixty to one hundred percent.In order to both evaluate individual learning and compare characteristicsof the early and late approaches to immersion, the B.C. Ministry of Education has6commissioned two university team studies during the past decade (Day, Shapson& O'Shea, 1987; Ardanaz, Roy, Lamarr & Wormeli, 1988).The groundwork had been laid by researchers in Eastern Canada who hadfound no statistically significant differences between comparable groups of earlyand late immersion students when proficiency in French was evaluated in gradeseight to eleven (Bruck, Lambert & Tucker, 1977). In an eleven year longitudinalstudy concluding at grade twelve Pawley (1985) also found no appreciabledifference in achievement between early and late Fl students. However, Genesee(1982, 1984) has argued that the limitations on experimental design of thesamples (such as the absence of random assignment) and the inequivalence oftest measurements may camouflage some true disparities of the two programs.In attitudinal and affective outcomes, there do not appear to be any clearcut differences between the two immersion programs. Nevertheless, one study inNew Brunswick (Lapkin & Swain, 1984) indicates that early Fl students have astronger sense of self-perceived French competency, including ease of usage,when compared to their late Fl counterparts.B.C. Assessment of 1987Cognizant that the majority of studies had primarily measured linguisticachievement a team, composed of Day, Shapson and O'Shea (1987), incorporatedaffective and attitudinal measures in their study of Fl language proficiency . Theresearchers found that grade seven Fl students had fairly positive attitudestowards bilingualism and a high motivation for learning French. On a five-point7scale ranging from a one, signifying most positive, to a five signifying mostnegative, there was a mean rating of 2.0 for attitudes to bilingualism and 1.9 formotivation in learning French. Generally, the students expressed an appreciationfor the French culture and claimed to be comfortable speaking the Frenchlanguage in and out of class.Achievement scores in the same study revealed that the LI students hadoverrated their own individual L2 proficiency. However, it is important to notethat on a multiple regression analysis the self-rating of all immersion students onknowledge of French highly correlated with one aspect of the total L2 proficiencybattery: namely, reading achievement. Early immersion students weresignificantly more proficient in both listening and reading comprehension thanthe late immersion pupils, possibly due in part to the differences between the twogroups in time exposure to the language. Although the range of scores on afrequency distribution was similar for both groups, the mean of correct responsesfor the El group in listening comprehension was 70 per cent, and for the LIgroup, 55 per cent; in reading comprehension the mean scores for the El and LIgroups was 73 per cent and 65 per cent, respectively. Finally, early and lateimmersion students on a French speaking test compared favourably with a peergroup of Francophone Manitobans in discussion and description of ideas. Thelatter group significantly exceeded their Anglophone cohorts in fluency,pronunciation and oral usage of grammar (Day et al., 1987, p. 17).Based on an estimate made of the socio-economic status of most Flstudents, a sample of eighteen Francophone Manitobans was chosen as a control8group. This sampling procedure has obvious limitations due to inadequatesample size and a potentially inaccurate characterization of the socio-economicstatus of the B.C. Anglophone and Manitoban Francophone populations.Reading comprehension objectives for this assessment were drawn fromprovincial curriculum guides, prescribed reading materials and other reliablesources. Items were selected from a variety of stimulus materials such astextbooks, anthologies and children's magazines. Various judges, after examiningthe items for congruence with stated objectives, proposed deletions and changeswhere necessary. The test items were divided into two forms and an equivalentnumber of students in each class completed one.A pilot study was then conducted on 400 grade eight El and LI students inthe Fall of 1986. (The manner of selecting the participants was not stated in thestudy.) The critical opinions of students and other test observers contributed tothe shaping of a new form of the assessment.B.C. Assessment of 1988A later B.C. ministerial assessment (Ardanaz et al., 1988) also reported onattitudes of Fl students. The items receiving the highest response on motivationalmeasurements were: the perceived financial advantage of being bilingual; thedesire to be at ease with French Canadians; a willingness to be more open tocultural groups. However, most students reported that they had not used Frenchoutside the classroom and claimed that they had little opportunity to use thelanguage outside the learning situation.9In the Ardanaz et al. study (1988), 711 B.C. late immersion students werecompared with 862 B.C. early immersion students in relation to a group of 114Quebec Francophones on measures of written competency at the seventh gradelevel. The writing tasks proved to be challenging for each group; only in theverb conjugation and verb tense tasks did the Quebec students demonstrate amastery performance. LI students attained higher scores than El students in verbconjugation, verb form and sentence completion. Immersion students exceededFrancophone cohorts in punctuation and sentence enrichment but performed lessfavourably in spelling. The El students achieved a somewhat higher mean scorethan LI students in self-confidence in speaking French possibly due to their longerexperience with the French language. Of the opinion scale variables, theconfidence item correlated most highly with achievement in the dictation task (i.e.spelling).It would seem that French Immersion researchers are showing a growinginterest in examining learner characteristics. In the aforesaid studies, the items onthe student questionnaires were drawn from a pool of statements contained in theLanguage Group National Test Battery  (Gardner & Smythe 1975). The findings(through student self- report measures) indicate that early (El) and late (LI)students share positive attitudes toward bilingualism and the French-speakingcommunity. The LI students reported higher motivational levels than their Elcounterparts as expressed through their preference for French recreational readingmaterials (Day et al., 1987). There are discrepancies between the Day (1987) andArdanaz (1988) studies, regarding the willingness of El and LI students to speak10French outside the school setting. The former report indicated that the studentsuse French both in and out of class while the latter report suggested that themajority of students do not function in the second language outside the schoolsituation.Both these studies, one may conclude, are designed for the benefit of thepractitioner - teacher/curriculum specialist - in the field of French Immersion.They demonstrate a thorough description of the linguistic skill development of Flstudents at a given point in time in the province of British Columbia. From aresearch point of view, the writers make general rather than precisesituationally-based statements regarding the attitudes of Fl students towardssecond language learning.It may be presumed that students who enter LI are likely to be willingparticipants in the program. There is always the chance that there could beobstructive factors such as displeasure with the instruction or personnel whichwould influence the student's attitude. It should be observed that it is difficult tomeasure the attitudes of students towards the second language community whenthe environmental milieu predominantly embraces the first language of thestudents. It is likely that students have adopted the attitudes of their parents whoin turn are influenced by, and who also influence, the attitudes of the immediatecommunity in question.The B.C. ministry studies provide a baseline from which one may examinethe achievement of subsequent groups of Fl students. The replicability of theachievement testing is a worthwhile endeavour, and an examination of their11reliability over time, in conjunction with other standardized measures, couldreveal valuable information about successive groups of Fl students.Features of Second Language AcquisitionVarious features of how students learn and how they are taught have beencommonly observed in Fl studies to date. Both Bain (1975) and Lambert (1975)report evidence which they claim shows that students who pursue advancedbilingualism derive cognitive benefits if the first language is nurtured at homewhile the second languages is taught at school. There is also strong evidence thatsecond language achievement is directly proportional to instructional time(Carroll, 1975). However there may be variables affecting that relationship, suchas mode and quality of instruction, the nature of the curriculum itself, thesocio-cultural context and individual differences. (Cummins, 1985; Gardner,1985).By contrast, concurrent first language development for Fl students does notbear a direct relationship to instructional time. In fact there is reason to believethat a crosslingual transfer can occur in literacy skills between the first and secondlanguages. This supports the supposition that there is a common underlyingsource of linguistic proficiency. (Cummins, 1980).Although there is compelling argument that students at a very young ageare more likely to acquire effective communicative skills, older language learnersprogress more rapidly in linguistic analytical tasks (Cummins, 1983).12When considered together, the meaning of all these various observations isnot readily apparent. Further work is needed to clarify their significance. Onedimension which might prove a fruitful avenue of exploration is pupildispositions.Conceptual FoundationsAn appreciation of the nature of motivation and related factors, such asself-perceived competency, is useful when considering second languageproficiency. These dispositional constructs are briefly examined below.MotivationMotivational theory is of continuing interest to educational psychologists.Ball (1984) did a content analysis of articles published in the Journal ofEducational Psychology from 1910 to 1980 and found that, every second decade,motivation ranked in the top half of categories commanding attention.Motivation, according to Hebb (1955), is an energizer but not a guide.Earlier, Woodworth (1918) construed this energy to be a "driven. McDougall(1921) then identified three aspects of motive, instinct or drive: the perceptual,the emotional and the behavioural.The presumed physiological foundations to which these psychologicalprocesses correspond are the organic substrates, the sensory and neuroendocrineprocesses, and the processes of the central nervous system. Hull (1943), in thepattern of behaviourist and psychoanalytic thinkers, delineated a motivationaltheory that was based on primary drives. According to Hull's S-R drive theory,13every response has its corresponding stimuli. As an external stimulus could notbe found to explain a response, Hull made inferences about the presence ofinternal motivational stimuli which, when acted upon, would reduce drive.Hunt, on the other hand, has endeavoured to transcend the limitations ofdrive theory with what he regarded as a complete formulation of motivation(1970). He proposed that motivation exists within information processing andaction. He argues against the adequacy of drive theory on the grounds that itby-passes any explanation of creative adaptation of the organism and overlooksthe functioning of intelligence and wisdom. Furthermore Hunt postulates thatdrive theory relegates motivation to the influence of factors that are extrinsic toinformation processing and action.Other researchers acknowledge existing evidence that organisms willengage in explorations in the absence of stimulation. For example, Berlyne(1960) reported that rats showed persistence in exploring objects in proportion totheir availability and variety. McGill studies illustrated that students with well-metpersonal needs were not content to remain docile in the absence of stimulation(Bexton & al., 1954; Heron et al., 1956). Harlow was one of the first researchersto use the term "intrinsic motivation", inferring that a basis for motivation isactivity itself (1954). Hebb (1955) originated the term "spontaneous activity" butacknowledged a lack of explanation for the gap between the activity and itsinstigation within the organism.There were two main motivational constructs that followed drive theory.First, Hebb theorized that an organism needs an optimum level of arousal in the14central nervous system in order to function effectively: responses that move theorganism in the direction of the optimum are strengthened. Secondly, White(1959) postulated that individuals have a motivational directedness whichenergizes them to explore, attend, think and play. Furthermore, a need existswithin the individual to interact with the environment in a purposeful orcompetent way, much in the manner of a causative agent (deCharms, 1968).In contemporary thought, there may be found echoes of the sixteenthcentury writings of Thomas Reid who postulated that actions can be due toinstinct, appetite, desire, and affection, which come under the activating orinhibiting force of the personal will. Perception also, according to Reid, framesone's world view (Cofer 1985, p.155). The present day interest in a person'scapacity for choice can also find its origins in precartesian modes of thought.Weiner (1972) endorses attribution theory as having the capability ofdrawing together the many motivational theories that have been presented. Thetheory of attribution was proposed by Heider (1958) who claimed that peoplemake sense out of the world by attributing (or inferring) causes to events in theworld, including human behaviour. Furthermore, Weiner says that aneducationally relevant motivational theory must embrace the emotional state ofthe learner and that no single theory on its own can explain classroommotivation.The concept of internal and external reinforcement (or locus of control)was developed by social learning theorists like Julian Rotter, who integratedreinforcement and cognitive theories. Rotter described this line of thought:15When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject asfollowing some action of his own but not beingentirely contingent upon his action then...it isperceived...as under the control of the forcessurrounding him. When the event is interpreted inthis way by an individual, we have labelled this abelief in external control. If the person perceives thatthe event is contingent upon his own behaviour... wehave termed this a belief in internal control. (Rotter,1966, p.1)The work of Deci (1975, 1980) - following upon White, Hunt, deCharmesand others - spoke of the personal need to be competent and self-determining inrelationship to the environment. Deci explained that a self-determining personhas the flexibility to choose behaviour among a number of alternatives that areavailable in any given situation. Another expression of this self-determiningflexibility is plasticity in a situation that permits few options of behaviour.The evolution of Bandura's (1977) thinking involves the influence ofbehavioural, social and cognitive elements. Accordingly, Bandura (1986) nowcalls his theory " social cognitive theory"; he acknowledges the precedents ofother research, which "centers on people's sense of personal efficacy to exercisesome control over...their lives." (1986, p. 391). He explains that a person'sexpectation that an action will achieve a definite outcome is efficacious orcognitively satisfying to the individual. By definition, perceived self-efficacy is ajudgment of one's ability to achieve at a certain performance level. For thedevelopment of competency to take place, there needs to be a coupling of boththe self-belief of efficacy and the possession of skill development. Thoughtsabout one's own efficacy influence (or mediate) motivation and hence affect16performance. Schunk (1989, p. 21) affirms the principles of self-efficacy theory insituations where the performer can draw upon the prior learning of skills. Hecautions, though, that students may misjudge their own efficacy on occasionswhen a task is highly complex and composed of component parts.Perceived competency can act as a mediating variable for intrinsicmotivation. In cognitive evaluation theory, interest is spurred on by a drive forcompetence (Deci, 1975). In attribution theory, interest is linked to a judgmentof the causes of performance (Weiner, 1972). In social-cognitive theory, interestcomes with meeting challenges and fulfilling standards aligned with self- preceptsof efficacy (Bandura, 1986).Bandura (1986) points out three types of contingencies between actionand effects which he believes comprise intrinsic motivation:(1) behaviour may be influenced by the senses i.e.learning not to toucha hot stove element,(2) behaviour may be influenced by internal states of the organism i.e.physical exertion leading to fatigue,(3)^self-evaluation may provide an intrinsic feedback i.e. makingjudgments about one's performance against personal standards.Bandura adds that intrinsic interest develops over time - it is not inherent to theorganism, nor does it arise in the immediacy of the moment. Newly acquiredself-efficacy may precede, by a significant time period, the actual appreciation ofan activity. Self-assurance may rise to such a high level that an activity loses itschallenge and interest in the activity wanes. Rather than thinking of intrinsic17motivation as being characterized by the absence of external reward, Banduradescribes it "as a continuous interaction between personal and situational sourcesof influence" (1986, p. 242).Motivational SystemsThe work of Ames (1986) sets forth a cognitive-attributional framework forappraising motivational processes within varying goal structures. Ames delineatesthree main goal structures with accompanying motivational systems:competitive/egoistic; cooperative/moral responsibility; individualistic/task mastery.In the first structure, social comparison is of primary concern along withself-evaluation of one's own ability. The focus turns to the group goal in thesecond system. In the third system, task mastery becomes paramount.The Ames (1984) framework suggests that a competitive environmentfosters a survival mentality with the view to outdoing another with the intentionof winning. Students' self-perceptions of their ability fluctuate in relation to theirperformance.Cooperative groupings, says Ames (p. 187), are more likely to elicit asocial dependency among group members where the achievement of the grouptakes precedence over the performance of the individual. According to Ames(1981) a low performer is spared the impact of a negative evaluation where thereis successful group outcome. Group failure, however, may lower theself-evaluation of a high performer.18From the Ames perspective, an individualistic structure may contain