A NEED FOR CONTEXT: UNDERSTANDING THE SECOND LANGUAGE

LEARNING PROCESS

by

Elizabeth Alexis Chaponot

A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Elizabeth Alexis Chaponot

 3311119

Copyright 2008 by
Chaponot, Elizabeth Alexis

All rights reserved

3311119
2008
 EPIGRAPH

Човекът е толкова пъти човек, колкото езика знае

A person’s worth is equal to the number of languages he knows

~ Bulgarian Expression

ii
 DEDICATION

To my mother who taught me that there were no shortcuts in life, and whose passing

has left a void that cannot be filled.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sincere thanks:

To my dissertation committee, Dr. Nelly Stromquist, Dr. Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,

and Dr. Julietta Shakhbagova, I am grateful for the time you took to help me on this

journey.

With a special thank you to Dr. Nelly Stromquist, the chairperson of my committee,

who would never let me settle for less than my best, despite the many times I really

felt I would be happy to do so.

To my 25 language learners, for their openness, trust, candid insights, and honesty

without which this study wouldn’t have been possible.

To Susan, for being my master proofreader and not tolerating my run-on sentences,

my colloquialisms, or my propensity for useless words.

To my family, for inspiring me and pushing me to succeed. To my father and sister,

who never doubted me for a minute and would never let me quit.

To my friends, for their blind optimism in my ability.

To Rita, for being both family and friend.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EPIGRAPH ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES viii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose of Study 2
Problem Statement 3
Questions to be Answered 4
Significance of Problem 6
Assumptions 7
Limitations 8
Delimitations 8
Organization of the Study 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Origins of SLA/Different Theoretical Models 11
Behaviorism 11
The Chomskian Revolution 12
Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis 14
Different Theoretical Models Emerge 16
The Linguistic Perspective:
and the Dominance of Information Processing Models 16
The Social Psychological Perspective 18
Acculturation 19
Motivation 20
Aptitude 21
The Critical Period Debate 22
Critical Period Studies throughout SLA 26

v
 The Critical Period and Its Effects on Rate of
Acquisition vs. Ultimate Attainment 27
Age Effects on Grammatical/Syntactic Abilities 29
The Critical Period for Phonological Ability 32
The Critical Period Viewed through Neurological
Research 35
Implications of the Critical Period for SLA 37
Qualitative Research Methods in SLA 38
Socio-Cultural school of Thought as it Applies to SLA 53
Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory 53
Activity Theory 55
The Role of SCT and Activity Theory in SLA 56
The Language Classroom's Social Setting 57
Activity Theory and SLA 58
Conclusion 61

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 63

Setting 64
Selection of Subjects 67
Organization of the Study 70
Data Presentation and Analysis 74
Reliability of Method 74
Reliability in Relation to Selection of Subjects 75
Validity of Data Generation Methods 75
Transparency 75
Consistency 76
Communicability 76
Validity of Interpretation 77

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 78

Overview 78
Participants 80
Academic Achievement of Learners 84
Success Among Learners 85
Language Level 87
Familial Involvement 103
Family Encouragement 103
Parental Expectations and Support 119
Investment in the Program 130

vi
 Conclusion 138
Agency Relationships 139
Comfort in the Classroom 139
Friendships Outside of Class 152
Conclusion 167
Motivation 168
Learner Satisfaction and Motivation 169
Value of Program 183
Desired Benefits of Program 189
Conclusion 194
Classroom Experiences 195
The Successful Language Learner 196
French as a Subject 205
The French Teacher 212
Conclusion 220

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 222

Overview 222
Successful Learners 223
Moderate Learners 224
Weak Learners 225
What the Study Did Not Find 226
Age 226
Heritage Learners 229
What the Study Did Find 231
The Link Between Reading and Language Learning 231
Family Influence 232
Friends/Community 234
Identity Formation 237
Classroom Experiences 240
Interconnection of Forces 241
Suggestions for Further Research 243

REFERENCES 245

APPENDIX A 254

APPENDIX B 256

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Overview of Participants 81

Table 2: Languages Spoken 82

Table 3: General Academic

Achievement of participants 85

Table 4: Level of Students (from weak

to strong) 87

viii
 ABSTRACT

This study sought to understand the social realities behind the language

learning experiences of a set of learners enrolled in a dual immersion program,

specifically a French-English program. This study adopts a sociocultural lens to

obtain a holistic view of language learning. In-depth interviews with 25 high school

students who all had varying levels of French-language ability and had different

family backgrounds were held. Information about the students and their academic

progress was also obtained by a review of academic transcripts and student files.

The students were grouped by their ability level in French and then categorized as

successful, moderately successful, and weak language learners. The study presents

an account of the participants’ reactions to their language learning education; their

views about the language learning experience in general; the level of parental

support they received; the friendships they had been able to form with French

students at school; their motivation for learning French; and finally, the positive and

negative experiences they had within their classroom setting.

This study found that the different ability groups of language learners

evinced patterns of language learning and exposure to French that separated one

group from the other. In general, the most successful language learners had very

supportive parents, were academically independent, loved to read, and forged strong

relationships with members of the French community, making French a very

important part of their lives. In contrast, moderate learners were not as independent

in their schooling and needed much support from parents. They did not make strong

ix
connections with members of the target language community, and French never

became part of their identity. Weak learners, like moderate ones, did not develop

relationships with native French speakers; they received little support from their

family for school or the language learning project, and they rationalized French as

being a useful skill.

No one single social factor guaranteed successful language learning for these

students. Age was not found a factor facilitating second-language acquisition.

Success in language learning was the result of a web of social realities and situations

that interacted with and reinforced each other to breed success.

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The field of second language acquisition (SLA) is relatively recent and is

essentially a post World War II phenomenon. Its origins are of vital importance as

early shifts in the field have, and continue to influence SLA research in an extremely

important way. The theoretical foundations of the field were set very early on and

the dominant paradigm of SLA continues to conform to these early lenses. As a

field, SLA can be seen as a hybrid as it is grounded in a variety of schools, including

linguistics, education, sociology, and psychology, to name a few.

Schacter (1993) states that:

SLA is thought of as a discipline devoted to discovering and

characterizing how it is that a human being is able to learn a second
language: what preknowledge does he or she bring to the task, what set
of learning procedures does he or she use, what strategies are appropriate
for certain phenomena and not others, etc. (p. 173).

The fundamental goal of studying SLA is to solve the second language

learning puzzle. All within the field seem to be in agreement that “the goals of SLA

are to study, discover and characterize the what and how of any language acquired to

any degree after the putative first language” (Block, 2003, p. 8). However, there is

an ever increasing controversy as to how this should be done.

Historically, the field has been dominated by researchers who view language

learning as a systematic mental faculty – and the bulk of studies produced in the area

of SLA are based on this paradigm. Current SLA theory thus stresses the importance

of mental processes and the goal of research is to understand these processes and

1
acquire linguistic knowledge. Much of the research to date follows the standard

quantitative methods of research and, as a result, scholars have strived to identify

measurable reasons for success or failure. A variety of factors have been analyzed as

potential variables to account for degrees of success among language learners.

Purpose of Study

The goal of this research is to study second language acquisition via an emic,

or learner specific, perspective in an effort to better understand the language learning

process. There is a need to delve into the learner‟s mind to try and understand the

language learning context, for, as Johnson (2004) asserts:

The origin of second language competence lies not in the language

acquisition device or any other mechanism … but in social reality – in
language use. Social contexts create language, and language creates
social contexts: one constitutes the other. These contexts are not
universal. They are highly localized, and therefore language ability is
also locally bound: it reflects all the characteristics of a well-defined
sociocultural and institutional context that has been undergone. (p. 172)

Therefore, the goal of the study is to understand the social realities behind the

language learning experiences of a given set of learners. The study focuses on a

group of students enrolled in a dual immersion program, specifically a French-

English program. I interviewed students who fall into some of the traditional

categories studied in SLA research, such as varying ages for beginning the study of a

second language, varying levels of ability, and success with regards to the study of a

second language. As a qualitative study, it provides a different perspective from the

traditional quantitative research studies. Further, the scope of the study is broader

than traditional SLA studies, as the study attempts to obtain a global view of the

2
language learning experience by asking students questions that range from preferred

teaching styles to motivation for learning. This study adopts a sociocultural lens and

provides a different approach to language acquisition. In anthropological terms, it

approaches language acquisition via an emic rather than an etic perspective. The

emic perspective puts the focus to be on the learners‟ perspectives and their own

individual experiences which are personal and culture specific. This is not the

traditional lens used in SLA research which typically focuses on an etic view which

would describe the behavior being observed in hopes of finding truths that could be

applied to other learners. The study will further look at subjects who are learning a

second language outside of the host culture as opposed to the traditional study of

immigrant learners.

Problem Statement

The field of SLA has been dominated by the cognitive paradigm. Breen

(2001) points out that:

Current theories prevalent in the last thirty years that have promoted
and accounted for language acquisition as primarily the interface
between learners‟ mental processes and the grammatical system of the
target language have pursued a research agenda that seeks to account
for generalizable patterns of development across all learners.
Intervening variables other than the cognitive and linguistic that may
either enhance or seriously inhibit such development are likely to be
positioned as a distraction from this agenda. (p.173)

Unfortunately, traditional research leaves much of the learning experience

uncovered and does little to further our understanding of why there is such diversity

of outcomes in second language acquisition among learners. An emic perspective on

3
SLA has become a key to truly understanding the language learning process.

Ferreira Barcelos (2003) states,

Beliefs about SLA research has to move beyond a simple description of

beliefs as predictors of future behaviour to an investigation of beliefs in
context. We need to understand how beliefs interact with students‟
actions and what functions they play in students‟ learning experiences
in class or outside class. (p. 29)

Increasingly, the SLA world is moving towards expanding its research

agenda. Breen (2001) declares that, “There is a need for research that seeks out

evidence of the interdependency between psycholinguistics, affective, cultural and

social variables in relation to language learning” (p. 178).

Questions to be Answered

The goal of this study will be to work through this expanded research agenda

in an effort to gain more understanding of the learner‟s experiences with regards to

second language acquisition. To do so, I will view the language learner from a

generally sociocultural perspective and more specifically through an activity theory

lens which Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) describe:

The general theory conceives learners first and foremost as individuals

whose formation as thinking and learning beings depends crucially on
the concrete circumstances of their specific histories as language
learners and as members of the communities of practice to which they
belong and to which they aspire. (p. 155)

In this light, the research will strive to answer the following questions:

1. A learner‟s ability to actively communicate in a new language may impact

her willingness to participate openly. It is important to understand how the

learners themselves feel about their language level and specifically how

4
 comfortable they are with using the target language in a variety of contexts.

How do these learners situate themselves as language learners? What are

their perceived strengths and weaknesses?

2. As learners are products of their previous history, socio-economic

background, and cultural context, the student‟s home environment becomes

an important element in their success or failure. In what ways do

parents/family play a role in the language learning process?

3. Other key agency relationships abound in the learning environment. What

relationships has the learner formed within the school community? How

well has the learner integrated with the native French speakers within the

school community? How much have the French language and culture

become an active part in the learner‟s existence?

