A Study of the Attitudes, Motives, and

Strategies of University Foreign Language

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

A MAJOR AREA OF SECOND LANGUAGE (SL)
acquisition research is the role playe? by
learner variables in the process of learnmg a
second language. I The focus of interest is on
the complex relationship between learner char-
acteristics, their specific language learnin.g
behaviors or strategies, and, of course, the ulti-
mate success of these strategies in language
learning. Learner characteristics in the social
and affective domains in particular are widely
regarded as profoundly influencing outcome b.y
virtue of their association with language acqUI-
sition behavior. The pioneering work of
Gardner and Lambert (13, 14) brought moti-
vation and other attitudinal/affective variables
to the forefront of research. Krashen's Monitor
Model, widely assumed if also widely criticized,
ascribes a powerful influence to the "Affective
Filter." Research by Beebe shows that per-
sonality variables, such as the willingness to
take risks, are powerful determinants of the
propensity to interact in the target language.
Horwitz and her colleagues (16,17,18) con-
tinually remind us of the profound effects on
learner behavior of both beliefs about language
and affective responses ("anxiety") to specific
language learning situations.
This paper reports the main findings of a
survey-based research project condu.cted ~m
first-year Spanish students at two maJ?r ml.d-
western universities. The goal was to identify
a reliable set of learner beliefs (or factors) for
that population associated with language learn-
The Modern Language Journal, 74, iv (1990)
0026-7902/90/0004/459 S1.50/0
e 1990 The Modern Language Journal
ing (LL) strategies in general and with ~he
learner's anticipated cognitive and affective
responses to authentic input in particular.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Authentic Input, Affective, Social, and Personality
Factors. A rapidly growing body of literature
discusses ways and means of exploiting authentic
materials in classroom instruction (15; 25, for
examplej.? The use of authentic materials is
promoted for both cognitive and affective :e~
sons. In cognitive terms, for example, It IS
argued that authentic materials provide the
necessary context for appropriately relating
form to meaning in the language acquisition
process. In terms of affect, authentic texts are
regarded as motivators and as a means to o~er
come the cultural barrier to language learning
(2, 22, 27).
Although the pedagogical trend is clearly in
the direction of increased use of authentic input
in language instruction, a clearer understand-
ing of the mechanisms of interaction between
learner and authentic texts is required to pro-
vide the basis for sound pedagogical use of
authentic input. Research is essential to under-
standing how to prepare both m~terials .and
students for effective language instrucuon.
Unfortunately, very little empirical resea~ch
exists on the learner's cognitive and affective
responses to authentic input. A few studies have
emerged at the levels of primary and secondary
education. Kienbaum, Russell, and Welty com-
pared traditional classroom contexts (elementary
school) with communicative contexts .charac-
terized primarily by the use of authentic mate-
rials in instruction. Although test results
460
showed no significant differences between the
groups in language performance, an attitude
survey revealed favorable attitudes toward the
absence of the traditional textbook and a high
degree of interest in current events materials.
Duquette, Dunnett, and Papalia studied the
effect of authentic materials on language acqui-
sition and cultural attitudes at the kindergarten
level and found that the children in the experi-
mental group improved linguistically and
learned to respond positively and appropriately
to cultural materials. Bernhardt and Berke-
meyer found that high school students of Ger-
man at all levels were able to handle all
authentic text types and that students fell into
three levels of comprehension associated with
years of language study. Allen and colleagues
did the general study that encompasses Bern-
hardt and Berkemeyer. They tested 1,500 high
school students with from one to five years of
language instruction for comprehension of
authentic texts at three levels of difficulty. They
found that the subjects in the study could deal
with all of the authentic texts they were asked
to read. The protocols illustrated that, regard-
less oflevel, "all subjects were at the very least
able to capture some meaning from all of the
texts" (p. 168). Furthermore, even beginners
could cope with authentic texts of considerable
length, 250-300 words. The researchers found
that target language and level of instruction was
a more important correlate of comprehension
than was text difficulty.
Although initial indications with respect to
learner reaction to authentic input are promis-
ing, it should not be assumed that learners will
behave in uniformly positive fashion to lan-
guage learning trends that teachers regard as
beneficial. For example, the Kienbaum et al.
study, which found a basically positive response
to classroom instruction based primarily on au-
thentic materials, also found that an appre-
ciable number of students still wanted materials
associated with traditional language instruc-
tion: vocabulary lists, grammar review items,
and finite content and testing.
Recent research involving university-level
populations on the interaction of social and affec-
tivevariables and language learning behavior also
suggests that learning strategies and preferences
for learning activities are closely tied to social
and affective variables. Motivation has been
found to be a significant variable, either singly
or interacting with other variables such as
gender (5, 7, 9, 23). Ely reports results that
Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
mirror the integrative/instrumental distinction
first posited by Gardner and Lambert: "The
similarities are especially interesting in light of
the fact that the motivational clusters were
developed from a descriptive survey rather than
constructed on the basis of prior theory" (9: p.
32). The type and degree of motivation likely
will affect the learner's disposition toward au-
thentic input situations. Specifically, one might
expect more highly motivated learners and the
more integratively oriented learners to welcome
the opportunity and challenge of operating on
authentic written and oral input to a greater
extent than others.
Personality factors have been investigated in
regard to language learning as well. Ely (10),
in a study of 125 university-level Spanish stu-
dents, found correlations between Language
Class Risk-taking and a preference for activi-
ties involving free language use and between
Language Class Sociability and activities
involving interaction and "performing" in class.
In another study carried out in anticipation of
the establishment of a university-wide language
requirement, Moody used Myers-Briggs type
indicators on a university-wide sample and
found significantly different personality con-
figurations in different majors. He hypothe-
sized corresponding differences in preferences
for language practice activity. For example, he
interprets the results to suggest that, while lan-
guage and science students would benefit from
the traditional language classroom environ-
ment, engineering and particularly business
students would be adversely affected. The per-
sonality profile of business students indicates
the need for social learning activities involving
"performance." These studies suggest that
learners will vary with respect to their willing-
ness to take risks in language learning activi-
ties, particularly if there is a concomitant
requirement to "perform" publicly. The impli-
cations of this observation are particularly
important in the case of authentic interaction
with native speakers of the target language.
The findings of Horwitz and colleagues (18)
with respect to foreign language (FL) anxiety
underscore the point made above with respect
to "performance." They found through a survey
and support-group discussions that FL anxiety
is distinguishable from general communicative
anxiety and that "significant foreign language
anxiety is experienced by many students in
response to at least some aspects of foreign lan-
guage learning" (p. 130). FL anxiety has a
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann
number of concrete manifestations, but the
findings of the study suggest that anxiety will
have a particularly acute role in the case of
conversation in the target language (TL). The
need to understand every word will produce
interference in comprehension processes.
Speaking, moreover, is problematic for very
deep-seated reasons related to self-concept. The
authors state, "Anxious students feel a deep
anxiety when asked to risk revealing themselves
by speaking a foreign language in the presence
of others" (18: p. 129). Furthermore, the
authors suggest that this fear of self-revelation
may interfere in particular with a learner's
ability to profit from situations of authentic
in teraction:
Authentic communication also becomes prob-
lematic in the second language because of the
immature command of the second language
relative to the first. Thus adult language
learners' selfperceptions of genuineness in pre-
senting themselvesto others may be threatened
by the limited range of meaning and affectthat
can be deliberately communicated. In sum, the
language learners' self-esteem is vulnerable to
the awareness that the range of communicative
choices and authenticity is restricted. (18:
p. 128)
In short, situations of authentic language input
may be perceived as entailing risk and may
heighten the anxiety response (or raise the
Affective Filter, in Krashen's terms) of the
learner such that comprehension is affected,
particularly in anticipation of the need to
perform.
Methodology: Self-Report Data. Much of the
data reviewed above are based completely or
in part on self-report (7; 9, 10; 11; 13; 14; 16;
18; 21; 23). Self-report data have the limitation
that subjects may respond in a way that they
believe they are expected to respond. The study
of expressed beliefs, however, has gained
importance over the past few years (see, for
example, 8; 16; 26). In order to verify the
validity of self-report data, some studies follow
initial questionnaires by think-aloud techniques
and other criterion measures (such as compre-
hension or course grade). An important first
step, however, is to establish a self-report
instrument that reaches a high level of internal
consistency. The internal reliability of such an
instrument is best established by testing a large
number of subjects. A subsequent study would
examine how reported beliefs relate to reality.
461
Factor Analysis. Factor analysis is a useful
method to improve and test the internal con-
sistency of a survey instrument and to improve
interpretation of data. It is a multivariate statis-
tical method used in the analysis of correlation
coefficients (see 12: pp. 520-44, for discussion
of uses). When an instrument produces a great
number of variables, factor analysis reduces
and simplifies the data to help the researcher
interpret the interrelationship of the variables.
Often, factor analysis is used when the distinc-
tion between independent and dependent vari-
ables is less meaningful. Rather, the concern
is with the description and interpretation of
interdependencies.
The analysis first organizes the number of
variables into a fewer number of factors. Then,
the factors are examined according to the new
structure they have acquired by virtue of being
a unit composed of several interrelated vari-
ables. The whole, therefore, may be different