anelement of competition if achievement is compared to norm-referenced data oran individual's prior performance. The inclusion of self-effort and task awarenessminimizes the competitive element when reward is based on self-improvement.Such observations underscore the importance of taking individual differences intoaccount.Perceptions of AbilityThe research of Nicholls et al. (1984) portrays the development ofperspective to be initially self-referenced, then increasingly external ornorm-referenced. At about five years of age children often choose tasksaccording to their probability for success; ability and difficulty are frequently keptseparate. By seven years or so children develop an objectivity about taskcomplexity. They seem to think that effort is all that is required to meet thedemands of a situation. By the age of eleven, luck (or good fortune) becomesdistinct from effort and ability. Students may recognize situations where effortwould be fruitless. Older students when faced with a difficult challenge mayweigh the merits of applying effort and still risking failure. (At this point, ability isseen as learning capacity.) Conversely, they may withhold effort and accept thefailure: at least the poor result may be paired with low effort rather than animplied lack of ability.Apparently then, personal dimensions, as suggested by various theorists(Bandura, 1986) through such constructs as locus of control and self-efficacy, have19a developmental character. This study reflects an appreciation of this positionand the implications for the importance of individual differences in studies ofschool learning. Clearly by the age-range of students in late immersion, individualdifferences in self-efficacy become important.Situational Influences and Individual DifferencesAdolescents and adults find it is possible to monitor their learning in thesense of meeting personal goals of mastery without reflecting on theachievements of others. Thus they experience feelings of competency learningthrough the expending of effort much as a young child experiences. Wherelearning is seen as an end in itself, such students may be regarded as intrinsicallymotivated.With the introduction of an extrinsic reward system, such as an evaluativeachievement setting, the learning can become the means to the end. Adifferentiation of ability with reference to others takes effect. A perspective ofego- involvement takes shape through such questions as: "How am I doingcompared to others? Am I as smart? Do I look stupid?"Nicholls agrees with Harter and Connell (1984) who contend thatperceived ability and intrinsic motivation are positively correlated. Students withhigher perceived ability experience greater feelings of competency and morepositive success in ego-involving situations. Nicholls summarizes:It might be that in competitive settings one must beassured of one's ability relative to that of others20before one can become task involved...the beststrategy ...is to maintain task involvement. (p. 279)Finally, Nicholls observes that outstanding achievement is most oftenassociated with a disposition that favours more task involvement thanego-involvement.A situational effect, such as would result from a transition in learningenvironment, can influence individual differences in the motivation of youngadolescents. One may conjecture that the principles applying to a movementfrom an elementary to junior-high school may have application to the transitionfrom regular English programming to the Fl environment. Investigators intransition research (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984) have underlined thesignificance of the nature of the particular change: "...transition to a morefacilitative environment, even at a vulnerable age, should have a positive impacton children's perceptions of themselves and their educational environment ..."(Eccles et al., 1984, p.140). Should the emphasis in the new environment be on"...competition, social comparison, and ability self- assessment at a time of[adolescent] heightened self- focus ... " the transition, says Eccles, could beharmful (1989, p.141). He adds that children's standards for self-assessment maynot be as stable at such a time. Harter (1982) has found the lowest correlationbetween self- perceived academic competency and school achievement to beamong seventh graders in transition.21Affective Variables and Second Language AcquisitionSafty (1988) argues that motivation and attitude play a significant role inL2 achievement and may even exceed the strength of aptitude as a predictor ofsecond language learning. The work of Gardner (1985) has made a substantialimpact on the advancement of research into the underlying attitudinal andmotivational variables associated with second language acquisition. Wherepersonality variables or instructional style statistically correlate with secondlanguage achievement it is because, Gardner claims, they are operating throughthe motivational dimension. His construct of motivation includes effort[intensity], cognitions [attitude], and affect [desire] (p. 11).Group and context-related attitudes affect the level of motivation. Gardnersingles out the integrative motive as being particularly significant. By this, heconnotes a willingness to interact with the second language community (whichmay be the classroom language environment). This motive reflects or marks anadvantageous disposition. Important as well is the student's view of self: a warm,accepting community can aid the student in affirming self-identity, and provide asecure sense of safety and security [for risk -taking] in ordering thought, deed andcommunicative interactions in a second language.In the early stages of language learning, the communicative exchanges aresufficiently contrived that an uncertain participant may not yet be vulnerable todoubts regarding the social self. However, as individual and group languageproficiency increases, social interactions also become more complex. Gardnerconcludes that once a student seeks out opportunities to utilize language skills,22self- identity can come into play, interfering with or facilitating the process oflearning the language.A Socio-educational Model of Language AcquisitionIn addition to a linguistic description of the universal processes oflanguage learning as postulated by Carroll (1981), Krashen (1981), and Bialystok(1978), [which exceeds the scope of this study] individual variables within asocial context are considered to have a dynamic part in language learning.In his social psychological model, Lambert (1967, 1974) gave place tolanguage aptitude and intelligence but also emphasized the role of attitudes,orientation and motivation. He drew a distinction between two types oforientation (or motivational goal) toward learning a second language: theintegrative and the instrumental. The former reflects an interest in the people ofthe second language group and the latter, the practical benefits to be gainedfrom learning the language.' Lambert stressed that the process of becomingproficient in another language requires a willingness on the part of the learner toadjust behaviour in conformity with the second language group. Suchmodifications can affect individual self-identity.Gardner's socio-educational model builds on the former and attends tofour major classes of variables: the social environment, individual differences,language acquisition contexts and outcomes. Community beliefs about themeaningfulness of learning the second language will influence the attitude, andhence the degree of achievement, of the individual. The model distinguishes23between formal and informal contexts, or situations involving training andinstruction as opposed to language exposure for entertainment or communicativepurposes.Furthermore the model suggests that individual variables, such asintelligence level and language aptitude will relate more strongly to achievementin formal contexts. On the other hand, in informal learning situations,motivational and anxiety variables will more strongly relate to language learning(Gardner 1985, p.148).Although attitudes are not included in the charted representation (fig.1)they are considered to be a foundational support for motivation. That is to say,attitudes "are seen as the determinants of motivation" (Gardner 1989, p.149).For motivation to be activated there are important facets of attitudinal supportwhich need to be in place, such as an openness to the second languagecommunity and a positive view of the learning situation.In summary, the Gardner model acknowledges the role of community andhome environment in contributing to the initial motivational thrust for languagelearning. The influence of the learning situation interacts with affective andaptitudinal variables that affect both linguistic (proficiency) and nonlinguistic(attitudinal) outcomes (Gardner, 1983, p. 222-223). In the author's opinion, themodel allows for a dynamic, as opposed to static, interchange between"...individual-difference variables and the language- learning context and/orlanguage achievement..." (Gardner, 1988, p. 101).[  INTELLIGENCELANGUAGE APTITUDE^1.-CULTURALBELIEFSFORMALLAN GUAGETRAINING[INFORMALLANGUAGETRAININGNON-LINGUISTICSECOND LANGUAGESOCIAL^INDIVIDUAL^ACQUISITIONMILIEU DIFFERENCES CONTEXT^OUTCOMES25Edwards (1976) endorses the model but recommends some adjustments.He says that personality characteristics which may influence communicativecompetency should be considered. There is a need for greater specificity indetailing important elements of the social milieu. Finally, the dimension ofnon-verbal cues should be added. The language instructor may be the onlymodel of non-verbal cuing; hence the student may transfer first languagenon-verbal behaviour to the second language expression.Colletta (1983) has proposed and researched an expanded model of theGardner design. (fig. 2). Parental influence was described as having passive andactive components: in the first sense shaping early developmental attitudes tolanguage learning, and in the second, influencing ongoing attitudes. Socialeconomic status was added as well as an exchange of self-confidence for thesituational anxiety variable. Significant relationships existed between thefollowing variables: language aptitudes and linguistic outcomes; motivation andnonlinguistic outcomes; student attitudes and motivation; active parentalinfluence and student confidence; socioeconomic status and active parentalinfluence (p. 1).There seems to be a division of opinion with respect to the self-confidencefactor. Both language aptitude and student motivation, Colletta concludes, aresignificant factors in L2 acquisition. It is thought, by Colletta, that self-confidence plays a role in L2 acquisition through the support of attitudes. Thedegree of one's self-confidence influences attitudes and hence, motivation.Clement (1980) has expressed a contrary opinion, suggesting that self-confidenceINTELLIGENCELANGUAGE APTITUDEMOTIVATIONCULTURALBELIEFSF 0 RMALLANGUAGETRAININGLINGUISTIC--1...INFORMALLANGUAGETRAININGNON-LINGUISTICrnX-0con0_ro0_0rDkr3n05_rD .....' C1 Laco Ca ..,= it)rD N j0Ca.rD(-)0..._0koopLA)SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONCONTEXTSOCIAL^INDIVIDUALMILIEU DIFFERENCES OUTCOMES27in French provides support for motivational strength, which in turn wouldinfluence attitudes. Viewed from a self-efficacy perspective (Bandura, 1986), onetends to lean towards the position that there is a reciprocal influence betweenfactors.With the Gardner model as a theoretical framework, the factors oflanguage aptitude, student motivation and self -confidence in French come to thefore in the research of Colletta (1983) and Edwards (1976). In fact, the latterresearchers recommend that further work be done on examining the role ofself-confidence in the learning process, particularly in the light of traditionalmotivational theory. In the next chapter, a discussion of the Gardner model, withrespect to locus of control and self-perception, will lead to the delineation of theproblem which the present study addresses.28CHAPTER III — SPECIFIC DISCOURSE LEADING TO THE PROBLEMReward and MotivationIn the preceding chapter, we saw that motivational theorists refer to anexternal orientation' implying that learning is a means toward a goal that isexternal to the learner. The external orientation is contrasted with an intrinsicorientation which refers to learning that is internally directed by a desire to seekchallenges and conquer them (de Charms, 1968).In some instances, external events such as rewards (monetary or otherwise),may eventually increase intrinsic motivation -if they provide an element of choiceand informational feedback from which a feeling of competence may ensue (Deci,1975). Generally though, extrinsic rewards do not enhance the initial level ofintrinsic interest (Lepper et al., 1989).Lepper (1989, p. 83-88) discusses the multiple functions of rewards. Theevaluation of their effect on the student may be considered in light of theprocesses of social control, evaluation and instrumentality. He points out thateach of these sources of information, which are " separate and potentiallyconflicting", may "exert a [distinct] influence on children's later motivation insubsequent settings" (p. 84):(1)^Instrumentality: Children may choose over time to continue in an activityfor which they have no intrinsic interest provided that the promise (orreality) of extrinsic reward is sufficiently large.29(2) Evaluation: Teacher feedback or grading may influence the student'sself-efficacy and the likelihood of success or failure in the future.(3) Social control: Children's own sense of their reasons for engaging inparticular activities plays an important role in motivation. If childrenbelieve, or assume, that their own activity is extrinsically constrained,rather than intrinsically controlled, their subsequent interest will bereduced.Based on the foregoing three strands of thought, Lepper emphasizes thecomplexity of any motivational reward system:any specific extrinsic incentive may simultaneouslyproduce multiple effects on subsequent motivationthrough the existence of potentially opposing forces.(1989, p. 87)It would seem appropriate that due thought and consideration be given tothe management of motivational elements in any given learning setting.Locus of Control and Self-EfficacyPhillips points out that locus of control is one of the most prominentconstructs in cognitive-developmental theories of achievement motivation (1981,p.2001). Based on his own review of the literature on locus of control,MacDonald suggests that "internals engage in more instrumental goal-directedactivity ... externals more often manifest emotional non-goal-directed responses"(1973 p.171). In other words, there may be circumstances wherein an30instrumental or goal-directed orientation is likely to be more characteristic ofinternals than of externals (Saminy, 1989).Since an intrinsic learner typically is more internally driven, he or she maybe less adaptive to an environment which contains strong extrinsic cues. Bycontrast, the extrinsic learner may be more responsive to external cues in thelearning situation and hence be able to gain benefit from the environmental cues.Locus of control measurements, in conjunction with measured self-conceptions of ability, are said, by Phillips, to differentiate orientations inmotivation and identify the children (compared to their more self-assured peers)who have a low, but inaccurate, perception of their ability (1981, p.2001). Harter(1983) claims that children with a low sense of self-efficacy are more likely toattribute lack of success to internal rather than external factors.Motivational orientation, according to Harter (1984), is open toenvironmental manipulation. Furthermore, self-perceived competency is relatedto motivational orientation - the higher one's self-perceived competency, thestronger the intrinsic motivation. However, Au (1988) claims that there is amodest link between self-perceived competency and L2 achievement.In her literature review on the illusion of incompetence among children,Phillips (1981) points out that the child's perception of reality is a strongpredictor of achievement motivation. Of considerable interest is the realizationthat actual ability may be independent of "motivational determinants ofachievement" (p.2001). In her own study Phillips found that teachers had lower31expectations of students with a low self-perceived competency and those students,in turn, accurately perceived their teachers' expectations (p.2010).Although self-perceived competency is influenced by aptitudes andaccumulative experience, it is also shaped by the student's own perception ofperformance in relation to that of others. Teachers who provide assistance tostudents may help to increase skills but do little to contribute to enhancedfeelings of self-efficacy (Schunk, 1989). However, as Lepper points out (1989),the inclusion of informational feedback on the part of the teacher, may contributeto a stronger sense of personal success for the student.The Gardner Model and Social Learning TheoryLanguage theorists such as Lambert and Gardner speak of integrative andinstrumental orientations: - the former connotes a willingness to identify or mergewith the second language community; the latter suggests the inclusion of specificgoals in learning a second language which may not involve an interest in thesecond language community. As stated in chapter two, Gardner (1989, p. 15)considers the motivational construct of orientation to contain a goal component.It is conceivable that the motivational expressions, integrative or instrumental,could be influenced in varying degrees by a continuum of intrinsic/extrinsicfactors. (fig. 3). With respect to their motivational constructs, social learning andsocial language theorists share common views. Rotter has assumed thatinternal-external control approximates a continuum which is best described by thenormal curve (1975 p. 56). In turn, he has negated the possibility of a bi-modal32distribution. Supposedly, says MacDonald (1973), a person would take a positionon the continuum according to his or her degree of measurable internality orexternality.In the same vein, Gardner and Lambert have acknowledged that their earlywork in measuring goal orientations for second language learning led to theformation of a simplistic instrumental-integrative dichotomy. They havementioned their intent to expand their measurement index to include adimensional scale or continuum (Gardner & Lambert 1972; Gardner, 1985).It may be seen then, that the locus of control scale permits themeasurement of internality-externality by degree; the orientation index allows forthe measurement of instrumental-integrative by category. For the purposes ofthis study, we will accept the notion of a continuum for the locus of control scaleand presume the existence of a continuum for the orientation construct. Weknow, however, that the measurement of the latter can only be treateddichotomously.Multidimensional Model of Motivation:The two dimensions of integrative/instrumental and intrinsic/extrinsicorientations are concerned with goals and rewards respectively. It is conceivable,for example, that a student may wish to integrate (merge) with the secondlanguage environment due to internal (intrinsic) motives or situationally-based(external) rewards. Possible, but not exhaustive, combinations for the twocontinua are as follows:33(1) Instrumental-Intrinsic: A student has specific goals to achieve in the L2setting; his or her reason for being there is based on an internally-directeddesire to achieve the goals.