4. Activity theory forces us to take into account an individual‟s motives and

goals for undertaking any activity, as these motives influence the learning or

progress that may or may not take place. Therefore, a key question relates to

the learner‟s motivation. What is a learner‟s motivation for succeeding and

remaining in the school? How much is motivation linked to success with

regards to the French language vs. academic success at school?

5. As different individuals respond differently to teaching methods which

directly affect results, what teaching methods have the learners been

confronted with? What experiences have been positive or negative? How

5
 much do relationships with individual teachers affect the learner‟s desire to

succeed?

Significance of Problem

There is a real need for a better understanding of the second language

acquisition process. Moyer asserts that, “Narrowly focused explanations for SLA

outcomes do little to advance an appreciation for such complexity” (2004, p. 2).

Many of the Canadian studies done on bilingualism have pushed for the need to

understand the social context around SLA (Gardner, 1985; Gardner and Lambert,

1972; Norton Pierce, 2000). There has been a stress around the notion that language

learning connects the individual with the target community, and that this connection

and the context that surrounds the learning process are key to understanding

successful language learning.

There is a growing consensus that SLA research has traditionally had the

shortcoming of not taking the individual‟s experiences and beliefs into account

(Barkhuizen, 1998; Breen, 2001; Moyer, 2004; Preston, 1991; Riley, 1997). This is

unfortunate because learners themselves hold the key to their learning experiences.

Further, understanding the learner‟s perspective is crucial as the language learner‟s

beliefs and philosophies about learning a new language will inevitably alter that

learner‟s attitude towards learning, his motivation related to the process, and even

the strategies that the learner may use to approach the learning process (Riley, 1997;

Abraham and Vann, 1987).

6
 Research that simply measures outcomes and tries to find correlations

between success and specific variables such as age, motivation, or predicted aptitude

does not take into account factors that may be equally important. It is not that age,

motivation, and aptitude are not important elements in the language learning

equation. Rather it is that they are only elements; pieces in an intricate and

complicated puzzle. Puzzle pieces that may not be attainable via quantitative

methods of assessment. Ignoring social background, context for learning, or the

learners‟ own views about their experience will never give a complete picture. As

Johnson (2004) states, the quantitative means of assessment and the cognitive

paradigm that have guided much of the research have had a negative consequence.

“We have stayed for too long in the mind of the learner, and in the process we have

neglected to recognize the forces that interact with the individual mind” (p. 189).

Assumptions

The main assumptions are that a language learner‟s perspective on the

learning process will bring insight that will, in turn, help us understand the second

language acquisition process. The foundation of this research is the belief that,

although a person could not answer the question “how did you learn your second

language?” Wenden (1986) was accurate in saying that the learner can in fact speak

about the learning process. Although questionnaires and surveys may be able to

shed light on some aspects of the language learning process, much of a second

language learner‟s experiences are not things that can be easily quantified. A

qualitative study can delve more deeply into the personal experiences of language

7
learners thereby giving some insight as to differences of attitudes and experiences

that different learners have to offer. An in-depth look at the language learning

experience can help explain the findings of previous quantitative studies. A better

understanding of the process can in turn help develop more successful strategies for

second language acquisition.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study comes from the fact that the phenomenon

being studied is an unconscious one for the learner. This is even more real for the

subjects immersed in the program at a very early age, for whom the act of learning

the second language is as forgotten as the process used to acquire their first language.

Therefore, all information is acquired only indirectly by asking and observing

attitudes related to the second language and drawing some conclusions based on

observed differences in the patterns of the different learners. Some important

connections could not be identified by the respondent. Because the questions being

asked touch upon the learners‟ personal experiences, it was important for me to

establish trust with the participants in order to receive honest and credible responses

and interactions.

Delimitations

This study is not a longitudinal one. Participants were interviewed only once

and information gathered about their impressions related to their language learning

experience came from this single interview. Review of student files and self

disclosure on the part of participants were the methods used to try and comprehend

8
the language learning process of these students. The study was further conducted in

a French immersion school where the majority of instruction is conducted in French.

The impact that the increased exposure to the French language provided these

students, compared to learners who only learn a language in a classroom setting, is to

be taken into account when discussing the impact of the French language class on

language learning for this group of learners.

Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter introduced the

topic and outlined the purpose and limitations of this study. The second chapter is a

review of the literature in the field. In the review, I will look at the origins of SLA

research and the traditional theoretical lenses that have dominated, and still

dominate, the field. Focus will be drawn on what researchers have traditionally

measured when studying learners, namely acculturation, motivation, and aptitude.

Age of acquisition, which is another variable, will then be treated separately as it has

become a very controversial variable and is frequently referred to as the critical

period debate. The review will then turn to look at how SLA researchers have

incorporated qualitative research methods to study language acquisition. The

literature review ends by looking at a more recent trend in SLA research, namely

using a sociocultural lens to view second language acquisition. Ultimately this is the

perspective used in this study to understand the language learning experience of 25

high school students. The third chapter of this dissertation will present the

methodology used in this study. Also presented will be the participants, the school

9
site at which the students are enrolled, as well as the procedures followed for data

collection and analysis. The fourth chapter provides an analysis of the participant

interviews by looking at participant responses related to the research questions and

sorted by the participants‟ level of fluency, or more specifically, whether they are

successful, moderately successful, or weak language learners. The final chapter

presents an analysis and summary of findings and proposes areas for further

research.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Origins of SLA/Different Theoretical Models

As stated previously, the field of SLA is a relatively recent one as most

research did not begin until after World War II. SLA is often seen as a field

composed of many other fields, and it has been strongly influenced by research done

in linguistics, education, sociology, and psychology, among others. It is important to

understand the early movements within the field to better understand what the main

influences in the field were and how these influences have shaped the dominant

paradigms that still exist to this day in SLA research.

Behaviorism

In the early 1950s, a popular psychological school of thought tried to adapt

the realities of language to the world of behaviorism, which would ultimately plant

the seeds for the field of Second Language Acquisition. In the 1950s and early

1960s, research and ideas related to SLA were grounded in the psychological

framework of behaviorism. To the behaviorist (Watson, 1919; Thorndike, 1932;

Skinner, 1957), learning in general was the result of an individual‟s ability to

develop certain habits of the mind. Language learning was merely seen as an

extension of this. Therefore, a person would be able to master a new language if he

developed the appropriate habits. These habits could be achieved if a student

received stimuli (language input) and subsequently received positive reinforcement

for correct responses. SLA was strongly influenced by this theoretical approach, and

11
the result was a language classroom in which grammar drills and repetitive

assignments reigned. The big hurdle for a second language learner was seen to be

interference from a first language. Much energy was spent studying the differences

between languages in order to better design language programs that would drill in

areas that should be difficult due to variations between languages (Lado, 1957). The

research of the time did not focus on the human being learning, but rather on the

languages being learned.

The Chomskian Revolution

In the late 1950s, the behaviorist view came under attack by Noam Chomsky

(1959), who was fiercely critical of Skinner‟s behaviorist perspective. Chomsky felt

that the behaviorist view did not understand the creativity of language. Behaviorists

could not explain the fact that children find their own rules as they learn language

and apply them, even at times over-generalize them, when they use them in their

own productions. Language was so complex, Chomsky felt, that it was not possible

to drill in all potential situations as the behaviorists implied. Chomsky convinced

linguists to accept the notion that there was an internal language faculty that humans

possessed, which allowed them to learn and manipulate language. This radical new

theory caused a huge shift in linguistics, and more specifically in the burgeoning

field of SLA. As a result, the emphasis was taken off the language itself and placed

onto the learner, thus changing the way language research was conducted. For the

next two decades, research was essentially focused on finding similarities in the

ways people learned languages (Slobin, 1970; Brown, 1973; Klima & Bellugi, 1966).

12
Research found that children initially acquired language in the same order.

Grammatical morphemes were discovered to be learned by all children in a

predictable progression. This research strengthened the hold of Chomsky‟s language

acquisition device, and the findings were carried over into the SLA field. Dulay and

Burt (1974, 1975, 1982) studied acquisition of grammatical morphemes in SLA.

They ultimately concluded that “it is highly probable that children of different

language backgrounds learning English in a variety of host country environments

acquire eleven grammatical morphemes in a similar order” (as cited in Mitchell &

Myles, 2004, p. 40). The focus of the research, although on the learner, was

definitely geared toward trying to uncover language acquisition universals. The

methods used were quantitative, and the object was to streamline the SLA process –

uncover its mysteries as it were.

Much of this research was controversial, but what remains to this day is that

“both child and adult learners of English as a second language developed accuracy in

a number of grammatical morphemes in a set order, no matter what the context of

learning (classroom, naturalistic, mixed)” (Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p. 43). This

revelation took the linguistic world one step away from the notion that language

learning was a puzzle, and that there was merely a code to drill into learners. It

brought researchers into a realm where language learning mechanisms exist in all

learners, and now the burden for SLA research became to explain why or how this

language learning capacity could successfully be unleashed.

13
 Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

In the early 1970s, Stephen Krashen, a collaborator of Dulay and Burt,

introduced what later would be seen as the first full-scale theory for SLA. His theory

was based on five fundamental principles that applied to SLA, namely:

The Acquisition – Learning duality: Krashen‟s theory declared that there

were two ways to learn a second language. The most successful and productive way

was to follow our natural instincts and to acquire language, allow for our brains to

subconsciously adapt to the linguistic realities of a new language. The second, more

common, but much less successful, method was an attempt to learn language by

actively trying to memorize rules and applying them through practice – an ultimately

ineffective method for Krashen.

Natural Order Hypothesis: The natural order hypothesis is a direct product of

Krashen‟s work with Dulay and Burt. Krashen declares that SLA follows a very

predictable and standard progression which cannot be altered. Any attempt by an

individual to try and learn grammatical structures before he is ready, will fail.

Monitor Hypothesis: Although our ability to speak and communicate in a

language is a product of acquired language, our learned knowledge can be useful in

that it serves as a monitor, to correct or help check ourselves.

Input Hypothesis: Language is learned when an individual is placed in a

situation where he gets comprehensible input or linguistic information that he is able

to process. Ideally, the learner is given linguistic data that is just slightly harder than

what he is currently capable of grasping (or as Krashen states, i+1). This guarantees

14
that the learner not only reaffirms existing knowledge but also is given just enough

to progress and add to his foundation.

Affective Filter Hypothesis: Individual factors such as motivation, or anxiety

can hinder an individual‟s ability to learn a second language by creating an affective

filter. This filter could block the learner from receiving comprehensible input, and

prevent necessary information from reaching the language acquisition device.

Krashen‟s theory ended up being highly controversial. He was proposing and

answer to the language learning question and there followed much research to prove

or disprove his theories. His detractors argued that much of his theory was

speculation, and in fact not verifiable to any extent (Cook, 1993; McLaughlin, 1987).

His supporters are inspired by the “lucidity, simplicity, and explanatory power of

Krashen‟s theory” (Ellis, 1990, p. 57). Lightbrown praised Krashen‟s ability to

blend social psychology, linguistic theory, discourse analysis, psychological learning

theory, and sociolinguistic theory (1984, p. 246).

Despite the controversy, Krashen is a major contributor to the field. As

Johnson (2004) points out, “Owing to Krashen‟s heavy reliance on the LAD1 and the

subconscious processes, his model of SLA is part of the cognitive paradigm. His

model also represents one of the earliest versions of the „information procession

model‟” (p. 48) which would thereafter dominate the SLA field.