from the sum of the parts. Reduction and struc-
ture, in short, are the two distinguishing char-
acteristics of factor analysis. The structural
properties of a factor determine its meaning
(12: p. 525).
Once a factor has been identified, it is treated
as a variable. The difference is that a variable
is directly measured, whereas a factor is derived
from a set of variables.
A variety of methods exist for the identifica-
tion and determination of the number of factors
to retain (28). Once the number of factors has
been determined, the reference axes are rotated
in order to allow the interpretation of these
factors. A minimum of three variables must be
interrelated on a single factor. The factors are
then tested for internal consistency using a sta-
tistical program for reliability. A standardized
alpha of .8 or higher is considered acceptable.
PURPOSE OF PRESENT STUDY
To identify factors that pertain to how novice
learners believe they interact with authentic
input, the following research questions were
considered: 1) can a self-report instrument de-
signed to elicit learner beliefs about attitudes,
motivation, and strategies toward language
learning, in general, and willingness, strategies,
perception of comprehension, satisfaction, and
affective response toward authentic input, in
particular, reach an acceptable level of internal
consistency? (This question is submitted with the
understanding that the instrument measures an
462
individual's perceptions of his or her behav-
iors.); 2) can these identified perceptions of
general language learning (attitudes, motiva-
tion, choice of strategies), gender, and willing-
ness to deal with and/or exposure to authentic
input - including the native language back-
ground of the instructor - predict a learner's
anticipated comprehension, satisfaction, and
strategy use regarding authentic input? (The
term predict is used to show the association
between factors; it does not imply causation.)
POPULATION AND PROCEDURES
The Language Program. Most of the basic lan-
guage instruction at both institutions is per-
formed by graduate students in Spanish or
Foreign Language Education or by adjunct
instructors of Spanish. Both institutions pro-
vide extensive training in methodology prior to
and in conjunction with each instructor's first
year of teaching. Both institutions use the same
basic text and use departmental tests. The end-
of-course grade is based primarily on written
tests (70 %), of which a small portion, usually
less than 10 percent, may include authentic
reading input. Because of the standard cur-
riculum, the in-class exposure to authentic oral
input is very limited. 3
Instrumentation. The instrument used for this
study was developed over a period of eight
months at two large state institutions. The first
stage involved an open-ended questionnaire
that was administered to a total of 100 students
in the second and third quarters of basic
Spanish." In addition to supplying demo-
graphic information, students completed state-
ments such as "The two most important reasons
for studying Spanish are... ," "What helps me
most when I am learning Spanish is... ," and
"When I hear people speaking in Spanish
I. . . ." The statements were designed to elicit
a variety of attitude, motivation, strategy, and
affective responses. In addition to producing
a range of strategies that are similar to those
reported elsewhere (7, 23), students expressed
degrees of willingness to confront authentic
input. The summary of responses to this ques-
tionnaire then served as the basis for a
100-item, Likert-style questionnaire. 5
The questionnaire was pilot-tested twice on
two different groups of fifty students each. After
each pilot test, the instrument was submitted
to factor analysis and each factor was tested for
internal reliability. A total of twelve factors
Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
were identified. Items that did not contribute
to the reliability were revised or replaced. Five
statements were revised and four more were
added to improve the reliability of the factors. 6
The revised instrument with 109 items was ad-
ministered to a new sample of almost 1,000
students at the two institutions in spring 1989.
A uniform set of instructions was used to ad-
minister each stage of the instrument in class;
student participation was entirely voluntary.
An average of fewer than one student in each
class declined to participate.
Sample. Descriptive statistics were obtained
using the SPSSX package on the AMDAHL
580 computer at the University of Cincinnati.
The results of the first three pilot tests revealed
that 95 percent of the students were studying
Spanish to fulfill the College of Arts and Sci-
ences foreign language requirement at the
respective institutions. 7 Since both institutions
have FL entrance requirements, moreover,
most students had had experience with Spanish
in high school. The geographical location of the
two universities (Midwest) precluded appre-
ciable contact with Spanish outside of class.
The ratio of male to female respondents was
approximately even, as was the ratio of native-
speaker instructors to nonnative instructors."
See Figure I for a summary of the demographic
information and the Appendix for frequency
distributions.
RESULTS
The analysis of the data using the SAS sta-
tistical package confirmed seven factors deal-
ing with language learning in general and five
FIGURE I
Demographic Information, n = 938
% Yes % No
1. Began FL study in college 14.5 85.5
2. Studied Spanish in high school 81.0 19.0
3. Travel to Spanish-speaking country 21.3 78.7
4. Lived in Spanish-speaking country 2.0 98.0
5. Other foreign travel 32.6 67.4
6. Have Spanish-speaking friends 37.4 62.6
7. Spanish spoken at home 1.8 98.2
% Male % Female
8. Gender of student 48.0 52.0
% Span. % Eng.
Instructor's native language 44.0 56.0
Exposure X=3.1 s.d.=.55
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 463