(2) Instrumental-Extrinsic: A student has specific goals to achieve in the L2setting; his or her reason for being there is due to an external stimulationemanating from the home and/ or the 12 setting i.e. activity, peerinteraction, teacher feedback.(3) Integrative-Intrinsic: A student is willing to merge his or her identity withthe L2 community; his or her reason for doing so is due to a genuineinterest in assimilating with the community and learning the language.(4) Integrative-Extrinsic: A student is willing to merge his or her identity withthe L2 community; his or her reason for being there is due to an externalstimulation emanating from the home and/ or the 12 setting i.e. activity,peer interaction, teacher feedback.To date, there has been justification in the literature for considering aninteraction between the two orientations or dimensions (MacDonald, 1973;Saminy, 1989). Gardner finds simplistic the view that an integrative orientation issynonomous with an intrinsic interest in language and an instrumental orientationis equivalent to an extrinsic interest in language. Rather, he would argue that thetwo components be regarded as extrinsic - language learning takes place tosatisfy goals, not only intrinsic desires (1985, p. 11). The paradigm presented inthis study might provide the refinement for which Gardner has need.34InstrumentaIIntrinsic    ExtrinsicInte9rativeFigure 3: Interaction of goal orientation & motivational preferenceThe ProblemThe language learning situation into which the adolescent Fl students enteris in some particular ways at variance with their accustomed milieu. Most notableis the fact that the competency which the student has known with the firstlanguage is no longer functional. The majority of the new information comes35from external cues in the environment. Some degree of dependency replaces theautonomy a student may previously have developed, since learning the newlanguage is now contingent on the input of significant others. Social interaction, astriking feature of the environment, is facilitated through cooperative groupingsfor work projects and conversation. Moreover, adolescent youngsters are, invarying degrees, undergoing developmental changes in the cognitive,physiological, and social areas so that the whole person is thrust into a state offlux and uncertainty. Support from the home and community also may vary.Students may adjust to the new learning environment by endeavouring toadapt to the extrinsic demands of the classroom structure and teacher-expectations. Students who are extrinsically oriented may adapt more readilythan others who are typically intrinsic in orientation. Another confoundingvariable is their reason for being in the situation - are they really keen to learnthe French language for the challenge and pleasure of it, or are they motivatedby long-term gains, such as increased job opportunities in the future?The purpose of this study was to examine a sample of late FrenchImmersion grade seven students in a suburban setting of British Columbia withthe view to exploring and considering:a) the relationship of self-perceived competency and motivation tosecond language proficiency,b) the influence of parental support on L2 learning as viewed byparent and child.362Questions[Refer to chapter IV (p. 46-68) for operational details concerning eachfactor.]A Priori Questions1. What is the relationship of self-perceived academic competency to L2proficiency?2. How do the intellective factors I.Q. and language aptitude relate to L2proficiency, as opposed to the non-intellective factors intrinsic motivationand parental influence?3. How does locus of control relate to intrinsic motivation, and L2proficiency?4. Is there a significantly positive relationship between self- perceivedcompetency and intrinsic motivation?5. How does parental support relate to student self-confidence (Piers-Harris)?6. Does an instrumental orientation differ from an integrative orientation withregard to general L2 proficiency?II^Emergent Questions1.^Are the student's motivational beliefs (internal/external) on the locus ofcontrol scale, related to goal orientation on Gardner's scale(integrative/instrumental)?372.^Is there justifiable reason to regard the integrative/instrumental orientationas a continuum?2Limitations of StudyThe scale of the present study only allowed for the exploration of thesequestions with regard to Fl students in the second year of their program. Thestudent sample was restricted to forty grade seven students in one dual-trackschool with a near balance of gender in the subjects pool. With the exception ofan informal attitudinal survey completed a year ago, no pre/post measures havebeen conducted in the affective domains. Due to the stimulating nature of the Flsetting, coupled with a philosophy of integration with the English programs, therewere numerous interruptions in regular timetable scheduling which made datagathering less predictable and even interruptive in itself. In spite of theselimitations the sample is adequate for the exploration of relationships of affectivefactors to language proficiency gauged in relation to norms previously establishedin the province of B.C. and across Canada.38CHAPTER IV — METHODObjectivesThe purpose of the study was to examine the inter - relationships ofmotivational variables with respect to the second language learning of earlyadolescent students. The relationship, of parental influence to motivationalvariables and second language achievement, was a secondary consideration ofthis study.SampleA Students:There were forty grade seven students (21 female and 19 male) from onedual track school in Delta B.C. All students claimed English as their firstlanguage. Five per cent had a French background; twenty-five per cent had asecond language, other than French, in their family heritage.B Parents:Forty family heads (defined as one parent or guardian of the studentparticipants) were given the opportunity to complete a questionnaire but onlytwenty-three complied.Testing ProceduresGroup measures were administered by the researcher in two classroomsettings. The F.I.A.T. subtests were individually administered by a qualified FrenchImmersion Learning Assistance teacher. The testing commenced on May 14 th,1990 and concluded on June 26th, 1990.39DesignThe design for this study was based in part upon the design and theory ofa research project supported by the International Centre for Research onBilingualism, Laval University. The study, entitled "Community and ParentalInfluence: Effects on Student Motivation and French Second LanguageProficiency", obtained data from 68 anglophones in grades 7-10 enrolled in aFrench Immersion program, and also from their parents (Colletta et al. 1983).The authors' review of their rationale indicated that the Fl literature hasestablished the influence of affective or non-cognitive variables (and theirinteraction) on second language acquisition. They argued that environmentalvariables also interact with affective variables to influence 1.2 achievement.Parental encouragement was selected as an important influential factor on studentachievement.The Gardner socio-educational model was utilized in this study, butmodified to include the variable, self-perceived competency (fig.2), in place of theanxiety variable. The former is considered to be a more complex index, that is tosay, it includes more sources of anxiety beyond that which pertains to thesituation alone. The authors adopted the position of Clement (1978) that one'sdegree of confidence would inversely correspond to the degree of anxietypresent. Therefore the situational anxiety variable as proposed by Gardner (1975)has been omitted. [Recently, Gardner and Maclntyre (1989) have proposed amore language-specific anxiety variable - one they describe as communicativeanxiety.] Au (1988, p. 89) points out that Clement's measure for assessing40self-confidence refers to 12 proficiency only, not academic ability in general. Themeasure used in this study was chosen to reflect the latter. For the purposes ofthis study the Colletta model has been adopted. However, the omission of thesituational anxiety variable should not be taken as an indication that such factorsare unimportant.The individual differences variables which were incorporated in the Collettastudy include: intelligence, language aptitude, motivational orientation, studentaffect, parental encouragement and self-perceived competency of the student.These individual differences were analyzed for their relationships to the learningoutcomes which are L2 proficiencies.With the exception of the student and parent questionnaires, the measuresused in this study differed from the Colletta research tools. The questions wereextracted from the Colletta research but reduced in number for ease ofadministration. There was also direct correspondence between some items towhich children and parents have addressed themselves. For purposes of brevity,a limited selection of variables, associated with the questionnaires, was used.The other selected measures for this study consisted of well-studied anddescribed instruments that have appropriate norms: the Canadian CognitiveAbilities Test, the Otis-Lennon Ability Test, the Nowicki-Strickland Locus ofControl, the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale, the B.C. Provincial Assessments of1987 and 1988 and the French Immersion Achievement Test (F.I.A.T.). A briefdescription of the instruments follows (reviews of the C.C.A.T. and F.I.A.T. may befound in Appendix D).41InstrumentationCanadian Cognitive Abilities Test (C.C.A.T.) - multilevel edition, 1988,form 7: verbal and nonverbalThe C.C.A.T. is based on the original Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test(1954). It has evolved from its predecessors, the Cognitive Abilities Test(standardized in the United States), and the Canadian Cognitive Tests forms 1-3.In the Fall of 1987, the C.C.A.T. was jointly standardized throughout Canada withthe Canadian Test of Basic Skills (C.T.B.S.).The multilevel edition, grades three to twelve, provides three classificationsof ability with the assessment of corresponding skills as follows:1) verbal battery: verbal classification, sentence completion, verbalanalogies.2) quantitative battery: quantitative relations, number series, equationbuilding.3)^nonverbal battery: figural classification, figure analogies, figuralanalysis.The recommended time allotment is 30 minutes for each individualbattery. As this is a power test, and not one of speed, the test developers allowfor flexibilty in time administration.For the purposes of this study, only the verbal and nonverbal batterieswere administered. The former is a strong indicator of school achievement; thelatter is an estimate of abilities among students for whom reduced competence inEnglish may be an influential factor. (see Appendix D)42Otis-Lennon Mental Ability TestElementary II Form J This Mental Ability Test (OLMAT, 1967) was theprecursor to the Otis Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT, 1979). The intermediatelevel for grades 6-8 will be used in this study. It is a multiple choice, groupadministered instrument for use in a school setting, grades 1-12. It was designedto assess the Spearman "g" or verbal-educational group factor. The OLMATclaims to tap the student's reasoning ability and the handling of verbal, symbolicand figural materials.Intrinsic-Extrinsic (I -E) Scale for ChildrenNowicki-Strickland Locus of Control (1973) This I-E scale is a 40-itemyes/no self-report test that has been used with students from third grade tocollege level. It is considered by one user (MacDonald, 1973) to be the bestmeasure of its kind for use with children. The forced-choice scale measures theextent to which students select external over internal response items. Estimates ofinternal consistency using the split-half method with Spearman Brown correctionare r=.63 (grades 3-5), r=.68 (grades 6-8).Piers-HarrisThis scale consists of eighty yes/no items yielding a standard score which isclaimed to be indicative of the child's self-concept. The following subscales aredelineated: behaviour, intellectual and school status, appearance, anxiety,popularity, happiness and satisfaction. It is a group measure, twenty minutes induration.43Reliability of the Piers-Harris(1) On a test/retest basis for both normal and special populations the reliabilitywas in the range of .42 (after an eighth month interval) to .96 (after athree or four week interval). Temporal stability was reported by Shavelson(1982) with a reliability coefficient of .81 for white upper class seventhgraders covering a five month time span.(2) For the purpose of internal consistency Piers found a range of .88 to .93using the KR20 for dichotomous items on a normative sample of 297 sixthand tenth graders.(3)^The standard error of measurement is based on an overall reliability of .90and a standard deviation of 13.87.Validity of the Piers-Harris(1) Concerning construct validity, self-concept is considered by the authors,Piers and Harris, to be relatively stable and multifaceted withdevelopmental characteristics. Self- report is the means of gaugingself-concept in this measure.(2) The internal consistency among the six clusters (as listed) ranges between.73 and .90. Their stability across studies is moderate; different clustershave surfaced in various assessments. Harter states that the first threefactors (behaviour, intellectual status and school status, and physicalappearance) have been supported across different populations and agegroups (1983).44B.C. Assessment 1987 criterion-referenced *multiple choice comprehension. There is a possible global score of thirty-three. Provincial norms are available with a reliability of .79. The itemswere drawn from a wide range of stimulus materials, such as textbooks,tradebooks, anthologies.B.C. Assessment 1988: criterion -referenced *(a) dicteeThirty-seven items assess correct spelling, word agreement and conjugationof spelling. An instructor reads the entire text and students fill in missing words inthe written text.(b) verbsNine items form a composite assessment of verb conjugation, agreementand sentence construction. Students are instructed to write an 8-10 word sentenceusing the expression provided. Each response is scored three timesdichotomously [1,0} for correct choice, correct form, adequate phrasing.*^All the B.C. Assessments were scored by a Fl practitioner, according toministry guidelines.Student/Parent QuestionnairesAssessment of affective variables, adapted from the Colletta (1983) studywhich was, in turn, originally based on the Language Research Group National45Test Battery: Form A (Gardner and Smythe, 1975). All students and 23 parentscompleted a matching questionnaire consisting of Likert-type and multiple choicescales. See Appendix C for the explication of the questionnaire variables.Schedule for Spring Testing - 1990Tests^ DatesOtis-Lennon^ June 21CCAT-verbal June 11CCAT-nonverbal^ June 12Nowicki-Strickland IE June 11Piers-Harris subtest #2^June 26Gardner National Battery:student questionnaire^June 18parental questionnaire^June 18verb tense & agreement May 29dictee^ May 29FIAT - spelling^ May 14 - June 26FIAT - cloze May 14 - June 26multiple choice comprehension^June 1246Operational Definition of Language ProficiencyLanguage proficiency may be operationally defined in a broad sense toinclude a dimension of discrete-point and integrative measures which couldinclude teacher grades, criterion-referenced and standardized tests. For the sakeof simplicity, proficiency indices have been limited to five standardized measures.An outline of all indices, with their corresponding variables, follows.VARIABLES:^ DATA SOURCES: UNITS OF MEASUREIndependentI.Q.^ Otis-Lennon^%ileslanguage aptitude^CCAT-verbalnonverbal aptitude^CCAT-nonverbal^%ileslocus of control Nowicki -Strickland IE^raw scores(group 1 = intrinsic motivation)(group 2 = extrinsic motivation)academic self-concept^Piers-Harris subtest #2^%Hes(or self-perceived competency)Aggregates of Student Affectstudent's perception of parental #1,4,5,8,9,11^raw scoresencouragementstudent's instrumental orientation #2,3,7student's integrative orientation #6,10(also represents intrinsic motivation)47Aggregates of Parental Influence parent's perception of parental^#1,4,5,8,11encouragementparent's instrumental orientation #2,3,7,9parent's integrative orientation^#6,10DependentWriting and Reading: L2 proficiency indicesverb agreement^B.C. Assessment 1988^discrete pointspelling^FIAT^ discrete point/integrativedictee^ B.C. Assessment 1988^discrete/integrativedoze FIAT^ integrativemultiple choice compre.^B.C. Assessment 1987^discrete point/integrative48CHAPTER V - RESULTSIn keeping with the recent precedents of second language investigators(Shapson, 1987; Ardanaz, 1988) due consideration has been given in this studyto the particulars of second language proficiency, as well as to certain affectiveand motivational factors that influence student learning. Attention has beendirected to the place of academic self-concept, intelligence, and aptitude inrelation to intrinsic motivation and academic proficiency. Information aboutstudent motivation was supplied through the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of ControlScale for Children (1973) and the questionnaire material of the Gardner Battery(Gardner, 1975). The cooperation of parents in completing questionnaire items,similar to those done by their children, assisted in the examination of parentalsupport in the language learning process. Finally, a proposed model ofmotivation was delineated which considered, among other things, theinteractional effects of the internal/external dimension of the locus of control scalewith the integrative/ instrumental dimension of the Gardner Battery.Tables A (student variables: N=40) & B (student/parent variables: N=23)show the significant correlations between each of the proficiency, motivationaland affective measures that have been included in this study. Informationconcerning the measures may be found in chapter four where a listing of theassociated variables is given.49AnalysisThe purpose of this study was to explore, at a descriptive level,relationships between a variety of motivational and ability variables andachievement indices. To this end, achievement test scores, as well as those fromthe other measures, were analyzed. Frequencies, percentages, means, standarddeviations and ranges of scores were tabulated for the variables. Pearsonproduct-moment correlations were conducted between all the individual variables.Chi-square analyses, where appropriate, were also tabulated for the measures oflocus of control, the instrumentality/integration dichotomy, and parent/studentinteractions. A regression analysis was conducted to test the notion that thedichotomous integrative/instrumental factors together may form a continuum. Thealpha level of p<.05 was utilized, unless otherwise indicated.In the next section, the substance of each question presented in chapterthree will be addressed. Additional consideration will be given to theperformance of students (n=23) whose parents completed questionnaires as wellas to the overall sample (n=40).A PRIORI QUESTIONSAffect and Achievement (Question #1):The first question was concerned with the relationship of self- perceivedcompetency to the language proficiency variables. Accordingly, five measures ofsecond language proficiency (FIAT - spelling; Verbs - verb tense; and Comp -comprehension) and one measure of self-perceived competency (Piers-Harris) were50taken for the entire sample (n=40). Of the five correlations, only one wassignificant. As shown in Table A, one significant correlation was found betweenself-academic competency (Piers-Harris) and the F.I.A.T. Comprehension(r=.4379; p<.01). Similarly, for the sample subset (Table B) there was a positivesignificant correlation at r=.3874 (p<.01). 