1
Language Acquisition Device

15
 Different Theoretical Models Emerge

Mitchell and Myles (2004) claim that it is possible to distinguish three main

points of view, or sets of priorities, among SLA researchers as far as the learner is

concerned:

The linguistic perspective, which is concerned with modeling language

structures and processes within the mind; the social psychological
perspective, which is concerned with modeling individual differences
among learners, and their implications for eventual learning success;
and the socio-cultural perspective, which is concerned with learners as
social beings and members of social groups and networks. (p. 24)

The Linguistic Perspective and the Dominance of Information Processing Models

Mainstream linguists interested in the field of SLA have traditionally tried to

understand the mental processes involved in learning a second language. What is

studied or tracked are the internal mental processes involved when individuals

process and retain new language. The goal is to chart a course for second language

acquisition that can predict and explain the process. Speed of acquisition is not the

focus but rather the ultimate attainment. For this reason, social variables that might

affect or hinder the language learning process are not of interest.

Many researchers such as Gass, Long, and Skehan have worked toward an all

encompassing theory of SLA, which has been given the title of input-interaction-

output hypothesis (IIO). “Enough SLA researchers have chosen the IIO line over the

past ten years in particular to make it the biggest player on the SLA scene” (Block,

2003, p. 26). Susan Gass is often cited for her description of the IIO model. Like

Krashen‟s theory, the Gass description (1988) of the IIO model is a five part process:

16
 Apperception: The primary stage of language has the learner notice the

input, the linguistic data entering. As the data enters, the learner uses prior

knowledge and breaks the information down into smaller units. The reason some

input does not pass through the apperception stage can be explained by a variety of

external factors that can hinder the process, including the very basic question of

whether or not the learner was paying attention.

Comprehended input: Once the learner has noticed and apperceived

incoming data, the information must be analyzed and understood. To be able to

accomplish this, the learner gets help from prior knowledge both with regards to his

L1 and his L2.

Intake: Intake is the first true part of the learning process. Intake refers to

the learner‟s attempt at actually incorporating the knowledge attained via

comprehended input and breaking it down to fit language features. The individual is

able to do this with the help of Universal Grammar, and this ability is predicated on

the individual having reached a developmental point in the SLA process that allows

for this intake.

Integration: Integration involves the storing of information. Initially,

integration serves as hypothesis testing for the learner who will attempt to see if the

language rules that were developed during intake actually fit and work.

Output: Output refers to the production of language by the individual,

however Gass cautions against having people see output as an end point, as it is in

17
essence merely another way to retest and to produce new data with which the learner

will again launch the whole process.

The IIO models that have dominated the SLA field have in common their

cognitive emphasis. Further, they tend to use terms that liken the human brain to a

computer capable of crunching and analyzing information in an efficient, and most

importantly, a predictable fashion. As Johnson (2004) states:

The focus is on the learner‟s cognitive processes. The process of

analyzing the incoming information is viewed as being mechanistic,
predictable, stable, and universal. The outside reality, or social context,
is acknowledged indirectly, abstractly, and superficially, mainly in the
stage associated with input or apperceived input (p. 84).

The Social Psychological Perspective

SLA research has throughout its short history tried to explain why second

language acquisition is so variable between learners. While one learner will become

near-native, another will never go beyond the very early stages of language learning.

Researchers have searched for factors to help in predicting, understanding, or

explaining the varying levels of success among learners. Learner variability has

been explained through concepts like acculturation, motivation, aptitude, or age.

Yet, Obler (1989) points out that, to date, no specific neurological explanation can be

found to explain what makes an individual a successful language learner. Empirical

data has also not unearthed one cognitive tool or technique that will guarantee

language learning success. What is clear is that not all people learn a second

language and achieve the same level of success. All humans, given the opportunity

and barring any physical handicap which might preclude it, will be successful at

18
learning their mother tongue. This is absolutely not the case for second language

acquisition. In fact, Larsen-Freeman and Long go so far as to say that

“unfortunately, language mastery is not often the outcome of SLA” (1991, p. 153).

Researchers have delved into what makes individuals good language learners.

Their approach has been to isolate one trait, to single out specific areas that affect the

language learning process. A few areas of influence have received more attention

than others.

Acculturation.

Schumann (1978) suggested that acculturation was the key to language

learning. An individual‟s ability to learn a second language would be directly linked

to whether that individual acculturated with the target group. A lack of acculturation

would result in a failure to learn. Hansen (1995) tested Schumann‟s hypothesis that

accent was directly correlated with an individual‟s level of acculturation within the

target culture by studying a group of German second language learners. She found

that “immigrants who have immersed themselves in the target language culture will

benefit from the additional exposure to the second language. For such individuals,

approximating nativelike phonation is the best possible way of showing their

solidarity with the target language group” (p. 313).

Currently researchers are studying social identities and their relation to

language learning. Researchers like Norton-Pierce (1995) and Norton (2001) have

studied the learners‟ social identity within their language learning contexts. Norton

specifically researched the notion of the learners‟ active non-participation in their

19
language learning process, and has stated that more research needed to be done with

regards to power relations between language learners and the target language

speakers.

Motivation.

Much of language learning success has also been attributed to motivation. In

1972, Gardner and Lambert coined the notion of there being different types of

motivation, namely the instrumental vs. the integrative motivation. Integrative

motivation pushes an individual to learn a language based on his or her affinity for

and desire to be linked to the people of the target language. Instrumental motivation

inspires people to learn if they feel that learning the foreign language would benefit

them in future career plans or for some other functional reason. Basically, they

would learn if learning brought them something. The desire to integrate is,

according to Gardner, in fact a better predictor of success.

Although Gardner‟s model is meant to explain language learning in a formal

context (through formal instruction) and Schumann‟s acculturation model is geared

toward explaining language learning success in a naturalistic setting, common

aspects can be seen between the two. The need for an individual to identify with the

target community does appear to be a strong element in both. Guira states that “to

learn a second language is to take on a new identity” (Guira et al., 1972, as cited in

Moyer, 2004, p. 41). The notion of a new self does imply a desire to want to become

part of a new group and, as such, to amend one‟s initial identity. The United States

20
has a clear advantage in the process as it has a rich variety of individuals who could

find a connection to a second language within their heritage.

Aptitude.

As early as 1959, Carroll and Sapon created the Modern Language Aptitude

Test (MLAT) which measured different areas of language ability, from a person‟s

ability to learn a series of numbers to testing his grammatical sensitivity. By 1966,

Pimsleur‟s Language Aptitude Battery, which was designed for adolescents, added a

new dimension to Carroll and Sapon‟s initial test as it included a section related to

motivation.

What exactly constitutes language aptitude is complex. McLaughlin (1990)

states that, “To the lay person, it seems obvious that intelligence is an important

factor determining an individual‟s success in learning a second language. Yet

research with this variable has not shown intelligence to be a necessary component

of aptitude in second language learning” (p. 162). Larsen-Freeman (2001) supports

this assertion when she states that “what constitutes an aptitude for language learning

and its precise relationship to IQ has been unclear” (p. 15), although she does go on

to elaborate that there was a “relationship among verbal intelligence, reasoning and

foreign language aptitude” (p 15). Skehan (1989) explained that both learners who

demonstrated proficiency in memory related areas as well as learners who possessed

strong analytical skills would stand out as having an aptitude for language.

Gass and Selinker (2001) allude to a series of British studies that looked into

language aptitude tests and found that there was a stronger correlation between

21
success and a subject‟s social class and parental education than there was between

aptitude test scores and success. Gass and Selinker explain that “individuals from

more privileged backgrounds as a whole receive higher scores on aptitude measure”

and that, with regards to second language acquisition, “it may be social and societal

backgrounds that are crucial” (p. 330).

The Critical Period Debate

The concept of a critical period is in fact a biological one. In the animal

world, the critical period is often extremely clear-cut. Newly hatched birds, for

example, imprint on the first moving object seen after birth. For a mallard duck,

imprinting must occur no more than 24 hours after birth. After this time, it will

never happen. In 1967, Lenneberg shook the linguistic community when he

published his Biological Foundations of Language, in which he stated that there

existed a critical period with regards to language – a physiological, clear cut-off age

at which an individual, as a result of physical maturation, suffered a diminished

capacity for language acquisition. He states:

Language cannot begin to develop until a certain level of physical

maturation and growth has been attained. Between the ages of two and
three years, language emerges by an interaction of maturation and self-
programmed learning. Between the ages of three and the early teens,
the possibility for primary language acquisition continues to be good;
the individual appears to be most sensitive to stimuli at this time and
able to preserve some innate flexibility for the organization of brain
functions to carry out the complex integration of subprocesses
necessary for the smooth elaboration of speech and language. After
puberty, the ability for self-organization and adjustment to the
physiological demands of verbal behavior quickly declines. The brain
behaves as if it had become set in its ways and primary, basic language
skills not acquired by that time, except for articulation, usually remain
deficient for life (p. 158).

22
 Therefore, the language learning skill is developed over a period of several

years. Humans develop this ability by taking advantage of the brain‟s plasticity.

Neurons make connections resulting from the stimulus received from the outside

environment, which in turn cause the development of the brain for language. The

left hemisphere of the brain has been identified as the area of specialization for

language and due to this, the process of language development has often been

referred to as lateralization. This has now become a recognized fact. “The general

belief is that during childhood (up until puberty), there is a period when the human

brain is most ready to „receive‟ and learn a particular language. This period is

referred to as the critical period” (Yule, 1996, p. 171). The notion is that after this

initial critical period (CP) has been passed, a child will not be able to learn, or at the

very least, the result will be linguistically inferior. Cases of “feral” children have

been used to test the hypothesis. Two famous cases, the case of Genie and the case

of Chelsea (Curtiss, 1977, 1989), both present us with children who, for different

reasons, received no linguistic input or stimulus from birth. Genie was deprived of

language input until the age of 13, resulting from a situation of abuse in her home.

She was taken out of her home at the age of 13 and was “taught” to speak. The

result of the delay in her acquisition, however, led to permanent consequences for

her ultimate linguistic attainment. She was able to acquire vocabulary at a very rapid

rate, but her syntax remained bizarre. Critics argued that Genie may have been

retarded to begin with, or that the torture Genie had survived might in itself have

caused a trauma that would result in halted acquisition. Yet as Eubank and Gregg

23
explain, Genie‟s language acquisition was successful in some aspects, and failed in

others. This unevenness marked by “Genie‟s syntactic deficits...seem more plausibly

attributable to lack of input itself during a critical period, rather than to the

viciousness with which that input was withheld” (1999, p. 74).

Chelsea is another such victim of linguistic deprivation. Yet, Chelsea‟s case

is not marred with a history of abuse. Chelsea was misdiagnosed as a child as being

retarded, and was later found, at the age of 31, to be deaf. With the help of hearing

aids, Chelsea was able to hear. She was taught to speak, but “Chelsea‟s utterances

appeared to have almost no structure at all” (Eubank and Gregg, 1999, p. 74). The

idea was that Chelsea had missed the window of opportunity for structuring language

or, in other words, had missed the critical period needed to acquire common forms of

language.