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

FIGURE II
General Language Learning Factors

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

Factor 3
Pofectionist/Discrete- Point Strategies X = 3.6 a = .84 Factor 4
21. knowing all the grammar rules Public/Oral Mode Strategies (Risk-taker) X = 3.14 a = .82
22. knowing all the words 36. being called on in class
24. getting all the sounds right 37. finding new ways to use Spanish with others
28. getting all the accents and spelling right 42. hearing Spanish being used naturally
29. getting all the endings right 47. hearing Spanish spoken (in class/out of class)
30. hearing each word when someone speaks 48. expressing myself to others in small groups
34. hearing all the endings on the words 50. listening to tapes
52. trying out what I learned on someone else
53. repeating what I hear on tape
Factor 6
Private/Non-oral Mode Strategies (Non-Risk-taker) Factor 7
x-3.25a=.84 Solitary Leamer/Fl: as Object X = 3.7 a = .86
38. comparing Spanish with English 35. studying the text by myself
39. guessing at what may be going on 40. memorizing grammar rules
43. writing words and phrases over and over 41. translating in my head what I hear
46. translating what I read or hear to English 44. working it out by myself
49. writing the English words above the Spanish ones 45. memorizing vocabulary lists
54. keeping my dictionary close by 51. reading grammar explanations
55. rehearsing in my head before I speak
464
alpha of .80 or above. Average scores for each
factor range from 2.3 to 3.7 (Figure III). It
should be noted, however, that Factors 12 and
13 became negative during factor analysis; a
low score, therefore, means disagreement with
a negative statement. None of the items within
a factor was highly skewed.
Two of the factors focused on anticipated or
actual response to authentic input (11: Compre-
hension/Satisfaction and 13: Negative Affect/Frus-
tration); two dealt with anticipated or actual
strategies or activities in response to authentic
input (14: Global/Synthetic Strategies and 15:
Decoding/Analytic Strategies); and one focused on
the willingness of the student to confront
authentic input (12: Unwillingness to Partici-
pate).12
FIGURE III
Factors Dealing Specifically with Authentic Input
Factor 11
Comprehension/Satisfaction X = 3.6 Ci = .88
58. understand most
60. grasp basic concepts
69. feel satisfied that I understand some
74. grasp basic concept
75. understand most
80. feel a sense that my study of Spanish had helped
86. feel satisfied that I understand some
89. understand most
99. feel satisfied that I can communicate
100. get the gist of what was being said to me
101. feel a sense that my study of Spanish had helped
Factor 13
Negative Affect/Frustration X = 2.7 Ci = .84
59. get frustrated
64. feel uncomfortable
70. get discouraged
77. get frustrated
78. find my knowledge of vocabulary inadequate
79. find my knowledge of grammar inadequate
93. get frustrated
98. get embarrassed
Factor 15
Decoding/Analytic Strategies X = 3.7 Ci = .84
65. try to translate each word as fast as I could
68. listen for subjects, objects, verbs
71. concentrate on each word
73. reach for my dictionary
82. write the words in English between the lines
85. read each word one at a time
87. look at the endings on the words
94. try to translate every word in my head
102. try to hear all the verb endings
Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
Other Variables of Interest. An average index for
perceived exposure to authentic texts (from
never to often) was calculated for items 105-
107. The mean for this variable was 3.1. The
composite index for "exposure" resulted in a
stronger factor than when the individual com-
ponents were analyzed separately.
The intercorrelations of the eleven factors,
gender, exposure to authentic language, and
language background of the instructor
(NS/NNS) were calculated using Pearson
product moment correlation (Table I). The low
to moderate (.00 to .58) intercorrelations con-
firmed that the factors were failry independent
of each other.P
Multiple regression analysis (24: pp. 154-
57)14 was performed to determine whether or
Factor 12
Unwillingness to Participate X = 2.3 Ci = .87
56. (negative) try to get the gist
57. not bother to listen
72. not be interested
76. (negative) pick it up and try to read it
81. not be interested
88. (negative) try out what I've learned in Spanish
90. (negative) try to speak back
91. avoid conversation
97. speak back in English
103. not be interested in having conversation
104. (negative) ask questions to help me understand
Factor 14
Global/Synthetic Strategies X = 3.7 Ci = .80
62. listen for key words and guess at meaning
63. try to guess from the context of where I was
66. listen for words that I know
67. think of the meaning in English
83. read the title and guess at the content
84. look for familiar words and guess
92. listen for key words
95. ask to slow down
96. listen; try to get the gist
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann
not any combination of the general LL factors
(attitudes, motivation, choice of strategies),
gender, and willingness to deal with and/or
exposure to authentic input - including the
native language background of the instructors
- could predict a learner's perception of com-
prehension, satisfaction, and strategy use
regarding authentic input. (See Figure IV for
a summary of the independent and dependent
variables. )
This hypothesis was tested using multiple
regression forward selection analysis with the
SPSSX statistical package. Variables that
remained in the equation and their level of sig-
nificance are reported in Table II.
The most important factor in predicting the
465
perception of comprehension and satisfaction
was the negative input from Factor 12, Unwill-
ingness to Participate. This factor contributed .36
of the total variance before other factors were
added to the model. Other contributing factors
were Solitary Learner (Factor 7), Noninstrumental
Motivation (Factor 2), Instrumental Motivation
(Factor 1), and Exposure to AuthenticInput. The
total variance explained by the model was .42.
In predicting Negative Affect/Frustration (Factor
13), the most important factor was Unwillingness
(Factor 12) once again, though the association
was positive rather than negative. Thirteen per-
cent of the total variance was explained by this
factor. Other factors that remained in the equa-
tion were (negative) Exposure, Private/Non-oral