3The distribution of student performance on the FIAT Comprehension inrelation to percentile norms derived from El students is described in Table C. It isevident that 35% of the students scored at or above the mean on the F.I.A.T.Comprehension. According to the FIAT classification index (Wormeli, 1987),17.5% of the students performed in the significantly below average categorywhile there were no students who scored in the significantly above averagecategory. 4Abilities and Achievement (Question #2):Intellective FactorsI.Q. (Otis-Lennon), verbal and non-verbal aptitude (CCAT Verbal, CCATNon-Verbal respectively) were considered in relation to the language proficiencyindices: FIAT Spelling, FIAT Comprehension, Dictation, Verbs, Comprehension.(a)^Table A contains the correlations for the entire student sample. All theaptitude measures intercorrelated significantly with one another. However of thethree ability measures, only the Otis-Lennon was significantly correlated with allfive second- language proficiency measures (with FIAT- spelling, r=.4556,IQCCAT1CCAT2FIATSFIATCDICTEEVERBSCOMPASELFCONLOCUSCTRLCTRGP1LCTRGP2SINSORSINTORSPE1^2.4413•.4527• ^.3747' •.4556• ^.1963.5042•• •^.5386" •.3027'^-.0882.3830• ^-.0114.4676' • •^.4484".4080• ^.3413'-.3437'^-.1331-.3573'^-.1186-.2189^-.6801•-.1771^-.1785-.0912^-.1854-.2177"^-.16873.2495.3351•.2058.0688.2725'.1812-.2096-.0636.2092-.1050-.0955-.3987' •4.5872•••.5396' • •.5159••.5322•••.1004-.2613*-.3770'-.2560-.0549-.0470-.01195.5360'••.4733•*•.7559*•*.4379' •-.1363-.2558-.2704-.1338-.0729-.12476.6885•••.4129•.2323-.1235-.2064-.0881-.0774-.0003-.16687.3545' •.1751.0882-.1809-.3553-.2905'-.0804-.0743IQ - Intelligence Quotient2. CCAT1 - C.CAT. Verbal3. CCAT2 - C.C.A.T. Nonverbal4. FIATS -^Spelling5. FIATC -^Comprehension6. DICTEE - Dictation7. VERBS - Verb TenseTABLE A - CORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR ALL PUPIL VARIABLES (N.40)8. COMP - Comprehension9. ASELFCON - Academic Self-Concept (Piers-Harris)10. LOCUSCTR - Locus of Control11. LOCUS GPI - Internals: N.3212. LOCUS GP2 - Externals: N=713. SINSOR - Student instrument orientation14. SINTOR - Student integrative orientation15. SPE - Students' perception of encouragement given• p s.05• •^p s .01* • • p s .001Variable categories: 1-3 - aptitude/ability; 4-8 - achievement/L2 proficiency; 9 - affect/confidence; 10-15 - motivational8^9^10^11^12^13^14.2114.0796^-.2612*-.2591^-.1505^1.000•••-.5412^.0394^1.000••^.000-.1739^-.1429^.0998^.1282^.8453•-.1062^-.0262^-1574^-.3131'^.5316^.4407••.0445^-.1760^.1735^-.0169^3311^.4817• ^.3804••TABLE I - CORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR SUBSET • OF 23 PUPILS AND THEIR PARENTS (N.23)IQCCAT1CCAT2FIATSFIATCDICTEEVERBSCOMPASELKONLOCUSCTRLOCUS GPILOCUS GP2SINSORSINTORPINSORPINTORSPEPPE14910•5665•.3515'.4081•.0964.0054.3185.3243-.5706"-.3343-.9837.1466.1079-.0468-.1497-.3082-.25282.4623'.1604.6799••.0859-.0600.4867•.2037.1514.3650.0000.1578-.0468-.2022-.0840-.4104'-.10543.4230'.5666•.3080.0834.5062•.1772-.4761"-.3937•.8072-.0256-.0512-.1655-.1935-.3735'-.16754.4004•.4103'.3187.3642'.0022-.3121-.5558'.0000.2321-.0872-.0878-.0002-.1034-.17375.4885•.3058.7898.3874•-.3141.5558'.8660.1467-.1510-.2637-.1762-.2998-.24636.7145••.4567•.2129.0001-.0723.7462.1344.0400-.3202-.1467-.0072-.26937.2678.1061-.0678-.0917.4271-.1692.1786-.1851-.0250-.1845-.17808.1824.0522-.34849-.2498-.0224.2402.1435-.0922-.3901'-.3703'-.2968-.2191101.000•••1.000`• •-.0517-.3548".1630.3261.2291.2829•11.0641-.2623.2985.2643.2523.283912.5000-.5000-1.000*"-.5000-.3273-.500013.4217•.2835.1903.4854•-.020314.3416.4620•.4325•.094915.5753•-.5459".4919•16.2875.5632•17.1151.0000-.0418-.0474-.1976-.1466-.1175-.20041. IQ - Intelligence Quotient 12. LOCUS GP2 - Externals: N.32. CCAT1 - CCA.T. Verbal 13. SINSOR - Student Instrumental orientation3. CCAT2 - C.C.A.T. Nonverbal 14. SINTOR - Student integrative orientation4. FIATS - F.I.A.T. Spelling 15. PINSOR - Parent Instrumental orientation5. FIATC -^Comprehension 16. PINTOR - Parent integrative orientation6. DICTEE - Dictation 17. SPE - Student perception of parental encouragement7. VERBS - Verb Tense 18. PPE - Parental perception of encouragement given8. COMP - Comprehension9. ASELFCON - Acadernk Seff-Concept (Piers-Harris) • p^.0510. LOCUSCTR - Locus of Control •• p s .0111. LOCUS GPI - Internals: N.20Those pupils whose parents provided questionnaire dataP s .001Variable categories: 1-3 - aptitude/ability; 4-8 - achievement/L2 profkiency; 9 - affect/confidence; 10-18 - motivationalTABLE C — FIAT ACHIEVEMENT FOR COMPREHENSION & SPELLINGDISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE (N=40) IN RELATION TOAGE-COHORT PERCENTILE NORMS(From Early Immersion Pupils)PercentileRangeClassification Index %age forcomprehension%age for spelling96 Significantly Above Average35%65%2.532.5%67.5%84-95 Above Average 7.5 5.062-83 High Average 5.0 10.035-61 Average 22.5 15.016-34  Low Average 25.0 22.55-15 Below Average 22.5 32.54 Significantly Below Average 17.5 12.5(Wormeli et al. 1987)54p<.01; FIAT-comprehension .5042, p<.001; Dictation, r=.3027; Verbs,r=.3830, p<.01; Comprehension, r=.4676 p<.001). Both CCAT measuresyielded significant correlations with two of the five achievement measures(CCAT-nonverbal with FIAT-comprehension, r= .3351 and with Comprehension,r=.2725; CCAT-verbal with FIAT Comprehension, r= .5386 p<.001 and withComprehension, r= .4484, p<.01).In this study, the best single predictor of the various measures of secondlanguage achievement is the Otis-Lennon abilities measure. However, the CCATverbal aptitude measure provides a more precise estimate of Frenchcomprehension proficiency.(b)^Table B contains correlational data for the paired student-parentquestionnaire responses (n=23). For the sub sample, the Otis-Lennon correlatedsignificantly with two of the proficiency measures: FIAT Spelling (r=.3515) andthe FIAT Comprehension (r=.4081). Both CCAT verbal and nonverbal measurescorrelated significantly with the FIAT Comprehension (r=.6799, p<.001; r=5666, p<.01, respectively) and with the Comprehension (r=.4867, p<.01;r=.5062, p<.01, respectively). It follows, for the sub sample, that the CCATverbal and nonverbal aptitude measures take precedence over the Otis-Lennon inpredicting comprehension proficiency.55Non-Intellective FactorsIntrinsic motivation and parental influence were examined. Intrinsicmotivation may be thought of as the internal factor on the locus of control scaleor as the integrative factor on the goal- orientation scale. Standard procedureswere used to differentiate Internals from Externals. The locus of control group(n=40) was split into Internals with net negative scores, and Externals with netpositive scores. One subject who tested neither Internal nor External was droppedfrom this portion of the analysis. The I-E groups were labelled #1 and #2accordingly.(a) As indicated in Table A (n=40), the internal locus score(Nowicki-Strickland) was significantly but negatively related to FIAT Spelling (r=-.1833). It is helpful to consider that the I locus factor embraced thirty-twostudents of the total sample, thereby accounting for 80% of the studentproficiency performance. With regard to the intrinsic variable (Gardner Battery:student integrative orientation) there were no significant correlations with any ofthe proficiency variables.(b) Considering the above independent variables in the context of the subsample (Table B, n=23), the internal locus factor (Nowicki- Strickland) showednegative significant relationships to both the FIAT Spelling (r=-.3515) and theFIAT Comprehension (r=-.5558 p< .01). There were no significant relationshipsdemonstrated between the intrinsic variable (student integrative orientation) and56the proficiency variables. Similarly, there were no significant relationships evidentbetween the parental variables (Gardner Battery: parental instrumental, parentalintegrative, parental encouragment) and achievement.Motivation and Achievement (Question #3):Further attention was turned to locus of control, intrinsic motivation andproficiency. The overall locus of control (Nowicki- Strickland), in Table A (n=40),showed no significant relationship to intrinsic motivation (Gardner Battery:integrative orientation) but correlated negatively and significantly with oneproficiency measure, the FIAT Spelling ( r=-.2613).In the reduced portion of the sample (Table B, n=23), the locus of controlvariable showed a significant negative correlation with the student's integrativeorientation (r=-.3548). There were no significant relationships between locus ofcontrol and the five proficiency variables.Motivation and Affect (Question #4):Reflection was then given to intrinsic motivation and academicself-confidence. In Tables A (n=40) or B (n=23), no significant relationshipswere reported between self-perceived competency (Piers- Harris) and themeasures of student intrinsic motivation (Locus of Control: Nowicki-Strickland ;student integrative orientation: Gardner Battery).5 7Parental Support and Student Affect (Question #5):Parental support was viewed in relationship to academic self-confidence (TableB). The factors of the Gardner Battery (1975) which pertained to parental supportwere: parental instrumental orientation, parental integrative orientation, parent'sperception of parental encouragement. (For this measure, the subtest scores ofthe questionnaires were grouped into composites).Of the three factors, only two (parental instrumental and parental integrativeorientations) established significant but negative correlations with the Piers-Harrisacademic self-confidence measure (for the former, r= -.3901; for the latter, r=-.3703).Motivation and Proficiency (Question #6):Student responses (Table B, n=23) on the integrative/instrumental goalorientation scale (Gardner Battery) were examined in light of their relationships tothe proficiency subtests: FIAT Spelling, FIAT Comprehension, Dictation, Verbs,Comprehension. As evident in Table B, no significant relationships were found.58EMERGENT QUESTIONSMotivation and Goal Orientation (Question #1):(a) The interrelationship of motivation and goals was examined through achi-square analysis. The orientation composite scores [n = 39] (Gardner Battery:student/parental instrumental orientation & student/parental integrativeorientation) were recoded to approximate a three-response pattern (disagee,undecided, agree) rather than a five-response Likert pattern (strongly disagree,disagree, undecided, agree, strongly agree). This procedure was necessary toaccommodate the narrow cell requirements of the chi-square analysis with respectto the small data sample. A chi-square analysis was then conducted to determineif locus of control groups #1 and #2 were independent of each other whenmeasured, firstly on the integrative scale, and secondly on the instrumental scale.A crosstabulation analysis was considered appropriate for the noncontinuous(nominal) items contained in the questionnaires. Parental responses were alsoincluded in the tabulation. The I - E groups demonstrated no significantindependence from the student or parental instrumental/integrative factors.(b) From the perspective of the Pearson correlation analysis (Tables A & B), theinternal locus of control factor was negatively related to the student integrativemeasure (r=.-.3131). The external locus of control, for the full sample, showed astrong significant positive relationship with the student instrumental factor59(r=.8453, p<.01) and, for the sub sample, a perfect negative relationship withthe parental instrumental factor (r=-1.000, p<.001).Relationship of Orientational Goal Factors (Question #2)The integrative /instrumental factors may be separate or related as on acontinuum (Table D). A multiple regression analysis was conducted for thestudent and parental scales. Arbitrarily, the instrumental orientation (sintor,pintor)was chosen as the independent variable, and the integrative orientation as thedependent variable (sintor,pintor). Using the regression equation,Y' = a + bXsintor = 3.34 + 0.38 [sinsor] (p=.005)pintor = 1.45 + 0.46 [pinsor] (p=.004)There was found to be a significant positive linear relationship between theinstrumental and integrative factors on the student and parental scales indicatingthat there is evidence to think that these factors are related on a continuum(r=.38, p<.005; r=.46, p<.005, respectively). Scatterplots (figures 4a,b &5a,b) show the relationships between the instrumental and the integrativeorientational factors on the student and parental scales (Gardner Battery, 1975).The interchange of the orientational factors as independent and dependentvariables can be noted in the figures.15-13.75-+^*^+12.5-S^11.25-INS0R 10-8.75-7.5-6.25-STUDENT GOAL ORIENTATIONI^I^I^I^I^I5^7^94^6^8^10SINTORFigure 4a. Student Instrumental Orientation as Dependent Variable60STUDENT GOAL ORIENTATIONI^I^I619.6-8.8-8-SIN 7.2-T0R6.4-5.6-4.8-4- +1^1^1^1^7.5 10.56 91^113.512^15SINSORFigure 4b. Student Integrative Orientation as Dependent Variable18-16.5-15-PI^13.5-NS0R12-10.5-97.5-*PARENTAL GOAL ORIENTATIONPINSOR^1^I^1^1^1^1^3.75 6.25 8.752.5 5^7.5 10PINTORFigure 5a. Parental Instrumental Orientation as Dependent Variable6210-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-+STUDENT GOAL ORIENTATION8.75^12.25^15.75^19.257^10.5^14^17.5PINSORFigure 5b. Parental Integrative Orientation as Dependent Variable6364Addenda (Table E)Parental I nfluence The shared perspectives of parents and their children on the parentalencouragement variables were submitted to a chi-square analysis ( n=23/n=23).The student /parent variables were found to be independent (x2 = 23.41,p<.001, df=4). Thus there was a significant discrepency between the waystudents and parents viewed the encouragement given by the parents to theirchildren with respect to second language learning (Table E). The parentsperceived (91.3%) the strength of their encouragement to be greater than thatperceived (69.6%) by their children.(1) It can be noted (Table B) that students' perception of parentalencouragement is negatively and significantly related to parental instrumentalorientation (r=-.5459, p <.01).(2) The parental perception of encouragement is positively related to thelocus of control factor (r=.2829, p<.01)(3) The students' perception of parental encouragement (Table A) isnegatively and significantly related to the Otis Lennon measure (r=-.2177,p<.01), and to the CCAT nonverbal measure (r=-.3987, p<.01).65TABLE D — INTERRELATIONSHIP OF INSTRUMENTAL AND INTEGRATIVEORIENTATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTSMultiple Regression of Instrumental and Integrative OrientationsVariable B SE B Beta T Sig. TSINSOR .379032 .126939 .440655 2.986 .0050(Constant) 3.343466 1.414558 2.364 .0235PINSOR .432719 .143564 .575293 3.223 .0041(Constant) 1.458333 2.042398 .714 .4831a' Independent Variable:sinsor (student instrumental orientation)Dependent Variable:sintor (student integrative orientation)Equation F = 8.91580; Significance of F =.0050 ; DF =38Multiple R =^.44066; R Square =.19418; Adjusted R Square = .19418a2 Independent Variable:pinsor (parental instrumental orientation) DependentVariable:pintor (parental integrative orientation)Equation F = 10.38835; Significance of F =.0041 DF =22Multiple R = .57529; R Square =.33096; Adjusted R Square = .29910LowResponses^1Parents 4.3Students 4.3Medium^High2^34.326.1 69.691.366TABLE E — PERCENTAGES FOR PERCEPTION OF ENCOURAGEMENT GIVENThe table represents the degree to which parents and their children perceiveencouragement to be given.67TABLE F-1 - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SAMPLE (N=40)Variable Mean Standard Error Standard Deviation Minimum MaximumIQ' 71.600 2.838 17.951 29.000 97.000CCAT1 78.200 2.667 16.869 33.000 99.000CCAT2' 74.924 3.184 19.887 16.000 99.000FIATS 30.300 4.311 27.265 2.000 96.000FIAT C' 30.200 4.289 27.123 1.000 95.000DICTEE" 28.375 .839 5.389 18.000 36.000VERBS" 32.487 1.148 7.170 19.000 43.000COMP" 21.175 .807 5.103 12.000 30.000ASELFCON' 40.200 4.958 31.358 1.000 98.000LOCUSCTR•' 13.375 .715 4.522 6.000 22.000LCTR GP1" N=32 11.788 .547 3.140 6.000 17.000LCTR GP2" N=7 20.857 .404 1.069 19.000 22.000SI NSOR" 11.000 .289 11.000 6.000 17.000SINTOR•' 7.513 .249 1.554 4.000 10.000SPE" 21.162 .570 3.468 16.000 29.000' = Percentile " = Raw scoreTABLE F-2 - FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SUBSAMPLE (N=23)Variable Mean Standard Error Standard Deviation Minimum MaximumIQ' 76.087 3.314 15.894 38.000 97.000CCAT1' 80.130 3.007 14.420 49.000 97.000CCAT2' 75.136 3.995 18.737 46.000 99.000FIAT S' 34.783 5.719 27.429 4.000 96.000FIAT C• 35.913 5.689 26.902 1.000 95.000DICTEE" 29.043 1.070 5.130 20.000 36.000VERBS" 35.182 1.213 5.687 23.000 43.000COMP • • 22.087 .930 4.461 15.000 29.000ASELFCON' 41.043 6.500 31.173 2.000 98.000LOCUSCTR• • 12.957 .776 3.723 7.000 21.000LCTRGP1" N=20 11.900 .589 2.634 7.000 15.000LCTR GP2' • N=3 21.000 .577 1.000 19.000 21.000SI NSOR" 16.636 .419 1.965 6.000 15.000SINTOR" 6.955 .339 1.588 4.000 10.000PINSOR" 14.043 .485 2.2325 7.000 19.000PINTOR" 7.957 .390 1.870 2.000 10.000SPE" 20.524 .675 3.092 16.000 24.000PPE" 18.826 .664 3.186 10.000 24.000' = Percentile " = Raw scoreTABLE GPERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS WITHIN STANDARD DEVIATIONAL RANGES-3 a -2 a ± 1 a +2 a + 3 a*^IQ 70.0 27.5 2.5**^CCAT1 47.5 42.5 10.0'^CCAT2 88.3 4.1 7.6**** ASELFCON 5.0 27.5 50.0 15.0 2.5*^Otis-Lennon* *^Canadian Cognitive Verbal Aptitude Test* * * Canadian Cognitive Nonverbal Aptitude TestPiers-Harris Academic Self-Concept Scale6869CHAPTER VI - DISCUSSIONSpecial Features of the ResearchThe development of this study was both nurtured and facilitated by the researcher'son-site presence in a French Immersion setting. Dialogue with resident Fl personnelcontributed to the lines of inquiry that gradually shaped the investigation. For suchreasons, this research is more exploratory than deterministic in its purpose and goals.The availability of subjects provided the opportunity to consider a wide range ofvariables in a mode that was more naturalistic than controlled. As the researcher wasknown to the