Pinker (1994) explains that a child‟s brain is most suited for language

learning. We “know that the language-learning circuitry of the brain is more plastic

in childhood; children learn or recover language when the left hemisphere of the

brain is damaged or even surgically removed (though not quite at normal levels), but

comparable damage in an adult usually leads to permanent aphasia” (p. 298).

Few now contest the notion that a child deprived of any language will have

difficulty acquiring one later in life. Lenneberg‟s statements, however, were not

limited to the acquisition of a first language. Lenneberg felt that age affected our

ability for second language acquisition. Older learners were at a disadvantage. He

24
was clear about the fact that, unlike the first language, second language acquisition

was not a case of impossibility. He explains:

Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn a second

language after the beginning of their second decade, although the
incidence of „language learning blocks‟ rapidly increases after puberty.
Also automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language
seems to disappear after this age, and foreign languages have to be
taught and learned through conscious and labored effort. Foreign
accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty. However, a person
can learn to communicate in a foreign language at the age of forty.
This does not trouble our basic hypothesis on age limitations because
we may assume that the cerebral organization for language learning as
such has taken place during childhood. (p. 176)

How the ability to acquire an additional language is affected once an

individual has perfected the first language and passed the traditional age for initial

language acquisition remains quite contested in the linguistic community. Popular

opinion extends the child‟s language learning ability (and subsequent inability) to the

acquisition of second or subsequent languages. Empirical observation of the

different rate and level of attainments of small children versus adults seems to

substantiate this notion. Pinker (1994) agrees with this notion and goes so far as to

say that although “there are great individual differences, which depend on effort,

attitude, amount of exposure, quality of teaching, and plain talent, but there seems to

be a cap even for the best adults in the best circumstances” (p. 295). He

hypothesizes that biologically the language learning capacity disappears early

because it is typically no longer needed. “Learning a language, as opposed to using a

language is perfectly useful as a one-shot skill” (p. 300). Therefore, once the initial

25
language has been learned, the technique of learning language is no longer necessary

as a biological function. Pinker adds:

Language-acquisition circuitry is not needed once it has been used; it

should be dismantled if keeping it around incurs any costs. And it
probably does incur costs. Metabolically, the brain is a pig. It
consumes a fifth of the body‟s oxygen and similarly large portions of
its calories and phospholipids. Greedy neural tissue lying around
beyond its point of usefulness is a good candidate for the recycling bin.
(p. 300)

What Pinker‟s theories do not account for are the many exceptions of

individuals who actually are able to learn an additional language past the traditional

age. Although he alludes to many “variables” outside of age that can affect the

language learning process, he is not able to pinpoint what exactly enables individuals

to learn an additional language, whether they be young or older. He also does not

give a clear idea of the age at which the language-acquisition circuitry will be

dismantled if unused. These are the issues that have caused the enormous debate in

the linguistic community.

Critical Period Studies throughout SLA

The issue of whether or not a critical period for second language acquisition

exists is highly contested in the linguistic community. The issue of when the critical

period ends is equally controversial. To better argue for and against these notions,

researchers have broken down language into different areas. General categories can

thus be looked at as being (a) the critical period and its effects on rate of acquisition

vs. ultimate attainment, (b) age effects on grammatical/syntactic abilities, (c) the

26
critical period for phonological ability, and, finally, (d) the critical period viewed

through neurological research.

The Critical Period and Its Effects on Rate of Acquisition vs. Ultimate Attainment

The existence of a critical period in second language acquisition would seem

to suggest that individuals who have passed a certain age and who have not taken

advantage of the window of opportunity given for language learning will not be able

to or will have greater difficulty learning a second language than would a younger

child. Such is what empirical observation shows us. Empirical evidence does show

many young children who have a facility to “pick up language” when they are

compared to their older immigrant parents. Research has thus been done to test this

view. Results vary dramatically. Some completely oppose the CP, while others

embrace it whole-heartedly. Harley and Wang (1997), who looked at several studies

on critical period in second language acquisition, reported that “Rate-of-acquisition

studies...have shown that adults and adolescents generally make faster initial

progress than children, and older children progress faster than younger children,

particularly in acquiring morphosyntactic and lexical aspects of the second

language” (p. 28). This initial rapid rate of acquisition in adult learners has been

greatly pointed out by researchers who do not accept the CP hypothesis (Genesee,

1988; Neufeld, 1979; Snow, 1987). Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000)

used such research to validate their argument that the research for the critical period

is riddled by misinterpretations, misattributions and misemphasis. Yet Harley and

Wang go on to explain that further research shows that “rate advantages can be

27
short-lived..., lasting only a few months for some aspects of performance” (p. 28).

They further emphasize that, “those that have analyzed long-term trends in second

language outcomes have regularly shown that an increasing age of onset is related to

diminishing ultimate success” (p. 29). Slavoff and Johnson (1995) also did a study

on acquisition of a second language with two age groups (7-9 year olds versus 10-12

year olds). They found that, “The results of the present study cast doubt on the

generalizability of the claim that older children are faster than younger children in

learning a second language in immersion settings” (p. 14).

Bialystok and Hakuta (1999) do not choose to negate the empirical evidence

that children seem to learn better than adults. They do not, however, feel that this

should be attributed to a critical period in language learning. They feel that “social

factors conspire to ease the effort for young children by providing a nurturing

environment, simplified input, educational opportunities, cooperative peers, and

other supporting aspects of a social context that facilitate the acquisition of any

language” (p. 178). Such factors alone could explain for them the discrepancy

between language learning for adults and children. Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and

Snow (2000) found additional reasons to account for the discrepancy. “Older

immigrants are more likely to structure heavily L1 environments for themselves, thus

retarding their own L2 exposure and acquisition” (p. 26).

When considering ultimate levels of attainment, much research has found that

children are at an advantage (Oyama, 1976; Krashen, Long, and Scarcella, 1979;

Harley, 1986). Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) found that the literature

28
revealed that although starting older brought about faster progress, starting younger

was ultimately better as only younger learners would be able to attain native-like

performance.

Research thereby shows that although initially (although some put this into

question) older subjects learn a second language faster, the early gains in attainment

are matched and even surpassed by the younger learner in the long run. Researchers

disagree as to whether or not these perceived differences can be attributed to the

critical period hypothesis or whether they are a result of other social factors.

Age Effects on Grammatical/Syntactic Abilities

The question of ultimate attainment in linguistic skills for individuals is often

measured by the individual‟s syntactic ability in a given language. Chomsky initially

brought about the idea that humans possessed the capacity for language through an

innate ability to structure language and what he called a universal grammar or UG.

The notion of critical period would suggest that if someone passes the window of

opportunity, the UG would somehow be dismantled and thus the individual would

not be able to pick up a new language. Yet this would appear to be easily disproved

since adults can, if pushed, learn a second language. Eubank and Gregg (1999) point

this out: “Even though adults are generally not particularly successful L2 learners,

they are not total failures” (p. 80) as might be expected from a critical period point of

view. What appears to be a more accurate description is that ability decreases with

age rather than gets erased all together at any one age.

29
 Johnson and Newport (1989) studied Korean and Chinese learners of English

who had all lived in the United States for at least 5 years. The participants varied in

their age of arrival into the country. Participants were asked to find errors in

grammatical sentences. The study clearly showed that age did have an impact on

ultimate attainment of individuals in their second language, with the younger

participants ranking as more fluent than the older ones. Harley and Wang (1999)

state that “the findings of Johnson and Newport provide further evidence of a general

pattern of declining morpholosyntactic outcomes for older second language learners

that applies to both UG and language-specific features” (p. 32). This study is often

cited as being an important one to support the critical period hypothesis. Yet,

Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000) cite a study in which Bialystok and

Hakuta “recalculated the correlation between age on arrival and scores on the

grammaticality judgment test and showed deterioration in subjects‟ proficiency only

after age 20, much later than biological changes associated with puberty” (Marinova-

Todd, Marshall, and Snow, p. 14). Snow (1987) points out that “the onset of decline

in the Johnson study (age 7-8) does not… coincide with any particularly salient

change in brain functioning” (p. 194).

Research thus seems to acknowledge that although age is a factor, there seem

to be different ages for different types of linguistic exercises. In terms of L1

acquisition, Genie clearly had missed one window of opportunity, and Chelsea, who

learned her initial language even later, had missed even more. The lesson they

provide is that there seems to be more than one window. The windows of

30
opportunity may also be more complex than merely biological. Moyer (2004) points

out that “the linearity of the age-outcome relationship appears to fade at maturation

(around age 12 or so), suggesting that declines in language learning after that point

are due to factors other than age” (p. 9).

This, of course, makes sense when one considers just how humans acquire

language. Children do indeed learn to speak early on, yet a child does not have as

sophisticated a speech pattern as does an adult. In fact, Cummins (1994)

distinguished different levels of expertise in language. He distinguished basic

communication skills, which he called basic interpersonal communicative skills

(BICS), to the more academic languages, or cognitive academic language

proficiency (CALP). He explained that even if a second language learner could

attain BICS relatively quickly, the acquisition of CALP was far slower. His

distinction is important because it explains that all language is learned progressively.

Children do not acquire language, and then move on. The desire to find an exact

date and time whereby a critical period would be passed is not compatible with the

way humans learn language. It would appear logical that if ultimate attainment is

progressive, then the inability to attain should be equally progressive. As Eubank

and Gregg (1999) point out, “There is a vast architectural difference between post-

CP L1 acquisition and post- CP L2 acquisition; this difference alone suggests that an

effect as plainly gross as no access or full access is not particularly plausible in the

latter case” (p. 80). This does not mean, however, that there does not exist a

31
sensitive period or window of opportunity, or that adults do not have more trouble

learning than children.

Age effects on grammatical/syntactic abilities have been studied at length.

Researchers for the critical period hypothesis find support for their theory by

studying syntactic acquisition of immigrants entering the country at different ages.

Opponents argue that the drop in achievement level between levels of attainment is

actually found far beyond the age of puberty, and thereby attributing the drop to a

critical period is erroneous. Other causes need be sought out.

The Critical Period for Phonological Ability

The third area of focus for the critical period research is a learner‟s

phonological ability, or ability to develop a native-like accent. Biologically, it is

stated that an infant will learn to distinguish different sounds up to the age of 12

months. One of the problems that adults have in learning language is in fact the

inability to distinguish and reproduce sounds. This is typically the area where

researchers converge and agree that there is indeed a critical period. Adult learners

tend to keep their accent. Pinker (1994) illustrates this by giving the famed example

of Henry Kissinger who speaks a very fluent English, but will undoubtedly maintain

an extremely strong accent until the day he dies. Despite the long-standing

consensus that a critical period does in fact exist as to an individual‟s ability to

develop a native accent, recent research has tried to point in a different direction.

Bongearts (1999), for example, concludes from his research that “although the

speech of L2 learners is typically accented, it seems that we have identified at least

32
some individuals who have beaten the predictions of the critical period hypothesis

for accent by attaining a native-like pronunciation of an L2” (p. 155). Yet Scovel

(2000) responds to this type of assertion. “It may be possible that for the vast

majority of adult language learners, a native-like accent remains impossible. But for

all natural populations, exceptions abound, and these rare examples of precocious

pronunciation may represent exceptions found within plus two or three standard

deviations from the norm” (2000, p. 217). Harley and Wang (1997) explain that

there is “the finding of a strong linear relationship between accent rating and arrival

age (with length of residence controlled) has nonetheless been consistent, with the

youngest child arrivals up to about age 7 typically achieving native or near-native

ratings and adult arrivals rarely rising to a near-native level of performance” (p. 29).