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

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

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

Learning Spanish: general (attitudes, motivation, strategies)

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

Dealing specifically with authentic texts

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

Other Variables of Interest

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

FIGURE IV
Summary of Variables of Interest for H o2

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

Specific Authentic Input Factors

12: Unwillingness to Confront Authentic Input

Other Variables of Interest

Exposure to Authentic Input
NL Background of Instructor
Gender of Student

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

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

Factor 15: Decoding/Analytic Strategies

In weighing the results of this preliminary
6: Private/Non-oral Strats. .37 12.2 .0000 study into student beliefs about language learn-
3: Perfectionist/Discrete-Pt. .20 5.6 .0000 ing and their relationship to authentic input,
7: Solitary Learner .13 4-.1 .0000 we hasten to note that the data are based on
1: Instrumental Motivation .11 3.1 .0018 self-report. As such, additional research must
Exposure -.08 -2.6 .0097 focus on the relationship to outcome measures
2: Noninstrumental Motiv. -.08 -2.2 .024-8 such as reported strategies while being exposed
Gender of Student -.06 -2.1 .0344 to authentic input, comprehension of authentic
R2= .29 input, and affective response to authentic input.
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann
Factor analysis performed on the 109-item
questionnaire revealed eleven stable factors, of
which six dealt with perceptions of language
learning in general and five dealt with authen-
tic input in particular. Two of the general LL
factors were motivational, one was attitudinal,
and the remaining were practice oriented. Of
the practice-oriented factors, one was clearly
with an oral mode and suggested risk-taking
(Factor 4); another was clearly non-oral and
suggested non-risk-taking (Factor 6). The Soli-
taryLeamer factor (Factor 7) seems also to focus
on FL as object, rather than as process. While
these factors are not mutually exclusive, as
shown by the correlational matrix (Table I),
they show only low to moderate correlation
with each other, which underscores their inde-
pendence.
Regarding authentic input, one factor
emerged as strongly attitudinal, Unwillingness
(Factor 12), with a focus on potential interac-
tion. Another factor was both cognitively and
affectively oriented, focusing on comprehension
and satisfaction (Factor 11); another was purely
affective, expressing frustration and inability
(Factor 13). The remaining two reflected com-
prehension strategies, of which one was more
global and synthetic (Factor 14) and the other
more local and analytic (Factor 15).
Factors 11 and 13 imply how a student an-
ticipates slhe will respond to authentic input.
Whereas Factor 11 expresses the positive
aspects of comprehension and satisfaction, Fac-
tor 13 expresses negative aspects of frustration
and inability. Nevertheless, the moderately low
intercorrelation (r = -.36) underscores the fact
that they are two separate factors.
An impressive amount of variance can be
accounted for in Factor 11, Comprehension/Satis-
faction, by the entire model. Although the model
for the Negative Affect/Frustration factor is less
strong, it shares with Factor 11 one major
variable as the source of most of the variance:
willingness or unwillingness to interact with the
input. This finding suggests that no matter
what strategies a student elects to employ when
dealing with authentic input, the most impor-
tant obstacle to a sense of comprehension or
satisfaction is unwillingness to confront the
input.
Willingness to accept input seems to be a
very basic, sinequa non requirement of instruc-
tion. Yet the factor emerged from the original
open-ended questionnaire without direct solici-
tation. The Unwillingness factor exhibits a high
degree of internal consistency and shows only
467
low to moderate correlation with other factors.
On the one hand, its emergence may reflect
attitudinal or motivational factors on the part
of students who study Spanish to fulfill an FL
requirement. If students suspect that the input
is not directly related to their evaluation in the
course, they may be less willing to interact with
it. As Horwitz et al. (18) point out, on the other
hand, unwillingness to interact may also be
related to FL anxiety.
Other factors that had small individual main
associations with the Comprehension/Satisfaction
factor suggest that motivation, both instru-
mental and noninstrumental, figures into the
explanation of the model. This finding is consis-
tent with previous research in which motivation
has been found to be an important indicator
(9; 23). Students who perceive comprehension
and satisfaction also responded positively to the
Solitary Learner factor, which suggests an indi-
vidualistic approach to dealing with input.
Finally, the more exposure students perceive
they have had, the more likely they are to re-
spond favorably to the Comprehension/Satisfaction
index. The opposite is true for the Negative
Affect/Frustration index, where Exposure exhibits
a negative association.
The small association between Public/Non-oral
Strategies and Public/Oral Mode Strategies and the
Negative Affect factor suggests that students may
feel frustration no matter what strategy they
employ. This frustration may in turn lead stu-
dents to be less willing to deal with authentic