students and staff (and sensitive to the situational constraints of time andagenda), the test administration was more flexible than rigid.The writings of Gardner (1983; 1985) and his socio-educational language modelprovided the stirrings for this project. Gardner's surveys formed the foundation forrecent provincial assessments of the attitudinal correlates of French languageachievement (Day et al, 1987; Ardanaz et al., 1988). Although the attitudes of FrenchImmersion students have generally been shown to be positive, the area of studentmotivation has not been extensively or persuasively explored in French Immersionresearch. The inclusion of academic self-regard, though not well-supported inpsychological literature (Wylie, 1979), was influenced by the current interest amongeducators in matters of self- esteem. Lastly, it was the view of the researcher that thetime had come for a merging of psychological theory with the flow of thought aboutsecond language achievement and motivation.70Individual differences between students in academic learning, according to Vernon(1950), can be delineated by three main factors: the general intellectual factor of "g"(perception of relationships); aptitude for "book learning" (vocabulary, spelling, generalinformation); a non-intellectual factor "X" (complexity of affective traits, interests andbackground characteristics). This model for student assessment broadly fits the overalldesign of the present study.In review of the findings, the general I.Q. (Otis-Lennon), aptitude (CCAT verbal andnonverbal) and five proficiency variables intercorrelated significantly for the fortysubjects. The academic self-concept measure (Piers-Harris) correlated significantly withability (Otis-Lennon) and with a proficiency measure, the FIAT-C (highest achievementcorrelate of ability). Locus of control, as expected, correlated significantly andnegatively with ability and achievement. Thus, in terms of Vernon's organization, thefirst two factors for the most part showed predictable stability. It was in the area ofVernon's factor X (as measured by student and parent questionnaires) that dynamicvariability was found.As an historical note, the research was conducted during a time of a constitutionalcrisis in the nation. The federal government was attempting to ratify the Meech LakeAccord which promised to give to the province of Quebec the status of a distinct society.The process resulted in a polarization of attitudes among Canadians towards FrenchLanguage rights. The Gardner (1985) socio-educational model gives a prominent placeto the influence of cultural community beliefs upon second language learning. Needless71to say, there were likely some residual effects at work among the students and,particularly, the parents who responded (or did not respond) to the questionnaires.With the foregoing as background, the discussion, which follows, is organizedaround the research questions that were addresses by this study. Comments dealingwith the overall significance of the findings, and suggestions for further research insecond language learning, follow the discussion pertinent to the research questions.The Research Questions RevisitedThe first question focused on the extent to which the measure of achievement - thefive L2 proficiency measures - were related to a measure of academic self-concept.The highest (and only significant) degree of relationship for the academicself-concept measure was found in association with the FIAT comprehension. As thePiers-Harris accounted for only 16% of the common variance with one proficiencyvariable, any stress on this construct seems exaggerated and unwarranted. The evidencefrom this study contradicts the popular view shared by Phillips (1984) and Colletta(1983) that a significant relationship between academic self-confidence and proficiency isviable.In so far as affective factors are important in achievement generally, and in secondlanguage learning in the late immersion context in particular, something other thanacademic self-concept must be looked to, for explanation and understanding of therelation of achievement to the affective aspect of the psyche.72As a subordinate point, the Piers-Harris self-concept measure provided a fairerestimate of students' school ability (as represented by I.Q. or aptitude) than ofproficiency. This notion is supported by the interrelationship of the FIAT subtest to boththe self-confidence subtest (Piers-Harris) and the ability measures. This oral clozecomprehension task involved the use of semantic and syntactic clues to provide themissing word in a phrase or passage. Clearly, it was the most difficult comprehensiontask that the students encountered. One may speculate that the FIAT comprehension wasa demonstration of actualized competency encompassing what the students knew andcould do.The second question focused attention on the relationship of abilities toachievement. It asked: how do the intellective factors, I.Q. and language aptitude,relate to L2 proficiency, as opposed to the non-intellective factors, intrinsic motivationand parental influence?Intellective InfluencesOf primary interest is the finding that the ability measures, especially the verbal(Otis and CCAT-verbal), were the best predictors of L2 proficiency. The Otis was thestrongest (significant on all five areas) whereas the CCAT-verbal was significant on onlythe comprehension measures.Tyler (1965) affirms the consistency of the relationship between intelligence andachievement. If, she says, the variability of the distribution is limited to the selection ofaverage and above average students (Table G) correlations with achievement will be73lower than if a wide range of ability were included (Tables F-1 & 2). Although the typeof achievement test is not a factor, the subject area is a determinant of the strength ofrelationship. Interestingly, Learned and Wood (1938) report, for urban high-schoolgroups, a correlation of .46 between the Otis Intelligence Test and French achievement.The finding closely corresponds to the relationship between the comprehension indicesand I.Q. in the present study.As a point of observation, the CCAT-nonverbal aptitude in the subsample showedsignificant correlations with a number of the proficiency items (Fiat-comprehension,r=.56666,p<.001; comprehension, r=.5062 p<.01). The authors (Appendix D: TestReview) of the CCAT do not consider the CCAT nonverbal to be a predictor of academicachievement. However, Genesee (1980, p.106) has suggested that nonverbal reasoningability may be associated with a field independence factor or an ability to "analyze andstructure complex information ". Among young children, the latter variable was foundby Genesee to be significantly related to French listening and reading comprehension.One is inclined to consider this nonverbal aptitude as a type of social intelligence thatassists the student interpret nonverbal cues.Non -Intellective InfluencesThe relationship between parental influence and proficiency is only implied by thedata - there were no significant correlational relationships established between theparental affective variables and the language proficiency of students.An informal scan of the frequency distributions (Tables F-1 & 2) shows an overallincrease in mean scores between the main sample and the subsample. Examination of74the actual data, for the aptitudinal measures, reveals that the parents of students whoscored in the overall sample, below the minimum range point of the subsample, did notparticipate in the questionnaire. As the lower ability students were excluded from thesubsample (by self/parent selection), one is inclined to wonder why this phenomenonoccurred. Perhaps parents' active involvement in the schooling of their children wascontingent upon their (conscious or unconscious) estimates of the students' chances ofmaking strong gains. Of course, such decision-making does not preclude the influence offamilial socio-educational factors.The apparent lack of a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation andproficiency is not surprising. The fact that most subjects scored as internals (orintrinsically directed) on the locus of control scale allowed little opportunity forindividual differences between subjects to form in relation to ability or proficiency. Forgrade seven students, Nowicki-Strickland report an expected correlation withachievement to be r=-.335, p<.01 (1973, p.152) . The marginal (r=- .2613, Table A)negative and significant relationship, between the locus of control scale (student'sdegree of externality) and the FIAT- spelling, gives insufficient grounds for makinginferences about students with an internal disposition with respect to proficiency. Hence,there is very little basis in the data to speak to the relationship between motivation andproficiency.The third question focused on motivation and L2 achievement. Here, locus of controlis at the centre of attention.75The locus control measure negatively correlated with only the FIAT-spelling. Theanticipation of a relationship existing between locus of control and proficiency is basedon the following rationale: the individual who takes ownership for personal successesand failures is likely to show initiative and persistence in the face of problematic tasks(Morgan, 1966). Nowicki and Strickland (1973) report a clear relationship between thelocus of control measure and achievement. The correlations are consistently negative andtend to be significant at seventh grade. Furthermore, they would lead us to anticipatethat internality on the locus of control scale is associated with stronger achievement thanis externality. However in this sample no such conclusion can be drawn.Due to the nature and size of the sample, the locus of control scale had definitelimitations. The authors of the scale have indicated that, based on a sample of 65students, the mean and standard deviations are estimated to be 13.15 and 4.87,respectively (1973, p.149). The corresponding statistics from the distribution of scoresfor this study were 13.375 and 4.522 (Table F-1). However, we have observed that themajority (thirty-three) of the students were "internals". This indicates that the presentsample is skewed overwhelmingly from that pole.The method of calculating internality and externality according to standardresponses, representing either I-E factors, subsumes a transituational application of traitcharacteristics defined as a "pattern of relationships within the individual's behaviouralrelationships" (Tyler, 1965, p.367). Even assuming a generalized disposition forexternality and internality, the influence of the situation could bring interactional effectsthat would moderate one's degree of externality or internality. Rotter (1975) adds - in76competitive skill situations externals, due to their dispositional variability, may act asinternals are expected to act. Given that notion, we ask ourselves whether externalsmight adapt more readily and/or appropriately to the stimulation of an Fl classroomand, hence, make gains in proficiency performance. It would seem that the additionalcomponent of a situation-specific approach to the measurement of locus of controlwould be critical to the comparing of that variable, for example, to the orientationaldimension of goal-setting (instrumental/integrative).There is no evidence of any significant relationship between locus of control andintrinsic motivation as measured by the Gardner battery (1975) in the overall sample.The occurrence of a negative and significant relationship accounted for 12% of thevariance in the subsample. Therefore the numbers are too small to clarify the situation.The relationship between locus of control and intrinsic motivation as (assessed by theintegrative items of the Gardner Battery) is still unclear.From a philosophical or developmental point of view, the idea that locus of controlrepresents a degree of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation should be challenged. Bydefinition, it is a position of power which has attributes that are supposedly internal orexternal to the individual. Students who are just entering adolescence may have learneda degree of autonomy that helps them stand their ground in relation to peers, teachersand parents. This attribute of being self-affirmed is not necessarily synonymous with atrue intrinsic interest in learning the French language for its own sake. An exceptionmay apply in the cases of gifted students who have mental ages (cognitive maturity) farbeyond their years. More precise information about the students in relation to how they77deal with personal responsibility and initiative would be gleaned by examining theindividual student's responses on the Nowicki-Strickland scale.The fourth question asked if there were a significantly positive relationship betweenself-perceived competency and intrinsic motivation. Based on the findings of this study,there appears to be a modest negative correlation between students who are externallyinclined (Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale) and academically self- confident(Piers-Harris). It may then be only inferred that students who are intrinsically inclinedare more positive in their academic self-regard. Otherwise, there is no evidence tosupport Harter and Nicholls (1986) in saying that intrinsic motivation and self-perceivedcompetency are positively related.Question five asked: how does parental support relate to student self-confidence asmeasured by the Piers-Harris? In considering this question, in light of the data from thepresent study, a posture of modesty is warranted, as only 29 parents answered thequestionnaire. This must be considered when we observe that both parental goalorientation variables (instrumental and integrative) correlated negatively with academicself-confidence. It would seem that parental support, accounting for about 16% of thevariance of academic self-concept, is associated with a somewhat negative student affect.The data of the subsample (despite statistical limitations) speaks to a discrepancy bydegree between the students' view of the encouragement given by parents and theparental view of the encouragement given (Table E). Most parents (91.3%) gave a high78rating to the encouragement given and a portion of the students (69.6%) concurred.Yet other students (26.1 %) interpreted the encouragement given by parents to bemoderate. One is inclined to wonder whether the students were considering theamount, and/or the qualitative value, of the encouragement? The parents were possiblyreporting a mixture of supportive and ambitious involvement in their children'seducation .The parental instrumental goal orientation (unlike its integrative counterpart)reportedly decreased as students' perception of encouragement increased. The converse,then, could be true that the students who received less encouragement were associatedwith parents who were higher in instrumental orientation.Addenda:The dynamics of encouragement require further consideration in light of currentmotivational theory. There is evidence to think that students are more influenced byparental estimates of their ability than by their own school performance. Eccles and hercolleagues have found that "...students' achievement attitudes were influenced moreheavily by their parents' attitudes about their abilities than by their own earlierperformances." (Eccles-Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982, p.141). Furthermore, parentswho accentuate the autonomy and self-regulation of the child are likely to use intrinsicmotivational strategies ( Elmen, 1991). Communication patterns generated within thefamily, such as the capacity for constructive and coordinated thinking, are linked withperceived competence and academic achievement (Carlson, Hsu, & Cooper, 1990).79Parental encouragement (with respect to status aspiration) predicts educationalattainment for boys, but harsh and inconsistent discipline on the part of their mothers isrelated to low cognitive self-worth. (Wentzel, Feldman, & Weinberger, 1991; Cassidy &Lynn, 1991).As discussed in chapter two, the Colletta (1983) design delineated, for the parentalencouragement variable, two dimensions: the passive and the active. The passive role isindirect and implicit to what the parent says and does; the active role is direct andintegral to the tuition of the student. Colletta described the parental instrumental andencouragement factors as active, and the integrative factor as passive. Languageresearchers (Colletta, 1983; Gardner, 1985) favour the influence of the passivecomponent over the active.Question six called for an exploration of motivation with respect to the distinctionbetween instrumental and integrative orientations to the culture of the second language.It asked: does an instrumental orientation differ from an integrative orientation withregard to general L2 proficiency?With one modest exception, there were no significant relationships between the goalfactors on the Gardner scale and the proficiency indices. The student instrumentalvariable, which is commonly considered to have extrinsic attributes, demonstrated a verystrong negative relationship with the external locus of control (n=7) and a mildlynegative relationship with the "verbs task" (r= p <-.2905). At first glance this findingseems to be unworthy of attention. The inference can be made, however, that students80who are more extrinsically inclined may be less fastidious in attending to the rigours oflearning French verbs. Unless there are regular occurrences which would reinforce thestudents' efforts, there may not be the incentives to develop the skill of verb usage inextrinsically inclined students.In his critique of the Gardner model of second language learning, Au (1988)challenges the view that an integrative orientation is positively related to L2 proficiency.He proposes that integratively oriented individuals are linguistically gifted in the firstplace. Their desire and motivation to learn a language follow naturally. In support ofAu (Table A), it can be noted that the students' instrumental orientation was positivelycorrelated to the external locus, (r =.8453, p < .01) which, in turn, was strongly andnegatively correlated with language aptitude (r = -.6801). Gardner (1988) rebuffs theargument on the grounds that the integrative motive is not measured adequately . Thereneeds to be a comprehensive number of items from his battery to reflect the complexityof the integrative motive. (In this study only two questionnaire items represented theintegrative motive for the parental and student scales. See Appendix B.)Il1. Are a student's motivational beliefs (internal/external) on the locus of controlscale connected to goal orientations on the Gardner scale (integrative/instrumental)?81Consideration of the two scales in a multidimensional sense could potentiallyprovide more information than do the four individual dichotomous variables. Prior tothis we have discussed the issue of measurement for locus of control. The results wereskewed in favour of internals and we must work within that parameter. The significantrelationships were confined to the students' integrative orientation in negativerelationship with locus of control, and