Flege (1999) rejects the critical period hypothesis, and declares, “L2

pronunciation accuracy may decline, not because one has lost the ability to learn to

pronounce, but because one has learned to pronounce the L1 so well” (p. 125). His

assertion is interesting but it is not altogether clear how it refutes a critical period.

Pronunciation remains a question of age since presumably for Flege, the ability to

pronounce one‟s L1 “so well” is not achieved immediately but is a question of time.

Flege does lead to another question, discussed by Moyer (1999), which in

fact could be a more compelling argument against the critical period. Moyer studied

graduate students having learned German after puberty. Her study showed that all

but one participant had not achieved a native level of performance phonologically.

What was interesting about the study was that the one native-like participant was the

33
only one to state that “sounding German” was important to him. All participants

wanted to excel linguistically, but this participant was the only one to actually want

to attain the level of fluency in accent. The notion here is important because it raises

questions of motivation rather than age as to attaining a level of fluency. It does not

altogether negate the critical period, however, since a child need not list motivation

to obtain the desired accent.

Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000) showed that there were ways to

counteract accents. They acknowledged that adults tend to have accents, but this is

more a function of environmental factors, and not biological ones. They cite

research done by Champagne-Muzar, Schneiderman, & Bourdages (1993) that

“showed that the amount of phonological training before testing had a significant

positive effect on the pronunciation of a group of university students” (p. 25). The

group goes on to cite other studies which showed ways to counter an accent in

adults, and thereby negate the critical period hypothesis. The Marinova-Todd,

Marshall, and Snow assertions do point to studies where accent was diminished, if

not avoided. However, each time the studies employed special methods to get

around the accent issue. Children do not need special strategies to avoid accents.

The fact that there needs to be special steps taken in itself reinforces the notion of a

critical period since this requirement comes about only with age. Here the Flege

argument of knowing one‟s L1 too well comes back to mind.

Accent is usually the least controversial of the critical period arguments in

language. Scovel (2000) points out that, “one of the earliest claims made about the

34
CPH, based on the initial work of Penfield and Lenneberg, was the presumption that

a CP existed only for „speech‟ and not for „language‟” (2000, p. 216). The fact is

that most researchers agree that accent seems to be a by-product of learning a

language later in life. Some researchers find exceptional learners, but they appear to

remain exceptions to the rule. Even in cases of more systematic success for adult

learners, researchers do show that special measures must be taken to achieve results

that come naturally to children.

The Critical Period Viewed through Neurological Research.

Brain research has exploded in the last decade giving rise to much research

related to studying the critical period and language acquisition. Harley and Wang

(1997) explain that brain research has led to explanations for a critical period. They

cite the Pulvermuller and Schumann study (1994) who argued that “the strengthening

of synaptic connections between neurons is the probable neurobiological basis of

learning (in general) and that the declining ability with age to acquire phonological

and syntactic knowledge is caused by a gradual loss of plasticity in the maturing

language cortex associated with increasing difficulty in strengthening nerve cell

connections or in forming new ones” (p. 42). The study does not negate a possibility

of learning at a later age but it does show that such learning becomes increasingly

difficult.

Weber-Fox and Neville (1999) went one step further by actually mapping the

brain using current medical technology. What they found was that late bilinguals

tended tasks to shift their “language hemisphere” from left to right for some

35
linguistic. Whereas the early bilinguals used only the left hemisphere for both

languages, late bilinguals used both left and right hemispheres of their brain for

processing language.

Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000) argue that this brain mapping

leads researchers to “misattributions” which suggest a critical period. They argue

that “there is no strong evidence that the localization of the processing of any of the

experimental tasks in a particular part of the brain was associated with better

processing” (p. 17).

The fact that different areas of the brain are used to process language when

they are learned at different times of life does lead to a critical period. However,

Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow do have a point in that the research does not

then look at qualitative aspects in these bilinguals. Assuming these speakers are

equally fluent, then this would attest to the brain‟s ultimate flexibility which is able

to reallocate resources for new stimulus even after the typical language learning time

is done. One could hypothesize that this is made possible by the fact that the

individual did not miss a critical period of their first language. One could further add

that the fact that a whole new allocation of resources is necessary does indeed

account for the lower rates of success in older learners. The amount of effort

required to teach a part of the brain something it is not typically trained for is bound

to be substantial. As such, the environmental factors that anti-critical period

researchers do keep bringing up, such as motivation, education, other linguistic

skills, methods used, as well as environment, would inevitably become major factors

36
in the success or failure of an individual. These are all factors that do not affect the

young learner to the same degree. Again, this in itself suggests that some form of

critical period does exist, even if it is not one that leads to an all or nothing result.

Implications of the Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition

Lenneberg (1967) tried to set a clear age at which a second language learner

would pass the critical period and no longer be able to be expected to learn a second

language with any reasonable amount of success. Lenneberg‟s theory revolved

around the idea that sometime near puberty, which Lenneberg felt could start as early

as 9-10 and end as late as 17, an individual‟s ability to recover language after a

trauma, and thus, by extension his ability to learn a foreign language, would be

greatly diminished. His point was made specifically with regards to phonology and

yet his definition was much contested, and in and of itself launched the whole CP

debate with regards to second language acquisition as a whole. The debate rages to

this date, and the best compromise that has been offered is that a sensitive period,

rather than a critical period, does exist. There is no clear age whereby all

individuals stop being successful at learning a second language. What has been

observed is that as an individual ages, his or her ability to acquire a second language

becomes more difficult – i.e. requires more effort and has an increased chance of

failure.

There seems to be a general fear on the part of those opposed to the critical

period hypothesis that somehow accepting such a hypothesis would lead to faulty

judgments on the part of lawmakers. Discrimination against adults by limiting their

37
potential, and even careless pedagogical policies, would give young children early

language learning only to take it away. Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow (2000)

warn that, “Children who study a foreign language for only a year or two in

elementary school show no long-term effects; they need several years of continued

instruction to achieve even modest proficiency” (p. 28). The assertion is given as a

warning, and Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow caution that research suggests

that language is a very slow process developed over time. How policy makers could

translate a critical period with a couple of years of a foreign language in elementary

school seems baffling. Of course, current trends in foreign language pedagogy are

equally futile, and thus maybe the Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow warning is

not quite as unnecessary as would be hoped.

It is important to understand the CP process because it has pedagogical

implications. Younger and older learners may require different pedagogical

methods. There is evidence of this when one looks at immersion programs.

However, there is still much ignorance about the SLA learning process and how

individuals respond to it. To avoid irrational policies, it is important to get a full

understanding of what a language learner actually goes through at all stages of

development.

Qualitative Research Methods in SLA

Mitchell and Myles (2004) define the second languages referred to in the

term “second language acquisition” as being,

Any languages other than the learner‟s „native language‟ or „mother

tongue‟. They include both languages of wider communication
38
 encountered within the local region or community (e.g. at the
workplace or in the media) and truly foreign languages, which have no
immediately local uses or speakers. They may indeed be a second
language learners are working with, in a literal sense, or they may be
their third, fourth, or even fifth language. It is sensible to include
„foreign‟ languages under our more general term of „second‟ languages,
because we believe that the underlying learning processes are
essentially the same for more local and for more remote target
languages, despite differing learning purposes and circumstances. (p. 5-
6)

Therefore, the “second” referred to in second language acquisition (SLA) is a

very broad all-encompassing concept. Block (2003) summarizes various other

researchers‟ definitions of SLA as a field by stating that “there seems to be

agreement that the goals of SLA are to study, discover and characterise [sic] the what

and how of any language acquired to any degree after the putative first language” (p.

8).

As a field, SLA is historically very recent. Its origins have a direct impact on

what it has become for us and the methodological implications this brings for

researchers today. Cook (1993) states:

SLA research grew out of many language-related disciplines.

Linguistics was influential through linguists who were concerned with
society and bilingualism, such as Weinrich. First language acquisition
came in through the adaptation of the 1960s techniques and ideas
originally devised to confirm or disconfirm Chomsky‟s ideas.
Language teaching was brought in by applied linguists trying to
develop language teaching through a better understanding of language
learning, such as Lado and Corder. There was no uniform background
for researchers in either their goals, their views of language, or their
methodology; people were not trained in SLA research per se but came
to it from other academic disciplines, not necessarily linguistics. (p. 23)

These origins are important as they have given rise to a field that has a rather

ominous task. As Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) state “in sum, the scope of SLA

39
research must be sufficiently broad to include a variety of subjects who speak a

variety of native languages, who are in the process of acquiring a variety of second

languages in a variety of settings for a variety of reasons” (p. 7). Essentially, one

researcher may be trying to identify the rate of morpheme acquisition in 60 year old

learners of Portuguese while another researcher is trying to understand the social

interaction amongst students in Canadian immersion programs, and the impact this

has on acquisition. Both hypothetical scenarios would be categorized as SLA

studies. Yet the researchers are operating from very different theoretical frameworks

and will adopt very different methodologies with which to approach their given

study.

The fact that SLA is originally a non-field, or rather a field that draws from

many other fields, has led to a complex research scenario. Gass and Selinker (2001)

illustrate:

The study of second language acquisition impacts and draws from

many other areas of study, among them linguistics, psychology,
psycholinguistics, sociology, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis,
conversational analysis, and education, to name a few. Given the close
relationship between second language acquisition and other areas of
inquiry, there are numerous approaches from which to examine second
language data, each one of which brings the study of second language
acquisition its own goals, its own data-collection methods, and its own
analytic tools. Thus, second language acquisition is truly an
interdisciplinary field. (p. 1-2)

Not surprisingly, this has given way to a field in which researchers have very

different views about what is the best way to address their research issues.

40
Larson-Freeman and Long (1991) describe the SLA scene as such:

Today it is fair to say that SLA has a varied inventory of methodologies

with which to deal with questions, although the methodologies are by
no means universally endorsed. Indeed, there is an oft-cited schism in
the SLA field between those researchers who favour [sic] qualitative
methodologies and those who prefer quantitative methodologies. (p.
10)

Beyond the controversy, the SLA agenda is ambitious and huge enough to

make room for many types of approaches to research. What is important is not

deciding if one form of research is more valid, but rather understanding in which

contexts and how each type of research can be used to help better the understanding

of the SLA process as a whole.

The complexity of the SLA phenomenon is such that one perspective will not

accurately answer the myriad of questions that face the SLA community. Seliger

and Shohamy (1989) elucidate four parameters to provide a framework on which

research methods can be established. The first two parameters deal with the

conceptual level upon which research questions are founded, while the last two

parameters discuss practical issues related to carrying out the research out.

Parameter one: Synthetic and analytic approaches.