input the next time they have an opportunity.
Finally, the small negative association with
native language (NL) background of the in-
structor (NS of Spanish) suggests that students
do not perceive as beneficial the authentic input
an NS instructor can provide. 15 Possibly, the
frustration factor identified here is so strong
that a fear of communication breakdown be-
tween student and instructor cannot easily be
modified by the benefit of having an authentic
source of input. Horwitz et al. (18) concluded
that anxious students are afraid to make mis-
takes in an FL. When the instructor is an NS
of the target language, the frustration appears
to be even greater. This particular finding,
though small compared to Unwillingness, should
be investigated further.
Factors 14 and 15 represent anticipated
strategies for comprehending authentic input,
be it conversing with a native speaker of the
target language or interacting with an authentic
text in Spanish. Most of the items in Factor 14
clearly represent global/synthetic strategies;
468
that is, the listener samples input and constructs
or infers the overall meaning from the sample
and contextual cues. The items in Factor 15
reflect an antithetical strategy involving a focus
on trying to capture and interpret each and
every morphological form as it appears in
input. Although the items prompted subjects
for their anticipated responses, it is not unlikely
that these comprehension strategies result from
actual experience with FL input (authentic or
otherwise) and represent the actual strategies
that certain students will employ, at least
initially, in their efforts to comprehend input
in authentic contexts.!"
Multiple regression analysis shows that the
strongest associate with each of these compre-
hension-strategy factors was the general-
strategy Factor 6. The items in Factor 6 sug-
gest private/non-oral strategies of language
practice with a heavy emphasis on translation
from Spanish to English. This finding is to be
expected, since Factors 14 and 15 describe com-
prehension strategies, which by definition are
mental (private) and non-oral. The translation
or decoding content of the items on Factor 6
accounts for the relatively stronger association
with Factor 15.
Factor 4 (Public/Oral Mode Strategies), how-
ever, did not associate with either comprehen-
sion-strategy factor. Factor 4 stands in sharp
contrast to Factor 6 in that most of the items
reflect the effort to use the language orally in
public and in socially interactive contexts. Both
factors coalesced out of responses from the same
general query ("What helps me most in learning
Spanish is..."), and their low correlation co-
efficient (r = .25) indicates that they are highly
independent of each other. The data suggest
a two-way typology oflearners: those who feel
they learn by social interaction and are disposed
to use language orally, and those who attribute
learning to focused attention on language as an
object. It may be that the language-oriented,
private learner is more likely to develop (or is
more aware of) concrete, language-based com-
prehension strategies than is the socially
oriented public/oral learner. Rather, publici
oral learners may structure their activity to
create functional learning opportunities and
acquire language through (to them) vague ex-
periential processes. If such is the case, the
publiclorallearner may require strategic guid-
ance with language analysis strategies needed
to deal with authentic input.
The remaining factors are less statistically
Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
significant, though their appearance and direc-
tion are consistent with the above interpreta-
tion. Factor 7 (Solitary Learner/FL as Object) is
also significantly correlated with both compre-
hension-strategy factors, which supports the
interpretation that the learner who regards the
language as an object of analysis is more likely
to develop conscious, language-based strategies
for learning. Furthermore, Table I shows that
Solitary Learner shows a stronger correlation
(r = .40) with Private/Non-oral Strategies than with
Public/Oral Strategies (r = .16).
Exposure (negative) associates with both com-
prehension-strategy factors, but the relationship
is stronger for Factor 14. This finding is also
consistent with the interpretation that was ad-
vanced above. The language-oriented, private
learners who contribute most to the model do
not necessarily seek exposure to authentic
input; in particular, they may not seek out
situations involving conversation with a native
speaker. One would expect the socially oriented
public learner (not in the model) to seek more
exposure. Not surprisingly, the data show that
Factor 3 (Perfectionist/Discrete-Point Strategies) has
a strong positive association with Factor 15 and
a negative (though less powerful or significant)
association with Factor 14. The perfectionist/
discrete-point learner states s/he uses analytic
strategies and likewise avoids global/synthetic
comprehension strategies.
The results suggest that motivation plays a
role in strategy choice. Moreover, there is an
interesting complementarity in this association:
noninstrumentally motivated learners are more
likely to use global/synthetic strategies and
avoid decoding/analytic comprehension strate-
gies when exposed to authentic input. This
choice is consistent with the fact that instrumen-
tal motivation only associates with Factor 15.
Gender significantly predicted reported com-
prehension strategies. Female subjects were
more likely to report using global/synthetic
strategies, whereas males were significantly