the students' instrumental orientation in positiverelationship with the external locus. There does seem to be an interconnection amongfactors. The perfect relationship between external locus of control (n=3) and theparental instrumental factor, though striking, can be explained by the minuscule numberof cases. However, the relationship does lend support to the thinking that the parentalinstrumental variable has external attributes. Directing attention to the multidimensionalmodel in chapter three, four interactions were proposed between the two dimensions.Two of the four are represented: instrumental-extrinsic and integrative-intrinsic. Thecomponents of both pairs are thought to share common elements. There was no crossingbetween integrative-extrinsic, for example. From this small amount of evidence we areencouraged to think that a correspondence exists between the factors of theNowicki-Strickland Locus of Control (1E) scale and the integrative-instrumental dimensionsin Gardner's scales. Some caution should be used in endorsing Gardner's view (1985,p.11) that the orientational goal factors are both extrinsic. Because we are consideringboth dimensions as continua there is the obvious need to find new ways of measuringgradations of instrumentality/integrativeness, much in the way the global locus of controlis calculated.822. Is there a justifiable reason to regard the integrative/instrumental orientationas a continuum?The evidence for linearity between the parental instrumental and parental integrativeis clear even though the sample is small. However, the regression coefficient betweenthe factors on the student scale is not as strong . It can also be noted that, in the overalldynamics of correlational relationships (Pearson r), the parental goal factors and thestudents' integrative factor correlate more widely than does the students' instrumentalfactor. The students' integrative factor appears to share some common properties withthe parental integrative factor, by virtue of their significant relationship (r=.4620).Therefore, the student instrumental factor, which does not demonstrate a significantrelationship with its' counterpart on the parental scale, appears to be somewhat distinctfrom the other three factors.The reliability of the Gardner measures would be increased if parallel measures couldbe given over a short period of time. (The issue here is whether or not enough itemswould be available in the Gardner material to suffice.) Another approach would be atest/retest with an interval of several months. The average of the intercorrelations wouldbe used as an estimate of the reliability coefficient. The practice of using the sameinstrument reduces the chances of measuring a wide range of traits.It is quite conceivable that an individual could be both integrative and instrumentalin orientation. One could conceivably be interested in the strategic advantages of83learning the second language, while at the same time wanting to participate in thelanguage community.Gardner has made a contribution to motivational research with his construct for longterm goal-setting. The principles he has used in defining purposes for undertakinglanguage learning could be applied to motivational studies in various educationalpursuits beyond the language learning setting.SummationThe Otis-Lennon ability measure was the strongest predictor of overall secondlanguage achievement followed by the CCAT verbal aptitude measure, a reliablepredictor of language comprehension. Conversely, the Piers-Harris academicself-concept measure showed no predictive strength with respect to achievement. Theassociation of the latter to intrinsic motivation was marginally evident. The Piers-Harrisinstrumentation put into question the value of examining academic self-concept as avariable associated with motivation and achievement.Due to the truncation of the range and the limited size of the sample, locus ofcontrol showed no clear relationship with proficiency. Similarly, no conclusions could bedrawn concerning the relationship of locus of control to intrinsic motivation as measuredby the Gardner Battery.The integrative variable was shown to be somewhat intrinsic in character and theinstrumental variable somewhat extrinsic. At the same time the two variables formed a84continuum which indicated an interrelationship . between them - the implication beingthat a student could possess varying degrees of both properties.A modest claim can be made that the two aptitudinal variables (verbal andnonverbal) may act together as predictors of success in learning a second language in aformal setting. The latter may represent a certain social intelligence which could be animportant prerequisite for understanding the unspoken cues and cultural gestures of theFl environment. Moreover, the features it shares with the integrative motive are ofinterest, and worthy of further exploration.The actual influence of parents may be two-fold. There is a positive strand evidencedby the intrinsic properties of the relationships between parental instrumental, parentalintegrative and student integrative orientations. Parental support seems to enable thestudents to merge with the language environment. There is a seeming contradiction inthe data that student affect is reduced in relation to parental encouragement (or acertain aspect of it). It can be can be seen that there are positive and negative attributesintegral to parental support which, in the best interests of the students, requirerefinement.Educational ImplicationsCommunication by educators with parents regarding the basic principles ofself-efficacy, and guidelines for assisting their children , could facilitate the developmentof achievement motivation within the school setting.85Coleman (1987) speaks to the issue of the school and home, each having its ownmission in relation to the education of the child. He says that both institutions haveinteracting roles, the former being the producer of attitudes, effort and conception ofself, the latter being the resource for opportunities, demands and rewards. Parents havetaken the lead in the French Immersion milieu in setting long-term goals (such as careerchoice ) with respect to language training. The educational community may beencouraged to participate in establishing realistic, short-term goals with, and for,students that would augment their motivation for language learning in keeping with theprinciples of self-efficacy.Suggestions for Future Research1. A multidimensional approach to motivation requires investigating and implementingthat would include the elements of gender, ability, self-competency, subject domain,skill development, locus of control and parental support.2. The Gardner Battery should be administered comprehensively (beyond the factorsused in this research) and a factorial analysis conducted to examine the association ofthe integrative goal orientation with proficiency.3. This present study could be duplicated using a larger sample size. The items for eachfactor on the Gardner Battery should be balanced in number.4. The nonverbal aptitude variable (or social intelligence measure) warrantsexamination in association with field dependency/independency, the integrativevariable, and Fl learning.86ENDNOTES1 Gardner (1988, p.105) has clarified that an integrative or instrumental motive doesnot exist. Rather it is merely a construct that refers to a "complex of attitudinal andmotivational characteristics that appear to be implicated in second-languagelearning".2 While it is recognized that an individual will show a varying mix of intrinsic andextrinsic motivational traits depending on the situation (and other unspecifiedfactors) it is assumed in this document that a student has a propensity for beingeither an intrinsic or extrinsic learner. Hence there is consistent reference to studentsperforming as either intrinsic or extrinsic learners.3 The Piers-Harris was chosen for its longevity in the field of research. An itemanalysis with respect to the statements that measure academic self-concept should bedone to shed light on their validity for use in conjunction with the self-efficacyconstruct.4 The performance of LI student on the FIAT measures can be seen in relation to thenorms established for El students (Table C). The superior performance of El studentsin relation to their LI age-cohorts would indicate that the former group would be atadvantage in the eighth grade where the two levels of immersion merge.87BIBLIOGRAPHYAmes, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: The influence ofindividual and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect.American Educational Research lournal, 273-287.Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: Acognitive-motivational analysis, In R. Ames & C. Ames Research on Motivation in Education 1: student motivation. New York, Academic Press.Au, S.Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner's social-psychological theory ofsecond-language (L2) learning. Language Learning, M(1), 75-100.Ardanaz, N., Wormeli, T., Lamarre, P., Roy, R. & Daneault, L. (1988). Assessment ofstudent attitudes towards french immersion. Victoria B.C.: Student Assessment,Ministry of Education.Bain, B. (1975). Toward an integration of Piaget & Vygotsky: Bilingual considerations,Linguistics, 160, 5-20.Ball, S. (1984). Student motivation: Some reflections and projections. In R. Ames & C.Ames (Eds.) Research on Motivation in Education. Volume 1. student motivation.Academic Press (313-326).Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.88Berlyne, D.E. (1970). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.Bexton, W.H., Heron, W., & Scott, T. H. (1954). Effects of increased variation in thesensory environment. Canadian lournal of Psychology 8, 70-76.Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83.Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher'sguide to statistics and research design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Carlson, C., Hsu, J., & Corper, C. (1990, March). Predicting school achievement in earlyadolescence: The role of family process. Paper presented at the Third BiennialMeeting of the Society of Research on Adolescence. Atlanta, GA.Carey, S. (1984). Reflections on a decade of French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41(2), (November), 247-259.Carey, S., & Cummins, J. (1983). Achievement, behavioural correlates and teachers'perceptions of francophone and anglophone immersion students. Alberta lournal ofEducational Research, 29(3) (September), 159-167.Carroll, J.B. (1981). Conscious and automatic processes in language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 462-74.Cassidy, T. & Lynn, R. (1991). Achievement motivation, educational attainment, cyclesof disadvantage and social competence: Some longitudinal data. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 61, 1-12.Chiu, L. (1988). Testing the test: Measures of self-esteem for school age children. lournal of Counselling and Development, 66(Feb.), 298.89Clement, R. (1978). Motivational characteristics of francophones learning English.Quebec City: International Center for Research on Bilingualism, Laval University.Clement, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a secondlanguage. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language. Social Psychological Perspective. Oxford:Pergamon Press.Cofer, C.N. (1985). Drives and motives. In (Eds.) Topics in the history of psychology 2 (pp. 151-189). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Coleman, J. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, Aug-Sept.Colletta, S.P., R. Clement & H.P. Edwards. (1983). Community and parental influence: Effects on student motivation and french proficiency  (Report No. ICBR-B-128;ISBN-289219-131-9). Laval University, Quebec. International Center for Research onBilingualism.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235 684)Cosden, M. (1984). Piers-Harris children's self-soncept scale. In D. Keyser, R. Sweetland(Ed.), Test critiques (511-521). Test Corporation of America.Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian lournal of Education, 8, 117-138.Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. College Hill Press. 129-151.Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. Longman Group, Essex,England.Cooper, J., & Croyle, R.T. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review ofPsychology, 35, 395-426.90Day, EM., & Shapson, S. (1986). A comparison study of early and late Frenchimmersion programs in British Columbia. Canadian lournal of Education, 13(2),290-305.Day, E.M. Shapson, S.M., & O'Shea, T.J. (1988). The B.C. immersion assessment 1987: General report. Victoria: Ministry of Education.Day, H.I., Berlyne, D.E., & Hunt, D.E. (1970). Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education. A Symposium sponsored by the Department of Applied PsychologyOntario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto Ontario, June 11-13, Holt,Rinehart & Winston.deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants ofbehaviour. New York: Academic Press.Deci, E.I. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.Deci, E.I. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Heath.Eccles-Parsons, J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudesand beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 51, 310-321.Eccles-Parsons, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T.F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the schoolenvironment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J.G. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement. (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, C T. : JAI Press.Eccles, J. & Midgley, C. (1989). Optimal classroom environment for adolescents. In R.Ames & C.Ames Research on motivation in education 3: Goals and cognitions. (pp.139-180). New York, Academic Press.91Edwards, H.P. (1976). Psychological and social psychological factors influencing secondlanguage acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 36(79/80), 481-484.Elmen, J. (1991). Achievement orientations in early adolescence: Developmentalpatterns and social correlates. lournal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 125-151.Flavell, J.H. & Wohlwill, J.F. (1969). Formal and functional aspects of cognitivedevelopment. In D. Elkind's & J.H. Flavell's (Eds.) Studies in Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of lean Piaget.  (pp. 67-120). New York. Oxford University Press.Gardner, R.C. (1983). Learning another language: A true psychological experiment.lournal of Language and Social Psychology,  2, 219-240.Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: Role ofattitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Gardner, R.C. (1991). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. In A.G.Reynold's (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning.  (pp.44-61). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second languageachievement. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.Gardner, R.C. & Maclntyre, P.D. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Towarda theoretical clarification. Language Learning: lournal of Applied Linguistics, 39, 2,June.Gardner, R.C. & Smythe, P.C. (1975). Language research grou. national test battery: form A. Language Research Group, University of Western Ontario.92Gardner, R.C., Smythe, P.C., & Clement, R. (1979). Intensive second language study:effects on attitudes, motivation and language proficiency. Language Learning, 29,305-320.Genesee.F. (1976). The suitability of immersion programs for all children. Canadian Modern Language Review,  32, 494- 515.Genesee, F. (1984). French immersion programs. In Shapson & V. D'Oyley (Eds.),Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives,  (pp 34-54). Avon,England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E., (1980). Individual differences in second language Learning.Applied Psycholinguistics 1, 95-110.Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation in theclassroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,17, Wash. American Assoc.Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53,87-97.Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In E.M. Hetherington(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.) Volume 4: Socialization, personality, social development. (pp. 275-369). New York: Wiley.Harter, S., & Connell, J.P. (1984). A model of the relationship among children'sacademic achievement and their self-perception of competence, control, andmotivational orientation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievementmotivation (pp 219-250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.93Hebb, D.O. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychologicalavitw, 62, 243-254.Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, Wiley.Haskell, J.F. (1980). From language teaching to language acquisition. TESL Reporter13,(2), 27-28.Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behaviour. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.Kahn, S.B. & Weiss, J. (1973). The teaching of affective responses. In R.M.W. Travers(Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp.759-804). Chicago, Illinois:Rand McNally.Krashen, S.D. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisitionand learning. In K.C. Diller (ED.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1981.Lambert, W.E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. lournal Of Social Issues, 23,91-109.Lambert, W.E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F.E.Aboud & R.D. Meade (Eds.). Cultural factors in learning and education. Bellingham,Washington: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning.Lambert, W.E. & Tucker, H.C. (1972). Bilingual education of children: St. Lambertexperiment. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (1984). Research update. In H.H. Stern (Ed.), Language and society (pp. 48-54). Ottawa, Ont.: Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.94Learned, W.S. & Wood, B.D. (1938). The student and his knowledge. New York:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Lepper, M. & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In R. Ames & C.Ames. Research on motivation in education 3: Goals and cognitions. (pp. 73-105).New York, Academic Press.Lewis, E.G. (1977). Bilingualism and bilingual education: The ancient world to therennaissance. In B. Spolsky and R. Cooper (Eds.), Frontiers of bilingual education.Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.MacDonald, A.P. (1973). Internal-external locus of control. In J.P Robinson and P.R.Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes.  (pp. 50-65). SurveyResearch Centre.Majoribanks, K. (1972). Environment, social class, and mental abilities. lournal ofEducational Psychology, 51, 103-109.Marx, R.W., Grieve, T. & Rossner, V. (1988). The learners of British Columbia commissioned papers: British Columbia Royal Commission on Education, 2,  Victoria,Province of British Columbia.Massey, D.A. (1986). Variations in attitudes and motivation of adolescent learners ofFrench as a second language. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 42, 3(winter).McDougall, W. (1926) An introduction to social psychology.  Boston: Bruce Humphries,Inc.95Morgan, S. (1986). Locus of control in children labelled learning disabled,behaviourally disordered, and learning disabled/behaviourally disordered. Learning Disabilities Research, 2(1), 10-13.Morrison, F., & Pawley, C. (1985). French speaking proficiency of Ottawa areaimmersion students at the Grade 12 level. CAIT NEWS, 8(3), 20-21.Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. ournal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology,  40, 148-154.O'Neil, J. (1990, January). Foreign languages: As enrollments climb, a new focus onproficiency. In Curriculum Update: association for supervision and curriculum development, Alexandria, Virginia, 1-8.Penfield, W. (1967). The learning of language. In J. Murdoch (Ed.), Foreign language teaching. (pp. 192-214). New York: MacMillan.Phillips, D. (1984). The illusion of academically competent children. Child Development,55, 2000-2016.Piers, E.V. (1984). Revised manual for the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale.  LosAngeles; Western Psychological Services.Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control ofreinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609), 1-26.Rotter, J. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internalversus external control of reinforcement. lournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 57-65.96Safty, A. (1988). French immersion and a bilingual society. Canadian lournal ofEducation, 13(2), 243-263.Samimy, K. (1989). Comparative study of teaching Japanese in the audio-lingual methodand the counselling-learning approach. The Modern Language lournal, Summer,169-177.Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children.  Sandiego: Sattler.Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley.Schunk, D. (1989). Self-efficacy and performance. In R. Ames & C.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education 3: Goals and cognitions.  13-44. New York, AcademicPress.Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of constructinterpretations. Review of Educational Research. Summer, Vol. 46, No.3., p.407-441.Statistics Canada, (1989). Minority and second language education: Elementary and secondary levels. Ottawa. Minister of Supply and Services.Tyler, L. (1965). The pschology of human differences. U.S.A.: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Vernon, P. (1970). Intelligence and cultural environment. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago:Markham.97Wentzel, K., Feldman, S. & Weinberger, D. (1991). Parental child rearing and academicachievement in boys: The mediational role of social-emotional adjustment. lournalof Early Adolescence, 11(3), 321-339.White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. In J. Dyal(Ed.), Readings in Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior. (pp. 78-98).McGraw-Hill.Woodworth, R. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia Press.Wormeli, C.T. & Ardanaz, N. (1987). Technical manual for the Canada French Immersion achievement test (Canada F.I.A.T.): Test de rendement en immersion francaise.Vancouver, B.C. Education Clinic, University of British Columbia.Wright, E.N. (Ed.) (1990). Canadian cognitive abilities test technical manual. Levels 1 &2, Levels A-H, Form 7. Nelson Canada. Scarborough, Ontario.APPENDIX A98LETTER OF CONSENTJim Gaskill^ger, Provincial Learning Assessment Program7551. Mr. Douglas Hodgkinson, Director, Student Assessment BranchDr. Nicholas Ardanaz, Principal, Chalmers Elementary School99gAlProvince ofBritish ColumbiaMinistry of^ Parliament BuildingsEducation VictoriaSTUDENT ASSESSMEN 7 BRANCH^British ColumbiaV8V 2M4February 23, 1990Ms. G. HigginsonChalmers Elementary School1135-75th AvenueDelta, B.C.V4C 1H4Dear Ms. Higginson:Mr. Hodgkinson has forwarded your letter to me for response.You are welcome to use the attitude section of the 1988 Provincial Assessment of Attitudeand Motivation in Second Language Learning. Your request to photocopy the material isapproved.If you need any information on scoring please let me know.Sincerely,JG/dlAPPENDIX BB.C. COMPREHENSION ASSESSMENT MEASURESSTUDENT AND PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES100101STUDENT QUESTIONNAIREContained in this questionnaire are some statements with which some people agree andothers disagree. There are no right or wrong answers since many people have differentopinions. We would like you to indicate your opinion about each statement by checkingthe alternative which best indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree.Sample:Wayne Gretzky is the best player to have ever played in the National Hockey League.Strongly Disagree Disagree^Undecided^Agree^StronglyAgree[]If you are undecided in your response to the above statement you would check #3;however if you agree with the statement you would check #4 or #5.Question StronglyDisagreeDisagree Undecided Agree StronglyAgree1. My parents really encourage meto study French2. Studying French can beimportant because I think itwould someday be useful ingetting a good job.3. Studying French can beimportant because I think itwould make me a moreknowledgeable person4. My parents show considerableinterest in anything to do withmy French courses.5. My parents to help me with myFrench.6. Studying French can beimportant because it wouldallow me to meet and conversewith more varied people.102Question StronglyDisagreeDisagree Undecided Agree StronglyAgree7. Studying French can beimportant because other peoplewould respect me more if I hada knowledge of a foreignlangauge.8. My parents feel that I shoulddevote more time to my Frenchstudies.9. My parents have stressed theimportance French will have forme when I leave school.10. Studying French is important forme because I will be able toparticipate more freely in theactivities of other culturalgroups.11. My parents urge me to seekhelp from the teacher if I amhaving problems with French.103PARENT QUESTIONNAIREContained in this questionnaire are some statements with which some people agree and othersdisagree. There are no right or wrong answers since many people have different opinions. Wewould like you to indicate your opinion about each statement by checking the alternative whichbest indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree.Sample:Wayne Gretzky is the best player to have ever played in the National Hockey League.Strongly Disagree^Disagree^Undecided^Agree^StronglyAgree[ l^HIf you are undecided in your response to the above statement you would check #3; however if youagree with the statement you would check #4 or #5.Question StronglyDisagreeDisagree Undecided Agree StronglyAgree1. I really encourage my child tostudy French.2. Studying French can beimportant because I think itwould someday be useful formy child in getting a good job.3. Studying French can beimportant because I think itwould make my child a moreknowledgeable person.4. I show considerable interest inanything to do with my child'sFrench courses.5. I try to help my child withhis/her French.6. Studying French can beimportant because it wouldallow my child to meet andconverse with more variedpeople.[ l104Question StronglyDisagreeDisagree Undecided Agree StronglyAgree7. Studying French can beimportant because other peoplewould respect my child more ifhe/she has a knowledge of aforeign langauge.8. I feel that my child shoulddevote more time to his/herFrench studies.9. Studying French is importantprimarily because my child willneed it for a future career.10. Studying French is importantbecause my child will be able toparticipate more freely in theactivities of other culturalgroups.11.^I urge my child to seek helpfrom the teacher if he/she ishaving problems with French.105L'emploi des verbes IDirectives: Complête les phrases en utilisant les verbes au temps indique.Exemple:1.^boire - presentLe soir, les enfants^du lait chaud.Tu 6cris:Le soir, les enfantsidu lait chaud.Correction:^Fais attention - a la conjugaison.- aux accords.Compléte les phrases en utilisant les verbes au temps indiquë.1. ëtre - futur simpleAux prochaines vacances, nous^ j. lamontagne.2. faire - passé composêLa semaine derniere, Paul^ un projetsur les robots.3.^être - futur simpleSamedi prochain, je^ chez monprofesseur de piano.dire - futur simple^ 106Que^- to en arrivant chez le medecin?5.^s'amuser - imparfait Les petits chiensballe.avec leur6. pouvoir - presentSouvent, les petits enfants ne^  pasatteindre les poignees de portes.7. finir - presentEn general, le vendredi, nous^  plus tot qued'habitude.8. mettre - passé composeComme it pleuvait, nous^ nosbottes.9. vouloir - imparfaitQuand nous etions enfants, nous^  tousalter au cirque.L'emploi des verbes 2Directives:^Construis des phrases completes.(Environ 8 A 10 mots par phrase).Commence tes phrases par l'expression cionnee.Utilise le verbe au temps approprie ct a la personneindiquOe.Exemple:1.^(voir/tu)Mercredi dernier, Tu ecris:Mercredi dernier, ^iC2.4) 1/1/,.) —WYL) iCW-CLULL 4,40./i1JV -LL ouMercredi dernier, -OA) Correction:^Fais attention . a la conjugaison de verbes.. aux accords.. a la construction de tes phrases.. au choix de mots.107L'emploi des verbes 2Construis des phrases complëtes.(Environ 8 a 10 mots par phrase).Commence tes phrases par l'expression donnëe.Utilise le verbe au temps appropriê et a la personne indiqu&.1.^(devoir/nous)Aujourd'hui, 1082.^(lire/ils)Tous les jours, ^3. (recevoir/je)L'annee derniêre, ^4. (partir/vous)^Dans trois semaines,   1095. (nager/elles)Hier,6. (ecrire/je)Demain, ^(etudier, nous)L'hiver prochain,8.^(aimer/je)Quand j'etais tres jeune,(venir/tu)Ce matin.Dictêe a trousDirectives:^Ecoute attentivement.Tu vas entendre une phrase complete.Tu vas I'entendre deux fois.Regarde maintenant ton livret.II y a une phrase incomplete.Ajoute les mots qui manquent.Exemple:Tu regardes cette phrase.1^Le ski est un des sports^Tu entends cette phrase complete: des jeunes^1^Le ski est un des sports preferes des jeunes Canadiens.Tu ajoutes les mots qui manquent.1.^Le ski est un des sports des jeunes  COfitadiSAV-110Correction:^Fais attention . a la conjugaison des verbes.. aux accords.. A l'orthographeDictee a trous^ 111Le SkiEcoute attentivement.Ajoute les mots qui manquent.1. Si vous^ du ski de fond, vous n'^(1)^ (2)^ (3)froid.2. Savez-vous^ se trouve le^ enclroit pour faire du(4)^ (5)ski?3.^Les^ skieurs ^soin^(6)^(7)^ (8)de^ 6quipement.(9)4.   , on prend^ la moto-neige^(10)^ (11)l'hêlicoptêre pour se rendre au sommet de la montagne(12)5. Aprês une bonne chute de neige,^ le^de(13)^ (14)profiter d'un ^ jour de ski.(15)6. La premiêre fois que nous sommes 11( )l.P•(16)avons descendu la pence sur les fosses.LAlimentation7. Pour etre en bonne sante, it faut de la nourriture saine.(18)8. En ete, nous^ beaucoup de    et(19)^ (20)de legumes frais.9^Les ^ lours(21)^ (22)^(23)repas par un sucre.(24)10.^Si vous voulez avoir de ^dents,    du(25) (26)lait^ les jours.(27)11. Allez-vous^ au supermarche avec Maman?(28)12. Pourquoi^brosse-t-on les dents^ chaque repas?(29)^ (30)13. personnes^des vitamines(31) (32)'elles aident^avoir une belle(33) (34) (35)14. se passe lorsqu'on mange trop(36) (r)faire de gymnastique?112never d'etre un oiseau pour pouvoir m'envoler loin de sous of de chacun^Je 11 envie. 1 tse, to as tenement lair de vivre en paix^Tes consols me seronl dun 2grand secours 34Anonyrneca me fail nreca me rend sageca Porte bonheurca lourne matnn 1,';:pi)rl,e'LISEZ LA LETTRE SUIVANTE ET REPONDEZ AUX QUESTIONS 1 A 6.C h e r i,  I Ise.S 0 S C'est urgent. Personne, meme mes parents. ne m'aime II est lard et lesera's censee etre couchée depuis longtemps, mats domain je n'ai pas decole Clabsolument besoin de parlorSal deux problemes et void le plus important fat 12 ans et je suis en septiemearmee Je tréquente donc une nouvelle ecole (ob, lorsque je suis affix/6e. je neconnaissais personne) et. en six mois, je n'al pas reussi a me faire d'ami(e)sDepuis que je suis jeune, je rove davoir de - vrais arms - . une "vraie gang" quim'apprecieralt, mats des que je fats une tentative d'approche, cola vire en gaffe etje ne réussts qu'a m'elotgner deux Je me demande aussi Si ce nest pas a causede mon physique que les autres ne m'aiment pas Je ne suis pas grosse, mats pasrnaigre non plus et fat plein de boutons J'ai entendu dire gull lanai!, dans ce cas,se laver la figure trots ou qualre lots par jour J'essaie. mats ma mere me gueuleapres (c'est son habitude) et di! "ca ne seri a nen de le laver si souvent. costnormal davotr des boutons a ton age " J'essaie de maignr mats je manque devolontê Je ne reussts dans den alors!Tout ca tad que je deviens agresstve et insupportable.. De plus. l'hiver medeprtme Je ne tais pas de sport: pas dargent, pas dequipement, pas detransport HEUREUSEMENT, fat quatre vrates writes. mats trots restent loin etl'autre est souvent occupee. De plus mes parents soot toujours du cote de maSoeurDans quelques tours le retourne dans cot enter décole Souvent it m'arrive do1 Aprés avoir lu la letlre, on sent que l'auteur est1^optimisto2 anxieuse3 Iranquille4 curietra!2 Solon la lelne, guel role roue la mere dans In vie de cette jeune fille?I. Elle la critique dans ses efforts2 Elle lui donne des consols praliques3 Elle Fade a faire sa toilette4 File ('encourage a maignr3 A ton avis, pourquoi cede jeune fine rove I-elle d'elre un oiseau?1 pour survoler des coins secrets2 pour echapper a ses devoirs3 pour s'eloigner de la realtte4 pour taquiner ses parents4 Pourquoi a-t-elle ecrit la letlre?1 pour apprendre a communiquer2 pour passer le temps3 pour trouver une arrne4 pour chercher des consols5 Que signilie ('expression cola vire engalle dans la phrase suivante "Des queje fats une tentative d'approche, cola vire en gaffe el je ne Mussis quanaeloigner deux"'6 OUPi ;waif le meilleur titre pour Celle lento"'I^Soule of rnalhoureuseSeule of a raiseflpvrodua tout I automation do Vickv rime monlicial^3^Soule el metiante4 Soule el lasso_ -LISEZ LE POEME SUIVANT ET REPONDEZ AUX QUESTIONS 7 A 11.LE KAYAK7 Pourquoi rauteur a-1 11 ecrit ce poeme 71^pour conseiller les leunes2 pour parler du nord3 pour decnre la chasse4 pour connaitre les grandes forcesnrrB F'ourquoi l'auieur do 11 quo 10 kayak est dangereuxI parce que le phoque est gros2 parce quo le 'rod est intense3 parce qu'on fait de la chasseno r•r,;( , ,, W:f`1 des chassoursAlors seulement vous deviendrez de grands^ 2 des vieuxchasseurs de phoque.^ 3 dos phoquosA raffiit dans le kayak, vous lancerez^ 4 des enfant:,vos harpons,^ no re10 Ft meme en hiver, quand le Iroid est interne,vous reussirez avec fierte^ 10 Ouel null' trIfIcse I on pour lave la chasse aux phoques 7Ecoutez les vieux,les sages,II taut obeir a leurs ordres,15 Alors, même en hiver,Vous reussirez avec fierle1^le kayak2^l'arc3 Ia force4 le harponno re s ponre11 A Ia Ireizieme Iigne, qui sont les sages?Ecoutez mes paroles, mes enfants'^ 4 parce qu'll s'oppose aux elementsLe kayak est trés petit el dangereux,Les vagues et les vents sont de grandes forcesMais vous pourrez voyager parmi eux^ 9 Dans la phrase "II taut °heir a leurs ordres it s'aqit des ordres de qui"5 lorsque vous les connailrez par la pensee1.111111i Y/IIS arflow.Alinnt) ,,,, y A Whilosole I Idfle.1,ofinI^ceux qui soot Iranquilles2 ceux qui 0111 de la tierce3 crux qui soul dangereux4 ceux qut out de [experiencert,^fLISEZ LE TEXTE SUIVANT ET REPONDEZ AUX QUESTIONS 12 A 18.LE CANNIBALISMELe mot cannibalisme vient du mot "caribe", nom dune tribu onginaire des CaraibesOn suppose qu'a rongine le mot Malt -caribalisme".Cette Inbu des Iles Caraibes n'a cependant pas ête le seul peuple cannibale dumonde. Dans plusieurs autres pays, des anthropologues ont Irouve des traces decannibalisme. II y a três longtemps, tous les peuples ont probablement ere cannibi lesa un moment ou l'aulre Cela t'etonne') Tu croyais sans doute que seuls quelquesprimitifs avaient pu agir ainst/ Les reeds de cannihales lapparaissalent peat titrelegendaires Mats ce ne son! pas des mythes II s'agit dune chose qui a existe el gipexisle même encore a cerlains endrodsII y a plusieurs causes, plusieurs raisons a cede lawn craw line des premieresexplications est le manque de nourriture. Selon certains histonens, les populations quipratiquaient ''agriculture et relevage avaient trés rarement recours au cannibalismeAyant de grandes ressources alimentaires, elles n'elaient pas lentees par lecannibalisme Par contre, les peuples qui assuraient leur subsistance par la chasse oula cueillette de fruits navaient pas toujours sullisamment de nourriture II our lallaildonc en trouver ailleurs C'est ce quits faisatent en luant et en mangeant loursennemtS.La plupact des peuples ne pratiquaient le cannibalisme qu'envers des ennemis oudes strangers II y a cependant quelques exceptions a cette regle Par exemple. les- Bagesu - d'Alrique pratiquaient le cannibalisme envers des membres de leur tribuEn remontant dans le temps et en Oluchant revolution de ''agriculture, on remarqueaussi autre chose L'agriculture depend de plusieurs facteurs Le climat, 'Irrigation. lapoblique ou les queries (elan-lent ou accelerent le developpement de ragriculture.Curtains peuples ont tour a lour abandonne et repns la couturne du cannibaltsmeselon le rendement de ragricultureLe manque de nourriture nest pourtant pas la seule cause du cannibalisme.Certaines peuplades mangealent de la chair humaine lors de ceremonies magiques Oilreligieuses Ouelguelois des Inbus honoratent lours morts en les mangeant D'autresprouvatent lour force et leur courage en mordant et en avatar -II de la chair humaineD'autres encore croyarent voter la force de lours ennemis en Is devoranl Certaine! -,lentatent aussi de faire disparaitre resortt du mod Pour touies ces 'tabus, lecannibalisme avail un car:ie-Pre save el aloof I. a chair n'etail donc pas pour cesCabmen! principal et ils Wen consommaient pas dans le but de Se nourrir1,, e de is C011vg19n Srmynvn,r is ciriu sen5. Lv Crvvi pa ,^./1/i01,1.0,,4, PtIbbrahOnS^/100l •OVet,e,II exist° encore une autre forme de cannibatisme, celle qui consiste a manger lachair dune personne qui est déjà mode pour eviler de mounr soi-meme On rencontrecette forme de cannibalisme lors d'accidents. Par exemple, en 1972, un avion s'estecrase dans les Andes Une quarantaine de personnes se trouvaient a herd Plus earsmoururent sur le coup, d'autres Otaient blessees et moururent les jours suivants.D'autres furent tuees par une avalanche declenchee lout pies^''avion. Finalemerit. 