How we study second language acquisition is vast and infinite. SLA as a

phenomenon can be viewed as one complex interconnected jumble of many sub

factors and influences. Linguistically, SLA can be seen as comprising phonology,

syntax, semantics, pragmatics, etc… Yet each of these categories can be broken

down into smaller units as well. Phonology can be studied in terms of syllable

41
structure or vowel systems exclusively. Each smaller subsystem is part of a greater

whole which we ultimately call SLA. Seliger and Shahomany (1989) explain:

Viewing second language learning as a super-system of interacting

systems allows us to grasp the enormous complexity involved in
carrying out research in this area, while at the same time understanding
how at any level we can approach research either by looking at the
larger picture or any of its parts. There are two ways to approach the
study of a field with many component parts: either we attempt to grasp
the whole or large parts of it in order to get a clearer idea of the
possible interrelationships among the components, or we identify small
parts of the whole for careful and close study, attempting to fit the
small pieces into a coherent picture of the whole at a later stage. (p. 26)

The point is to distinguish two possible perspectives of the researcher.

Research can thus be viewed from what Seliger and Shohamy call a synthetic/holistic

perspective which places importance on the notion of interdependence of the many

parts within the field, or from an analytic/constituent perspective in which research

will strive to investigate a single factor or a cluster of factors which are elements

within the greater system. Each perspective furthers the SLA agenda in its own way.

Ideally, the varying approaches could be seen as complementing each other. A

holistic approach could help identify areas where analytic approach could later delve,

for example.

Parameter two: Heuristic and deductive objectives.

The goal or objectives researchers have will be varied. A researcher may

have a heuristic goal in that the focus is on trying to discover or describe observed

patterns related to second language acquisition. The goal of such research would be

to potentially come up with a hypothesis related to SLA. On the opposite side of the

42
spectrum, a researcher may want to test a hypothesis about second language to

hopefully, as a result, be able to generate a theory related to SLA.

A researcher adopting a heuristic perspective will be attempting to observe

and record any and all information possible related to his or her chosen area of SLA.

The researcher is not striving to answer questions per se. On the contrary, the

researcher is trying to avoid preconceptions and work with the data collected to

discover patterns, behaviors which may lead to questions and hypotheses. Heuristic

research is inductive by nature and its goal is to establish hypotheses for further

research.

The deductive researcher, on the other hand, has as a launching point a

preconceived expectation about second language acquisition. The researcher makes

predictions and the goal is to test a hypothesis. From the onset this research is

focused, and SLA has been broken down into a smaller unit so as to allow the

researcher to investigate a given issue in a systematic fashion.

The first two parameters help establish a researcher‟s philosophical stance

with regards to the question to be studied. They represent the basic approach and

objective of the researcher‟s study. Once this has been established, a researcher will

then be able to decide how he or she will conduct the actual research, which leads us

to the last two parameters. It is important to note, however, that the first two

parameters fundamentally guide a researcher‟s choice of methodology.

43
 Parameter three: Control and manipulation of the research context

All research will involve some type of control or manipulation of the research

context. This can be as slight as a researcher choosing to record certain behaviors

over others, or as intrusive as setting up a laboratory with specific task tests and pre-

selected subjects. The degree of control, however, is very much a result of the

research agenda.

The researcher‟s scope or focus in the study is one element of control. A

heuristic study will try and adopt as little restriction on the scope of study as possible

in an effort to get a full and global picture of the phenomenon under investigation.

Limiting the focus of the research enables a researcher to have fuller control of

variables and lends itself to a more deductive hypothesis testing type of research.

Control of variables becomes important in this type of research as a researcher must

be able to state that findings are due to the factors studied, and not something else.

In SLA research, a major form of control is embedded in the object being

studied, i.e. language. A researcher can study language as a mode of

communication, as well as an object in and of itself. If we want to study language as

a means of communication, we usually focus on the content as opposed to the form.

Much of SLA research, however, is geared at studying the form of language. In this

case, the researcher has several options available to him. The researcher can allow

the subject to speak in a natural setting and use only the language that is produced.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the researcher can set up specific language

tasks, which will guarantee that the subject will produce the form under

44
investigation. This method exerts the greatest control and is used in more

experimental research. Its pitfalls, however, are great in that the subjects being

studied become extremely aware of the setting. Seliger and Shohamy (1989) state

that “in research in which the focus is not clear to the subjects, it is more likely that

the data collected will be representative of what learners normally do” (p. 36).

A final feature of control in the research setting lies in the hands of the

researcher himself. The heuristic studies depend on the researcher‟s ability to

observe and pick up on patterns and behaviors of a language learner, which in turn

will require that the researcher interpret findings. This implies a fair amount of

researcher subjectivity in the very design. In general, the more experimental the

design, the less the researcher subjectivity is allowed to enter. The subjectivity of

the researcher is involved in the researcher‟s choice of research methodology,

however, the experimental design, by nature, limits subjectivity as it implies that the

research can be replicated by another party.

Parameter four: Data and data collection.

The data collection method used is directly related to the researcher‟s

approach, purpose, and degree of focus. The choices the researcher makes with

regards to the first three parameters will dictate what that researcher will deem as

data and the way in which the researcher will choose to collect the data.

What constitutes data becomes a huge question for the researcher, and the

answer to this question is different depending on which approach the researcher has

chosen. However, the researcher cannot decide how to collect data before he has

45
established exactly what data is. In SLA, data becomes a complex phenomenon. Is

data everything the researcher is observing in a natural setting? Is it only the

utterances produced in a laboratory setting? Does the researcher take into account

the distinction between competence and performance when analyzing and accepting

data?

How to collect data becomes a question for debate as well. Is the researcher

trying to isolate a specific unit of language, or study the dynamics of a classroom?

In general, the more specific the data collection methods are in singling out a specific

area, the more the subject becomes aware of the researcher‟s goal, which will

inevitably result in the subject‟s attempt to monitor his or her responses.

Although Seliger and Shohamy‟s four parameters are dealing with different

types and aspects of second language acquisition research, they stress the importance

of understanding that the areas are all interconnected and related.

Ultimately, Seliger and Shohamy (1989) conclude:

It is useful to investigate second language from the perspective of these

parameters because they capture the unique characteristics of second
language research. Second language acquisition is an area of
investigation which draws on many other fields such as linguistic
theory, education, first language acquisition, psychology, and others. It
cannot adopt the research paradigm of any one of these related fields
but must develop research methodologies of its own which allow for a
variety of approaches and flexibility in investigating research questions.
(p. 41)

Despite this, there are many who disagree with the notion of opting for

flexibility in research methods. Historically, as an uncharted field, SLA borrowed

much of its original research methodologies from first language acquisition research.

46
As a result, the field has been dominated by researchers who view language learning

as a systematic mental faculty – and the bulk of studies produced in the area of SLA

are based on this paradigm. Current SLA theory thus stresses the importance of

mental processes, and the goal of research is to understand these processes and

acquire linguistic knowledge.

Mainstream SLA theory is heavily influenced by what Johnson (2004) calls a

“quantitative bias.” She states that:

Something that cannot be measured and quantified is treated

superficially or is simply excluded from a study design. Most of the
study designs used within the cognitive approach to SLA fall under the
category of experimental research method designs within well-defined
variables and inferential statistical procedures. (p. 44)

This is confirmed by Long (1997) when he declares, “Most SLA researchers

view the object of inquiry as in large part an internal, mental process: the acquisition

of new (linguistic) knowledge” (p. 319). He further belittles research not geared

toward this accepted purpose when he declares, “social and affective factors, the L2

acquisition literature suggests are important, but relatively minor in their impact, in

both naturalistic and classroom settings, and most current theories of and in SLA

reflect that fact” (p. 322). He concludes by stating that “to date insights into SL

acquisition from sociolinguistically oriented research have been relatively minor” (p.

322).

Although it is a fact that SLA research has been dominated by the cognitive

paradigm, Johnson declares that Long type statements are “particularly harmful to

SLA researchers working within a more socially oriented paradigm” (p. 44) as this

47
view “hinders progress in our field” (p. 45). She goes on to declare that “the

exclusion of insights that differ from the position held by the majority does

disservice to our efforts to understand the complex processes of SLA” (p. 45).

SLA research has developed over the years to grow beyond the borders of

strict linguistics, and increasingly “we can find contemporary theoretical discussions,

proposals for more socially engaged forms of second language acquisition research”

(Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p. 260). Indeed, researchers like Firth and Wagner

(1997), Block (2003), and Johnson (2004) deplore the focus on etic knowledge of

language learning, and advocate research of an emic nature.

Although the push for sociological and learner centered SLA research is

relatively recent, it would be erroneous to say that all research in the past has been

exclusively cognitive. A constant focus of many SLA researchers has been to try to

uncover reasons why some people are clearly more successful than others at

language acquisition. Despite the clear choice of quantitative means of research,

qualitative studies have had their place, albeit a small one, in the annals of SLA.

Different types of qualitative studies that have been used in SLA include:

1) Introspection. The introspective study is one in which the researcher helps

guide the subject to enable him or her to elaborate on issues related to their

behaviors, and thereby give insights into SLA. This has historically been a very

contested means of research. Researchers opposed to this type of study argue that

the subject cannot possibly report accurately what amounts to an unconscious

phenomenon for them (Seliger, 1983; Gaies, 1983). However, more recently, many

48
have come out in favor of this type of research. More and more researchers argue

that subjects are able to speak about their language learning experiences and even

give insight into their role in the language learning process (Wenden, 1986).

Barkhuizen (1998) and Riley (1997) both speak openly of the fact that it is quite

disconcerting that researchers and teachers are so quick to dismiss the students‟

beliefs when they are pivotal to their success.

2) Participant observation. In this type of study, the researcher becomes the

researched in a sense. More exactly, researchers actively take part in the very

behavior they are studying. They are heuristically studying the phenomenon as they

do not bring any preconceived ideas or, more exactly, they are not testing any

specific hypothesis. The approach is to take notes on both what is being observed, as

well as what they themselves are experiencing. The time span of this type of

research is generally long. Bailey (1980) did such a study in which she recorded,

through journals, her experiences with regards to learning French. She kept a diary,

and in it she recorded her experiences with the class, as well as those of other

participants. More recently, a similar study was done by Hosenfeld (2003), who

recorded her experiences in a diary as she attempted to learn Spanish.

The participant observation provides us with many positive insights into

language learning. Initially, the sheer volume of information provided is useful.

Because there are no hypotheses to be proven or tested, the researcher is open to

discovering all potential elements that affect the language learning process. These

49
studies are further longitudinal by nature and provide us with the ability to see over

time the evolution of the development of the subject(s).

3) Non-participant observation. Similar to participant observation, the

researcher does not set out to test a hypothesis, but rather observes the activities that

a group of learners is engaged in. These studies, as with the participant observation

studies, are typically longitudinal studies. The difference being, of course, that the

researcher is not herself engaged in the activity being observed. This enables the

researcher more time to actively take notes related to what is being seen. The most

famous of such studies was the ten year study of Leopold (1970) who for ten years

(1939-1949) recorded his daughter‟s acquisition of English and German. He

published his findings in a four-volume work.

The non-participant observation offers the same advantages and

disadvantages as the participant observation. In general, both types of research are

as good as the researcher conducting them since there is extreme dependence on the

subjectivity of the researcher and her ability to pick up on salient information.