more likely to report using decoding/analytic
strategies. The gender associations were not
strong, but warrant further analysis to deter-
mine whether or not group membership can be
predicted.!?
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the association of self-
reported strategies, motives, and attitudes with
anticipated reactions to authentic input. Sub-
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann
sequent analysis of the factors revealed statis-
tically significant models for predicting beliefs
dealing with authentic input. In the context of
behavioral research, the variance explained by
the regression model for the cognitive/affective
variable Comprehension/Satisfaction was especially
strong. Although the model for Negative Affect
was less strong, the predominance of willing-
ness or unwillingness in both models merits
further research. How these beliefs are related
to actual outcome measures must still be inves-
tigated.
The two comprehension-strategy factors
owed the greatest amount of their variance to
one general language-learning factor, Private/
Non-oral Strategies. The absence of Public/Oral
Strategies altogether underscores the need for
further research on how different learner types
cope with authentic input.
Pedagogically, research dealing with student
perceptions and beliefs sheds light into how
individual students anticipate their reactions to
components of the FL curriculum. Beliefs and
NOTES
'This study is part of a larger project that was partially
funded by a grant from the Center for Research in Second
Languages and International Studies at the University of
Cincinnati. The authors are indebted to Roger Stuebing
of the Institute for Policy Research of the University of
Cincinnati for his input into the design of the study and
statistical analysis of the data. We also acknowledge helpful
comments from participants at the RP-ALLA Conference,
3-4 November 1989, Columbus, Ohio, where the data were
first presented, as well as the comments of two anonymous
reviewers.
2Input is considered authentic when it is produced by
and for native speakers of the target language. Having a
native speaker (NS) as the classroom instructor does not
necessarily guarantee authentic input.
'As in many large institutions, the grade in the course
reflects the need for uniformity between many sections.
Since the grade had little, if anything, to do with the use
of authentic texts, it was not considered a useful criterion.
'Students at this level were chosen to ensure that they
had adequate experience with studying Spanish at the uni-
versity level and yet were less likely to be foreign language
sophisticates. That is, we expected they would represent
the majority of the students who take basic Spanish lan-
guage classes at the university level.
5 As in Ely's study (9), the factors emerged from the survey
rather than being pre-imposed.
6It is important to note that it is not appropriate to calcu-
late the internal reliability of the entire instrument when
469
attitudes may be self-fulfilling: if a student is
not interested in listening, his/her comprehen-
sion is likely to be impaired. The curriculum
must be designed to convince students to be
willing to deal with authentic input. To help
students accept input, such input first must be
an early and important part of instruction.
Second, it must be accompanied by meaningful
advance organizers and comprehension checks.
Finally, it must be included in the evaluation
of the student. Since exposure to authentic
input has a positive perceived effect on com-
prehension and satisfaction and a negative per-
ceived effect on frustration, students seem to
profit from its inclusion.
Finally, this study reinforces the importance
of attending to students' affective needs and
general LL strategies when interacting with
authentic input. Studies involving other popu-
lations and other levels of proficiency will con-
firm general and specific factors and their role
in dealing with authentic input.
factor analysis is used to identify different, uncorrelated
factors. Only factor reliability is reported here.
'The pilot studies indicated, in addition, that the majority
of students were undergraduates in the colleges that require
a foreign language. No attempt was made to compare field
of specialization, graduate versus undergraduate, or age
in the final instrument.
"The language background of the instructor was com-
piled separately.
"The discarded item was, "If I were to overhear people
speaking Spanish, I would probably get only a few details."
I°It may be argued that how a student felt about getting
an "easy" grade influenced his or her beliefs about learn-
ing and comprehension. The fact remains, however, that
a single item does not carry the same weight as a factor.
To have looked at any of the individual items on the "ease"
factor would have circumvented the entire purpose of estab-
lishing internal reliability of the instrument.
II As with Ely's (9) identification of motivational factors,
the two identified here are not mutually exclusive. Factor 1,
however, includes instrumental statements that do not
appear at all on Factor 2. Factor 1, moreover, appears
broader in scope; Factor 2 is definitely communicative in
orientation, but more on a one-to-one level than Factor 1.
I2Note that the average response to this factor indicates
that students were not generally unwilling (x ~ 2.3).
"In factor analysis, low intercorrelation among factors
is an important consideration. Each factor should represent
a separate trait.
14Although there were a sufficient number of cases to
perform canonical correlation, we chose to analyze the data