1ne resta plus qu'un petit groupe de survivants. Les jours passerent, les reserves denournture egalernent. Dans ce desert glace, it eta it impossible de trouver quoi que cesod pour se nowt°. Peu a peu, les survivants comprirent quit ne restait plus qu'unesolution.Celle histoire nest pas unique. II y a eu d'autres cas semblables. Peu de tempsapres rexpedition dans les Andes, un avion canadien s'est ecrase dans les Terntoiresdu Nord-Ouesl. Pour survivre, le pitote dub se resigner lui aussi au cannibalisme f - II1979. un Cesna s'est ecrase. Deux des qualre personnes a bond lurent luees I esdeux autres personnes reussirent a survivre err mangeant de la chair humaineune decision Iri's ditticile a prendre. Soul l'instinct de survie peut faire agir ainsiEn general, on ne cnndamne pas les personnes obligees a poser ces acres Oncomprend qu'elles agissent ainsi parce qu'elles tiennent a vivre1? Le cannibalisme est pralique par ceux qui manquent de nourroure et aussi par1 ceux qui veulent varier leur regime quolidien2 ceux qui appartiennent aux tabus primitives seulement.3 ceux qui participent aux ceremonies magiques et religieuses4 ceux qui ne reussissent pas bien a la chasse13 OtiesLce qui pousse les gens de nos jours a pratiquer le cannibalisme?1. le relour a la nature2 'Instinct de survie3 la croyance religieuse4 tine forme de magi° noire14 En lisant le texte, on a rimpression que l'auteur nous parle du cannibalismeCOMrneI dune ( -minim° inacceplable dans les 11.1V. lointains2 d une pr:iisque qui a eu lieu darts le passe Si'illernent3^histonque qui se repele dans le present4^atill (^.1f11111ill (le n'irre tit/111,1M5 Laquelle de ces quatre phrases exprime une opinion?1 Les "Bagesu - d'Alnque pratiquaient le cannibalismeenvers des membres de leur tribu.2 H y a fres longtemps, sous les peuptes ontprobablement ele cannibales a un moment ou l'autre.3 Cette tribu des iles Caraibes n'a pas eie le seul peuplecannibale du monde.4 Le climat, ('irrigation, la politique ou les guerresretardent ou accelerent le dóveloppement de ('agricultureno response16 Dans le cas de ravion qui s'est Ocrase dans les Andes en 1972, un groupe depassagers a survecu1 en Want des membres de leur propre groupe.2. en mangeant les membres dune tribu des Andes.3. en mangeant ceux qui ont ele tues dans 'accident.4. en mangeant des animaux de la region.no response17 Oue veut dire le mot elevage dans la phrase sun/ante. "Selon certains historiens,les populations qui pratiquaient ragricullure et relevage avaienl trés rarementrecours au cannibalisme"?1 culture du lin2, cueillette de fruits3 chasse aux animaux4 soins des animauxID response18 Oue veut dire le mot chaic dans la phrase suivante: "La chair n'etait donc pas pources gens ('aliment principal et ils n'en consommaient pas dans le but de senourrir"?1 substance des muscles de l'homme2 meubte trouve dans une piece3 substance hallucinanle4 valeur de cenames chosesno responseC7)1pia=Z7JPRISES (en milliers de kilogrammes)45 000^90 000^135 000^180 000 225 000^270 000^315 000WZZZZ _ZIZZ11FlomardMerlanAiglefinwALa F let et soleV)wSebasteHarengMorueI.(GENDE1953 j 1961=11 1913REPONDEZ AUX QUESTIONS 19 A 21 EN U77LISANT LE GRAPHIQUE^19. Combien d'espéces de poissons on! &passe en prises 135 000 millers deSUIVANT.^ kilogrammes?LA PECHE1^12 23 34 4no responseIMPORTANCE DES PRISES SUR LA COTE ATLANT1OUE, 195373, PAR ESPECE^ 20. Combien d'especes ont subi une reduction dans les poses entre 1963 et1973?1^22 33 44 5no response21 Ouelle espece a connu une diminution constante dans les pnses entre 1953et 1973?1^l'aiglefin2 la morue3. le merlan4 le homardno responseflurrodua sous I onoosalon de L •s t d.fons Gage Nee, Ag$noaun, 0 ,, taooAntonov 12419851004 11 23.4 T73 m70 m22 m150 tonnes850 km/h12 000 m1 ;1 00 m850 m4 500 km10 000 1011C-5 Galaxy19681304x 18.6 T68 m75 m20 m100 tonnes920 km/h7 600 m2 135 m680 m0 000 km13 000 km123426 Ouelle est l'envergure de rAntonov 124?1 22 m2 70 m3 73 m4 75 m27 Ouelle est la difference de hauteur entre l'avion americain of ravion russe?2m3m4m5mMuse en serviceNombre (wen's ou CO0S1O915)Propulsion ( Turbo Fleacteurs)EnvergureLongueurHauteurCharge maximaleVuiesse rnavimaleAlhiude corresponclanieFloulemenl a ratternssagenoulement au decollageDuslance avec charge rnaumaleOuslance A videLE PLUS GROS AVION DU MONDEOu'est-ce qui est sovietique et qui peut emporter quarante elephants a plus de000 metres d'altitude de l'Afrique au Quebec"'Ce mastodonte volant, c'est l'Antonov 124. le plus gros avion du monde. Les!.;ovietiques lui ont donne le nom de "Rouslan". un preux chevalier de legends russe,kind's que les Amencams rappellent le Condor. L'Antonov 124 est aussi haul qu'unemaison de quatre stages et presque aussi long qu'un terrain de football. II possedeune soute de 36 metres de longueur. II peut contenir 60 petttes voitures avec leurspassagers et leurs bagages22 A quoi serf l'Antonov 124?1 a transporter des passagers sun de longues distances2 a transporter de requipement, du materiel et des machines3 a emporter des elephants de l'Afrique au Quebec4 a faciliter ('exploration des regions minieres et forestieres23. Oue veut dire le mot mastodonte dans la phrase suivante!"Ce mastodonte volant, c'est l'Antonov 124"?Depuis 1968. c'etail le GalaxyC 5 amencain qui detenait le recordmondial Cet avion de l'Arrnee derair sen au transport de troupes etde materiel de combatI. machine gigantesque2 machine puissante3 machine rapide4 machine formidableL'Arlonov dispose de deux entreespour ertgouftrev son chargemerl 24 Comment les Americains ont-its baptise rAntonov 124?Les Busses destinent l'Anionov a des fins ovules et militaires.^Ils veulent entre attires 1s'en server comme "train volant" pour le developpement des regions eloignees de 2Sbene 34le "Train volant"le "Rouslan"le "Monstre"le "Condor-Les Amencains ne s'avouent pas vaincus dans cette course au gigantisme! Lacompagnie McDonnel Douglas prepare le C-17, un monstre encore plus gros querAntonov 124. 25 A quoi sort le Galaxy C-5 americain?On peut s'attendre a ce que les Russes répliquent, puis que les Americains ripostent 1.a leur tour. etc., etc.' 2.3Aches techniques comparees 4.a transporter des voitures americainesa battre un record mondialA transporter des soldats of des armesa faciliter le developpement de la SiberieI .fe de J,marcLoittlsnah. No 16 lev 1986 Flerwodult sous faidoosabon du Club des pelds detdoutllardsdAv.1,,,,,,,r,ont du 10,1, s..nlobfwe MOIlif A al 1.)ueber^ -LISEZ LA CITATION ET LE PROVERBE SUIVANTS ET REPONDEZAUX QUESTIONS 28 ET 29.CITATION^ PROVEFIBE"Fcrire, crest une tacon de parlerelre inierrompuJ fienardDes goirts et des couleursit ne taut pas disputer28 Eaquelle des qualm expressions suivanles s'associe le mieux a lacitation?1^Lin point tail a temps, en epargne cent2 t a parole est d'argent, le silence est d'ori Loin des yeux. loin du COPLIF4 Mieux vaut lard que lama's29 Eaquelle des phrases suivantes s'associe le mieux avec le proverbe")1^rout le monde a idiotl a ses opinions"'^II taut accepter l'avis de la majonte.3^L'autorite a toujours raison.4^L'habil ne fail pas In moronri,^;;T',1.1 79LISFZ LE TEXTE SUIVANT ET REPONOEZ AUX QUESTIONS 30 A 33.^ 30 Out commence le jet'?1. la personne qui distribue les illustrations2. la personne qui est choisie au hasard3 la personne qui est chef de groupe4 la personne qui a la meilleure memoireJEU: TOUR DE TABLEMateriel necessaire:tine cinquantaine de photographies ou d'illustrations d'objelsNombre de joueursDe 2 a 5 joueursRegles du jeu:1 On divise également les illustrations entre les joueurs.2 On determine au hasard la personne qui commencera la partie et oncontinue ensuite dans le sens des aiguilles dune montre.3 Le premier joueur montre une de ses illustrations aux autres joueurs etla depose de lacon a cacher ('objet illustre4 1 e joueur sun/ant nomme de mernoire le premier objet cache et montre ason tour une de ses illustrations5 Les joueurs suivants doivent toujours nommer en ordre bus les objetsmontres par les joueurs precedents et ajouter chaque lois un objetnouveau6 Une erreur entraine ('expulsion du joueur. Le jeu se poursuit jusqu'a cene reste qu'un joueur.Varianle:II est perms de changer les regles du jeu si tous les participants yconsenter)! Ainsi, par exemple, on peut accorder une chance a un joueurqui aural un trou de mêmoire. De plus, quand les joueurs soot devenushabiles en jouan1 avec des illustrations. ils peuvent les remplacer par desmots31 Oue dolt laire le quatneme joueur?1^II doit nommer la premiere illustration etla sienne.2 II doit nommer une illustration au hasard.3. II dolt nommer ('illustration du troisième joueur.4 II doit nommer les illustrations precedenteset la sienne.32 Selon le texte, quand est-il possible de vaner les régles du jeu?1. quand les groupes changent2 quand les joueurs sont d'accord3 quand le professeur rindique4. quand it y a trop de joueurs33 Oue veut dire le mot accordet dans la phrase suivante On peul accorder unechance a un joueur'?1. manquer2. entever3 donner4. soustraireI ..•If^I...,^Or^IaU I^r • do,vn hp... Mon.; rrl u, , I n.e I. •aolur I ■I•I^r ,,ar^I Ihire a1 trni.Ie l4. g.•^I^ .^I^Jilt clr^%AI 10/1 ill sI .1 .1 ffl •^, •FIN DE L'EXAMENAPPENDIX C121EXPLICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS122A Student questionnaire(1) student's perception of parental encouragement - assesses the degreeto which the student thinks that his/her parents give activeencouragement to learn French(2) student's instrumental orientation - assesses the degree to which thestudent thinks that learning French is important for pragmatic reasons(i.e. future career)(3) student's integrative orientation - assesses the degree to which thestudent thinks that learning French will enable him/her to bettercommunicate with and become more knowledgeable about the L2community (Colletta, 1983 p.31-33.)123B Parent questionnaire(1) parent's perception of parental encouragement - assesses the degreeto which the parent thinks that he/she gives active encouragement tothe student to learn French(2) parent's instrumental orientation - assesses the degree to which thestudent thinks that learning French has importance for the student in apragmatic sense (i.e. future career)(3) parent's integrative orientation - assesses the degree to which thethinks that learning French will enable his/her child to bettercommunicate with and become more knowledgeable about the L2community(Colletta 1983 p. 36-37)APPENDIX D: TEST REVIEWS124125Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test (C.C.A.T.) - multilevel edition,1988, form 7: verbal and nonverbal The C.C.A.T. is based on the originalLorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test (1954). It has evolved from itspredecessors, the Cognitive Abilities Test (standardized in the UnitedStates), and the Canadian Cognitive Tests forms 1-3. In the Fall of 1987,the C.C.A.T. was jointly standardized throughout Canada with the CanadianTest of Basic Skills (C.T.B.S.).The multilevel edition, grades three to twelve, provides three classificationsof ability with the assessment of corresponding skills as follows:1) verbal battery: verbal classification, sentence completion and verbalanalogies. The verbal battery is said to provide an indication of theability to deal with abstractions presented in verbal form. It isconsidered by the test developers to be a good estimate of scholasticaptitude.2) quantitative battery: quantitative relations, number series, equationbuilding. The quantitative battery taps the ability to work withquantitative concepts which also provide a reliable index of schoolachievement.3) nonverbal battery: figural classification, figure analogies, and figuralanalysis. The nonverbal battery gives opportunity to students who for126some reasons (i.e. learning problems or language background) maynot perform well on verbal or quantitative tests. This battery appraisesabstract reasoning ability which is not influenced by disability inreading.The recommended time allotment is 30 minutes for each individualbattery. As this is a power test and not one of speed, the test developersallow for flexibilty in time administration.Item DifficultyMost items were tested in two sequential grade groups and thoseshowing satisfactory discrimination (by biserial correlation) were includedin the subtests. There is, however, no information regarding the actualdevelopment of the items. The mean percentages for student achievementat the seventh grade level is approximately 58 percent for the verbal, 55percent for the quantitative and 55 percent for the nonverbal batteries.These percentages make it relatively simple to identify students at thelower and higher extremes of the achievement levels. This is a changefrom the former C.C.A.T. form 3 which contained items of relatively lowerdifficulty and hence higher percentage mean scores.127Standardization and NormingStudents who were learning English as a second language wereexcluded from the testing. French Immersion students were included wherethey were present in selected schools. A large stratified random samplewas drawn from 100 schools throughout the whole of Canada.Percentages of students within each statification category were determinedthen the percentages were weighted to approximate the total schoolpopulation in each category. The authors stated that they lacked the accessto statistical data which would enable them to make an an estimate ofcommunity size and socioeconomic level.The normative system involves the conversion of raw scores toUniversal Scale Scores and then to Standardized Age Scores. Percentilesand stanine scores may then be calculated.Reliabilty:Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability estimates average .91 for the verbalbattery, .90 for the quantitative battery and .91 for the nonverbal battery.Apparently, no test/retest studies were done.Correlations among batteries:verbal vs. quantitative^.63verbal vs. nonverbal^.58nonverbal vs. quantitative .69128The low correlation between verbal and nonverbal batteries may beaccounted for by the fact that the former purports to predict academicachievement, the latter does not claim to do so.ValidityThe authors discuss content, criterion and construct validity in generalterms. They report an intercorrelation between the C.C.A.T. verbal andHennon-Nelson Ability Cognitive Test to be .84 at the grade seven level.Detailed correlational data is also reported for the subtests of the C.T.B.S.These figures relate to concurrent validity; predictive validity is notexpressed. There is a need for the inclusion of a theoretical framework forthe cognitive abilities selected for this composite battery.129Canadian French Immersion Achievement Test (FIAT): There ispresently a paucity of normed test instruments for Fl students in Canada(Wormeli & Ardanaz 1987). The FIAT was designed to provide a quickindividual measure of achievement for early immersion students in relationto curriculum demands of Fl programs and in relation to the progress ofpeers. The FIAT evaluates a student's individual academic performance inthe following areas: spelling (orthographe) arithmetic (mathematiques)word identification (lecture de mots) passage comprehension(comprehension de textes).All subtests may be administered to students in grades two to seven.They are intended for use with non-Francophone students who have beenenrolled in Early French Immersion. Thus the use of this test with LateFrench Immersion students may reduce the validity of the instrument. InNovember 1986 the F.I.A.T. was normed throughout Canada and theNorthwest Territories on approximately 100 students per grade using atwo-stratified sample of public and private school students. Winter andspring scores have been interpolated from fall norms, so caution should beused in interpreting a student's score.130Internal Consistency Reliabilities:Grade seven spelling -.89 / Grade seven arithmetic -.81 Grade seven wordidentification -.94 / Grade seven passage comprehension - .87[In this study only the spelling and doze subtests were administered.As this is an individualized test, administration time for forty studentswould be excessive.]Validity:The technical manual restricts its discussion of validity to the following:1) population validity - "so far as is known" (Wormeli et al., p. 26,1987). Francophone students were not included in the sample; therewas no significant difference in scores between provinces.2) content validity - there were seven stages of development as follows:a) item pool- for spelling, ten items from grades one to seven were randomlyselected from L'Orthographe (Goodall 1981) - additional words wereselected from social studies texts to provide difficult ceiling items - forpassage comprehension, items were taken from elementary gradecurricula, a doze format was used: items varied, some containing theanswer in the stimulus text, some requiring modification from the text,and others requiring use of contextual cues only.131b) first tryout - a local sample of twenty students was randomlyselected and stratified by gender across the grades to assess thepsychometric characteristics of the spelling and reading items.c) revision of item pool - item analysis included deletion ofunsatisfactory items and reordering of each subtest from easy todifficult.d) second tryout - twenty pupils in B.C. and Quebec were randomlyselected from participating schools and stratified by gender - itemcharacteristics were checked and information on group performancesby grade was obtained.e) review and a minimal revision of item pool f) norming of item poolacross Canada -1. All students enrolled in Fl public and private school programsacross Canada, grades one to seven - students whose firstlanguage was French, or individuals already identified asmentally or emotionally impaired were excluded.2. A random sample of 1400 (stratified by grade and gender)was selected. A non-participation rate of 25% wasanticipated, yielding a potential sample size of 150 at eachgrade level and a total sample size of approximately 1,000.1323. In the first stage, a random probability sample of schools,grades one to seven, was made with classifications accordingto province, rural-urban distribution and total schoolenrollment. The sampling was proportional: one student pergrade, per school. Design difficulties were encountered dueto the limited number of grade seven Fl classes in the nation.Varying grade spans within schools were also problematic.The design was changed to allow two grade seven pupils pergrade, per school. The problem of limited grade groupingswas addressed by permitting additional schools in the samedistrict to be included.4. In the second stage of sampling, participating schools wereasked to identify the "nth" student as designated by theresearchers at each grade level. Schools were selected asfollows:- each school in the province was assigned to a stratum in the sampleframe according to Fl enrollment and community size.- pupil enrollments in each stratum were summed and the probabilityof each school being selected was calculated in relation to the133enrollment of each school and the number of schools to be chosenfrom each stratum.- a random number including alternates was selected within the rangeof enrollment by grade and gender for each school.g) construct validity - studies at the grades two and five levels wereconducted to determine if the FIAT could identify remedial studentswho were already enrolled in support programs - generally the FIATerred on the side of overidentifying students for remediation.Concurrent validity is missing from the discussion in the technicalmanual. There is no correlational data relating the FIAT to any otherFrench achievement measure. The problems encountered by theresearchers in creating norms for the grade seven population intensifies theweak validity of this test for use with late grade seven Fl students.

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.831.1-0086407/manifest

Comment

Related Items