Although the scope of such research is not limited by the testing of a hypothesis, it is

limited by the researcher‟s bias. In participant observation, there is the added stress

of the researcher being forced to divide her time between engaging in the activity

and observing the phenomenon.

Learning a language is an internal process. It is difficult for a researcher to

pick up on what is happening in a learner‟s mind merely by observing the learner.

Compounded with this is that the researcher is often observing a situation in which

50
she may be unfamiliar with either the second language being learned or the native

language of the learner. This type of research is thus typically used to describe and

uncover the social context of the language classroom. This is not to say that such

research does not contribute to the SLA field. Insight into social interaction within

the classroom is one key feature to understanding the SLA process. As Breen (2001)

observed, “Several researchers have identified such interaction as the crucible

wherein the linguistic and communicative environment made available to the

learners will shape the process and outcomes of language development” (p. 112).

4) Focused description. The focused description is a hybrid in research in that

it uses both qualitative and quantitative means of research. The focused description

is similar to the observational study in that it involves having a researcher provide a

description based on the observation of a given setting. It is, however, more focused

in that the researcher is setting out from the beginning to narrow his perceptual view

and looks specifically for some behavior, for some specific language system, or a

particular dynamic within the setting being observed. Such studies stray from the

classical qualitative study as they typically set out to test a hypothesis. Researchers

may use a data collection device which helps them merely record or tally the

behavior they seek to identify as it occurs. The researcher may further then try to

establish correlations between types of behavior observed. Much of the

methodology resembles a more quantitative approach and yet, unlike a typical

experimental study, the researchers do not attempt to manipulate the natural setting.

51
 The focused description is a good example of how SLA researchers have

adapted traditional research techniques to suit their complex field of study.

Ultimately, what type of research is best accepted depends entirely on the theoretical

lens the researcher is choosing. It also depends on which area of SLA the researcher

is interested in. Mitchell and Myles (2004) explain:

Different research groups are pursuing theoretical agendas that centre

on very different parts of the total language learning process; while
many place the modeling of learner grammars at the heart of the
enterprise, others focus on language processing, or on second language
interaction. Each tradition has developed its cluster or specialized
research procedures, ranging from the grammaticality judgement [sic]
tests associated with Universal Grammar-inspired research, to the
naturalistic observation and recording practiced by ethnographers and
language socialization theorists. On the whole, grand synthesizing
theories, which try to encompass all aspects of SLL is a single model,
have not received general support. (p. 257)

Increasingly, qualitative means of exploration are finding their way into the

SLA field. The new schools of thought that are espousing qualitative methods have,

however, not replaced old methods of research; they have merely run parallel to the

established schools of thought. What is important is that the different schools do not

ignore each other as this would be counterproductive. If each area of SLA works in

complete isolation of all others, we will lose out on expanding our knowledge of

SLA. It is through the interplay of the varying agendas that we can hope to gain a

better understanding of the SLA process as a whole.

52
 Sociocultural School of Thought as it Applies to SLA

Block (2003) declares, “Until the mid 1990s, explicit calls for an

interdisciplinary, socially informed SLA were notable by their absence” (p. 3).

Indeed, up until the 1990s, the field of SLA was dominated either by the IIO model,

which focused exclusively on mental processes, or on research that tried to find

specific traits, such as aptitude or anxiety, which could be measured, quantified and,

thus, generalized to explain success or failure in SLA.

The most recent trend in SLA has been a turning away from this past

perspective toward a view of the learner as a social being, one that is involved in a

variety of social networks which necessarily affect the learning process. This view

has brought interest in factors that help construct learners‟ identities – their social

class, their environment, and other forces that surround them and have an impact.

The theoretical lens used by such researchers has, in great part, been influenced by

the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Vygotsky‟s influencial sociocultural theory can be broken down into three

guiding principals (Wertsch, 1990; Johnson, 2001, 2004):

Developmental analysis of mental processes: Vygotsky felt it was necessary

to understand the nature of human development in light of the evolutionary

development of humans. Man is unique as a species because each generation builds

on the knowledge provided by his ancestors. To understand human higher mental

53
functioning, Vygotsky felt it was important to study both mental activity

longitudinally as well as over a very short period of time.

Social origin of human mental processes: Vygotsky claimed that all higher

mental functions are a result of social interactions. Higher mental functions originate

on an interpersonal plane, through social and cultural interaction. Once the

interaction has taken place, the individual internalizes and processes these social

activities, which moves the stimuli to an intrapersonal plane. Basically, higher

mental functions develop via the internalization of external forces, which Vygotsky

spoke of as happening in a zone of proximal development (ZPD), i.e. the area where

learning actively takes place. The ZPD is the location where an individual might not

be completely capable of independently solving a problem but, given a nudge or a

little guidance, becomes able to push past the block and work through a problem –

thus exceeding his current developmental level. As defined by Vygotsky (1978), the

ZPD is “the difference between the child‟s development level as determined by

independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with

more capable peers” (p. 85). Vygotsky was particularly interested in a child‟s

potential for development rather than her current mental state, for two individuals

with equal states of actual development will have different potentials for

development, as demonstrated by their ability to solve a problem and the amount of

guidance they require from a facilitator.

54
 The role of sign systems in the development of human higher mental

functions: Language, for Vygotsky, serves a central part in human higher mental

activities. Language is the mediator between the interpersonal and intrapersonal

planes. Speech serves as a means of communication inside, as well as out, and the

individual uses inner speech to process, analyze, and understand his external

environment. When faced with new, complex information, children often engage in

what is called private speech, whereby they talk to themselves out loud. This

process helps them work through new information. Although adults do not typically

speak out loud to themselves, they engage in what Vygotsky called inner speech, i.e.

the taking of thoughts and verbalizing them. It is not the same as the external speech

we use for communication. Inner speech, like private speech, is the process which

allows us to take what we hear and process it through thought. Inner speech allows

the development of higher mental functions and allows us to progress through the

zone of proximal development. For this, an individual must have a grasp of

language in a decontextualized state for, although inner speech is syntactically much

more simplistic, the content is dense.

Activity Theory

Vygotsky‟s sociocultural theory was the foundation for activity theory.

Initially started by Vygotsky‟s successor, A.N. Leontiev, activity theory has been

refined and molded by contemporary researchers such as Wertsch (1991, 1998),

Engestrom (1999), and Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001). Vygotsky‟s theory

concentrates on the role of language and our social environment on an individual‟s

55
ability to develop intellectually. In activity theory, there is a stronger emphasis on

tools and the objects of labor. Activity theory holds that any activity has three

levels: motives, actions, and operations. An individual does not launch into an

activity unless he is motivated by either biological or cultural forces. To achieve the

objective, specific actions will be taken, bringing him to an operational level which

will vary depending on the conditions the individual is placed under to engage in the

activity.

The motivation for a given activity is critical, for if the impetus is different,

the activity itself is different, even if two individuals engage in the same activity and

achieve the same result. For, if the motives differ, actions to achieve the goal will

differ, and the operational level, i.e., the way the action is carried out, will differ as

well.

The Role of SCT and Activity Theory in SLA

Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Donato (1998), Schinke-Llano (1998) all

studied SLA using a Vygotsian approach and, more specifically, applying

Vygotsky‟s theory of the zone of proximal development. Donato‟s study, tracking

individuals learning French, revealed that individuals at the same level of linguistic

development were able to help each other work through problems encountered, and

thereby stimulate each other through the zone of proximal development to advance

in their linguistic journey. Donato‟s results move away from the traditional model of

language learning where a more advanced teacher is the facilitator, and also moves

away from the extremely linear IIO model.

56
 Schinke-Llano‟s study reviewed two existing studies of language learner

groups. One group consisted of English second language learners, and the second

had learning disabled students. Despite the very different groups being studied, the

researcher found that the results were surprisingly similar. Essentially, the study

found that educators in these classrooms provided too much guidance to both the

learning disabled students and to the second language learners, as compared with

native or non-disabled learners, thereby inhibiting their progress by not allowing

them to work through problems on their own.

Aljaafreh and Lantolf did a longitudinal study, which consisted of having

three adult ESL learners engage in written assignments and receive personalized

feedback from a private language tutor every week. All three learners were initially

at the same level of development, but the study showed that they were not at the

same level of potential development, did not function in the same way in the ZPD,

and, therefore, required very different levels of assistance.

The Language Classroom’s Social Setting

Patricia Sullivan‟s (2000) study on a language classroom in Vietnam

demonstrated that the classroom and the activities that occur there must not be

dissociated from their cultural, political, and social settings. The study tracked a

group of Vietnamese students in an English class using a popular western language

learning technique that was created by western scholars and based on western

cultural assumptions, which drastically conflicted with the Confucian values of the

Vietnamese students. As a result, the program was unsuccessful and the students did

57
not progress. This study suggests that educators must take into account the cultural

context and get away from having SLA be only studied at the IIO level.

Activity Theory and SLA

Activity theory emphasizes motivation. Barbara Gillette (1994) studied six

students from the University of Delaware enrolled in an intermediate French class.

The study attempted to track effective and ineffective language learners through the

investigation of the learners‟ social background in an effort to ascertain what value

they placed on learning a second language. The study revealed that learners who

valued language learning became more effective learners, enjoyed the process more,

and overcame failures more readily than did those who did not value the learning

process.

Coughlan and Duff (1998) took activity theory and applied it to a research

study in which they asked one Cambodian and four Hungarian subjects to describe a

picture they were given on two separate occasions. The premise of their study was

that there needed to be a distinction placed between a task and an activity. A task is

defined as a research tool to help elicit explicit behavior, and subjects performing it

have no say as to its content nor can they manipulate the task to their liking. The

goal is to be able to obtain data through these tasks that later can be generalized to a

larger population. An activity is “the behavior that is actually produced when an

individual (or group) performs a task. It is the process, as well as the outcome, of a

task examined in its sociocultural context” (Coughlan and Duff, 1998, p. 1975). The

activity is unpredictable and cannot be controlled by the researcher. It is the result of

58
the subject‟s participation in the task and carries with it the subject‟s sociocultural

baggage.

The subjects in the Coughlan and Duff study were given the same picture but

essentially produced different descriptions (activities), based on their own personal

histories, moods, and linguistic abilities. Basically, an individual‟s perception and

sociocultural background will influence the context for each activity. In this light,

the notion of generalizability of human experience and learning becomes

questionable.

Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) explain that sociocultural theory, and more

specifically, activity theory, has direct implication to SLA research:

We believe that learners have to be seen as more than processing

devices that convert linguistic input into well-formed (or not so well-
formed) outputs. They need to be understood as people, which in turn
means we need to appreciate their human agency. As agents, learners
actively engage in constructing the terms and conditions of their own
learning. (p. 145)

Lantolf and Pavlenko specifically stress some key areas that need to be taken

into account by the researcher when adopting a sociocultural perspective.

Specifically, the sociocultural perspective, via activity theory, can guide SLA

research in that it forces researchers to view language learners in a new light. They

must understand that a learner is the product of his previous history, cultural and

socio-economic background, and that no two individuals will learn and develop in

the same way, even if their current learning environment appears to be the same.

Activity theory further forces the researcher to take into account an individual‟s

59
motives and goals, whatever they may be, for undertaking any activity as these

motives influence the learning or progress that may or may not take place.