using multiple regression analysis. The latter is both more
widely used and more easily interpreted.
470
15This may also reflect a generalized negative reaction
to foreign-born TAs.
16Itis interesting that, relative to other factors, Factors
14 and 15 are moderately correlated with each other
(r = .44). This suggests that many learners use both
strategies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Allen, Edward D., Elizabeth Bernhardt, M. Berry &
M. Demel. "Comprehension and Text Genre: An
Analysis of Secondary School Foreign Language
Readers." Modem LangtUJgeJournal72 (1988): 163-72.
2. Bacon, Susan M. Cameron. "Mediating Cultural Bias
with Authentic Target-Language Texts for Begin-
ning Students of Spanish." Foreign Language Annals
20 (1987): 557-63.
3. Beebe, Leslie M. "Risk-taking and the Language
Learner." Classroom Oriented Research in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition. Ed. Herbert W. Seliger & Michael
Long. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983.
4. Bernhardt, Elizabeth B. & Victoria C. Berkemeyer.
"Authentic Texts and the High School German
Learner." Unterrichtspraxis 21 (1988): 6-28.
5. Bialystok, Ellen. "The Role of Conscious Strategies in
Second Language Proficiency." Modem Language
Journal 65 (1981): 24-35.
6. Duquette, Georges, Stephen Dunnett & Anthony
Papalia. "The Effect of Authentic Materials in
Acquiring a Second Language." Canadian Modern
Language Review 43 (1987): 479-92.
7. Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford. "Effects of Sex
Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type
on Adult Language Learning Strategies." Modern
Language Journal 73 (1989): 1-13.
8. Elbaum, Batya. "Research Design for the Study of
Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning." Paper
presented at the MLJIOhio State University Sym-
posium RP-ALLA, Columbus, Ohio, November
1989.
9. Ely, Christopher. "Language Learning Motivation: A
Descriptive and Causal Analysis." Modern Language
Journal 70 (1986): 28-35.
10. - - - . "Personality: Its Impact on Attitudes toward
Classroom Activities." Foreign Language Annals 21
(1988): 25-32.
11. - - - . "Tolerance of Ambiguity and Use of Second
Language Strategies." Foreign Language Annals 22
(1989): 437-46.
12. Ferguson, George A. & Yoshio Takane. Statistical Analysis
in Psychology and Education. 6th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hili, 1989.
13. Gardner, Robert C. & Wallace E. Lambert. "Motiva-
tional Variables in Second Language Acquisition."
Canadian Journal oj Psychology 13 (1959): 266-72.
14. - - - . Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learn-
ing. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972.
Modern Language Journal 74 (1990)
"Recent research (7) has focused on the effect of gender
differences in strategy choice. The current data are being
subjected to discriminant analysis, the results of which will
be reported in an article now in preparation.
15. Geltrich-Ludgate, Brigitta & Deanna Tovar. "Authen-
tic Texts and Corresponding Activities: A List for
the Foreign Language Instructor." Unterrichtspraxis
20 (1987): 80-90.
16. Horwitz, Elaine K. "Using Student Beliefs about Lan-
guage Learning and Teaching in the Foreign Lan-
guage Methods Course." Foreign Language Annals 18
(1985): 333-40.
17. - - - . "Facing the Blackboard: Student Perceptions
of Language Learning and the Language Class-
room." ADFL Bulletin 20 (1989): 61-64.
18. - - - , Michael B. Horwitz &Jo Ann Cope. "Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety." Modern Language
Journal 70 (1986): 125-32.
19. Kienbaum, Barbara E., A. J. Russell & S. Welty.
"Communicative Competence in Foreign Language
Learning with Authentic Materials." Final Project
Report (1986) [ERIC 275200j.
20. Krashen, Stephen. "Adult Second Language Acquisi-
tion and Learning: A Review of Theory and Appli-
cations." Second LangtUJge Teaching and Foreign LangtUJge
Learning. Ed. R. Gingras. Arlington, VA: CAL,
1978.
21. Moody, Raymond. "Personality Preferences and For-
eign Language Learning." Modern LanguageJournal
72 (1988): 389-401.
22. Nostrand, Howard L. "Authentic Texts and Cultural
Authenticity: An Editorial." Modern Languagefour-
nal 73 (1989): 49-52.
23. Oxford, Rebecca & Martha Nyikos. "Variables Affect-
ing Choice of Language Learning Strategies by Uni-
versity Students." Modem LanguageJournal73 (1989):
291-300.
24. Pedhazer, E1azur J. Multiple Regression in Behavioral
Research. 2nd ed. New York: CBS, 1982.
25. Rodgers, Carmen Villegas & Frank W. Medley, Jr.
"Language with a Purpose: Using Authentic Mate-
rials in the Foreign Language Classroom." Foreign
LanguageAnnals 21 (1988): 467-78.
26. Wenden, Anita. "How To Be a Successful Language
Learner: Insights and Prescriptions from L2 Learn-
ers." LeamerStrategies in Language Learning. Ed. Anita
Wenden & Joan Rubin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice- Hall, 1987.
27. Westphal, German F. "On the Teaching of Culture in
the Foreign Language Curriculum." Canadian Mod-
ern Language Review 43 (1986): 87-93.
28. Zwick, William R. & Wayne F. Velicer. "Comparison
of the Five Rules for Determining the Number of
Components to Retain." Psychological Bulletin 99
(1986): 432-42.
Susan M. Bacon & Michael D. Finnemann 471

APPENDIX
Valid Percentage Response for Each Item

Reasons why I chose to study Spanish:

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

APPENDIX (continued)

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

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

From the Editor: A Word of Thanks

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