Another important aspect to be measured by the researcher is the notion that

the learner does not exist in isolation. There are many agencies involved in the

learner‟s existence and the learner‟s relationships may create agencies that can be

either conflicting in nature or collaborative. A learner‟s attitudes and motives may

evolve and change as the relationships he develops do.

Activity theory also touches upon pedagogical practices. The theory has at

its core that changing circumstances under which students learn will have an impact

on outcome. In other words, different individuals will respond differently to diverse

methods of teaching, and this places a burden on the teacher to reorganize material in

such a way as to provide varying circumstances and thereby enable each individual

to develop more fully.

In this way, the sociocultural perspective changes the agenda for SLA

research for now, “it is not the variables that should be our concern, but the concrete

individuals who come to the learning site with specific histories, personalities, and

agencies.” (Lantolf and Pavlenko, 2001, p. 157).

60
 Conclusion

Researchers agree that SLA is an interesting phenomenon, but there is huge

controversy with regards to how to approach such research. According to Mitchell

and Myles (2004), discussions on language learning are essentially the same as those

on learning in general:

Discussion about processes of SLL2 have always been coloured by

debates on fundamental issues in human learning more generally. One
of these is the nature-nurture [emphasis in original] debate. How much
of human learning derives from innate predispositions, that is, some
form of genetic pre-programming, and how much of it derives from
social and cultural experiences that influence us as we grow up (p. 12)?

Historically, the field has been dominated by researchers who view language

learning as a systematic mental faculty – and the bulk of studies produced in the area

of SLA are based on this paradigm. Current SLA theory thus stresses the importance

of mental processes and the goal of research is to understand these processes and

acquire linguistic knowledge. Research has been conducted predominantly using

quantitative methods of study. Efforts to stray from this acceptable method of

research have been met with resistance, and in some cases disdain, and cognitive

linguists have been outspoken about belittling the influence more socially geared

research may bring to the table. In fact, many cognitive linguists refuse to accept

that socio cultural theories can bring anything to the table at all. At best researchers

like Sharwood Smith (1991) will acknowledge the existence of socially based

research while reducing it to the importance it “should” be given, basically

2
Second Language Learning

61
decoration to accompany the substance of the cognitive research. Or, to use his

terms, socially based is the “icing” to the cognitive “cake” of SLA research.

Despite this resistance, contemporary theoretical discussions have opened the

door to new research and focus is beginning to turn towards learner centered studies

which delve outside the brain and adopt a wider lens. What remains to be seen is

whether or not these different schools of SLA researchers will grow to work together

as opposed to against each other. Zuengler and Miller (2006) see hope and cite

several studies that advocate that the differing schools work together and

complement each other in their united efforts to understand the complex human

process of learning a second language.

62
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

As Breen (2001) suggests, there is a need for us to “explain why different

learners work in different ways under what appear to be the same learning

conditions, with access to what appears to be the same language data, and who

differentially achieve” (p. 2). The goal of this project was to study second language

acquisition via an emic perspective in an effort to better understand the language

learning process. I strived to understand the social realities faced by the language

learners, and tried to get a feel for the experiences that envelope the language

learning process. I chart these realities for different learners, tracking learners who

started the SLA process at different ages during their childhood and, therefore, were

at different stages of development, as well as tracking learners who had been deemed

successful or unsuccessful in their language learning attempts.

In order to better understand second language learning, this research was

designed to employ qualitative methods. The goal was to take a sociocultural and,

more specifically, an activity theory perspective to focus on the learner‟s social, and

cultural backgrounds, their motives, as well as notions of agency. For this, I did a

qualitative study, which centered on a group of language learners who have different

backgrounds and who began learning their new language at different ages. Through

a series of interviews, I obtained information about the language learning process

and the various forces that affected it. I interviewed subjects between the ages of 15

and 18 who were all faced with having to learn a second language outside of the host

63
culture, but within the context of a dual immersion French-English language

program. Interviewees are secondary students enrolled in a bilingual immersion K-

12 private school in Los Angeles, California.

I selected this specific set of subjects because of their unique nature. For the

most part, these students are subjected to the French language only within this

academic environment, as the language of the surrounding culture is English. Unlike

immigrants learning a language in an effort to communicate with the wider

population, these subjects have little chance to practice their newfound skill outside

of the school context. Success or failure in this target L2 has more to do with factors

that go beyond an immediate need to communicate. Their motivation for success as

such becomes particularly important and possibly more in line with other academic

L2 learning situations.

Setting

There exists in the United States (and around the world) a small network of

private French schools. The schools are usually accredited by the French Ministry of

Education, and as such must follow the French-mandated program that leads up to

the French baccalauréat at the end of high school. Although the schools were

initially created for French nationals living abroad who wanted to maintain a French

education for their children while away from their homeland, the schools have since

opened their doors to children of many nationalities who do not speak French.

Although the schools do accept non-French students, there are restrictions placed on

admission. For example, of the 36 French schools in North America, the vast

64
majority accept students with no prior knowledge of French only through second

grade. Just five of the 36 schools accept students with no knowledge of French after

second grade, and even these five schools establish cut-off points after which they

will not take non-French speaking students. The latest cut-off point for admitting a

non-French speaking student into the French language program is sixth grade, and

only one school allows this.

Most schools stop accepting students after second grade because they deem

that these students cannot simply be immersed into the French program and be

expected to follow, as they would in the younger classes. Schools that still accept

students in second grade or beyond are forced to place these children in special

French as a Second Language (FSL) classes and hope to eventually integrate them

into the standard French class along with the other students. The later the student

arrives, the less chance there is of eventually integrating him or her into a typical

French class (one which follows the curriculum mandated by the French Ministry of

Education and thereby taught exclusively in French no matter what the subject).

The current study is set in a French-American school in Los Angeles. The

school is the Los Angeles International Academy (LAIA) which has its main campus

near Hollywood. I have been an employee at Los Angeles International Academy

since 1989 and have worked in both the business office and on three different

campuses as an administrator and teacher. At the time of the interviews, I was an

English language arts teacher at the junior high school level. My mother was one of

65
the initial founders of the school; I was a student at LAIA from 1978 to 1987 and

graduated with a French baccalauréat.

This setting was chosen for its rich linguistic potential. My position at the

school allowed me access to information not readily available to an outsider. I had

access, for example, to all academic transcripts and data related to students. It was

my hope that, since the students knew me, they might feel more comfortable and

willing to talk to me than to a stranger.

There were 447 students enrolled for the 2005-2006 school year from pre-

kindergarten through 12th grade at this campus. The school tracks student

nationalities based on information gathered from enrollment applications. The

school database showed that, of the 447 students enrolled at the Los Angeles campus

in 2005-2006, 79 were solely French nationals (both parents are French), 125 were

bi-national French/American, 152 were completely American, and 91 were from

various other countries. This school is one of the five French schools in North

America accredited by the French Ministry of Education that accepts students after

second grade with no prior knowledge of French. LAIA is in fact the only school

that accepts students with no prior knowledge of French into a French program

through the sixth grade.

The school has an immersion program. For students of grades K through

first, French as a Second Language (FSL) classes are not offered and all students are

placed in the same French language classes. Thereafter, students are given FSL

66
classes, when deemed necessary. (A more detailed description of the FSL program

is offered in Appendix A).

Selection of Subjects

I wanted to include students with varying linguistic backgrounds in the study:

students who were previously monolingual, as well as students who spoke two or

more languages upon entering the program. My study also included students for

whom French is a heritage language, who have been exposed to French in their home

and/or through their extended family. The goal there was to help determine if the

family environment could give them an added advantage. The added stimulus might

give these students an advantage over the others as their family life would have

multiplied their access to the language. It should be noted, however, school records

indicate that having French parents absolutely does not guarantee that a student will

be successful in the French school environment. In fact, American students who

succeed at LAIA often outperform their French counterparts, even in French

language arts. This can be due to a multitude of factors, to include the generally

weak academic results of the French child or the obvious rejection of the parent‟s

mother tongue when the child has a strong desire to assimilate more fully into her

new culture, or what she perceives to be her culture. These French heritage students

typically do their best not to use the language, and have a strong accent in French

even though their passive comprehension may be quite good. Be they successful or

unsuccessful, their input is valuable.

67
 For the most part, however, the subjects are children of non-French speaking

parents (16 of 25). The subjects have parents that fit into varying linguistic and

cultural categories: some are native English speakers and speak no other language;

some are able to speak multiple languages; and some speak only one language which

happens not to be English.

In addition to diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, subjects also come

from differing socio-economic groups. LAIA‟s Los Angeles campus had an

operating budget of $4,458,000 for the 2005-2006 school year. A big part of this

budget came from scholarship monies issued by the French government. The French

government gives scholarships (up to 100% tuition paid) to French families who

reside outside of France and are unable to afford a French private school. On the Los

Angeles campus, there are 87 students who benefit from some financial assistance

from the French government. 41 of these 87 actually receive 100% of their tuition

paid by the French government. This number is extremely high as the French

government gives 100% scholarship only in cases where families can demonstrate

extreme financial hardship. LAIA is known as the “poor” school at the French

ministry due to its high number of 100% scholarship recipients. The total cost to the

French government for tuition it pays to LAIA through its scholarship program is

$820,942 for the 2005-2006 school year.

Because the French government scholarship program is only open to

individuals who can prove they are French nationals, the school provides LAIA

scholarships for its students who would otherwise not be able to afford tuition. The

68
program is only open to students who are not eligible for the French program. As the

funds for this program come directly from the school‟s operating budget, and not

from donations from outside sources, the budget is limited and the maximum

scholarship allotted is 50% of the tuition costs at the school, although employees can

obtain a LAIA scholarship to cover up to 90% of tuition. 47 students receive a LAIA

scholarship totaling $184,405. Therefore, 134 of the 447 students at the Los

Angeles campus receive some form of financial assistance. As a result, the school

educates students on welfare, as well as students whose parents send them to school

in a limousine. My intention was to include students from varying socio-economic

backgrounds into the study. In fact, of the 25 subjects in the study, 2 received 100%

French government scholarships and another 9 received some form of LAIA aid.

The number of candidates available for this study was limited as the school

population was small. There were 92 students enrolled in grades 9th through 12th

during the 2005-2006 school year, and 25 of these did not fit the selection criteria for

the study as they were raised in France and had spent most of their lives educated in

the French schooling system. Their second language as such is English, and they

become immigrants instead of students learning a language outside of the host

culture.

Participation in the study was voluntary, and I was able to get 25 students

who were willing to participate. This was sufficient as the goal of the study is to try

to understand the process behind second language learning rather than to interview

69
enough individuals to achieve a statistical representation of the population as a

whole.

Organization of Study

There are traditional patterns in the study of language acquisition. Research

is typically quantitative in nature: studies have focused on how fast individuals

respond to utterances, or how well learners pick out incorrect sentences; very little

time is spent discussing language issues with subjects. The idea of interviewing

language learners is an approach that goes beyond the mainstream SLA patterns of

research, as few researchers have tried to analyze why experiences are different.

The research focuses on the learning experiences of students enrolled in a

dual immersion language learning program, and in order to better understand the

language learning process for these language learners, I worked in steps:

1. Interviews (guiding questions attached as Appendix B).

Language acquisition is not something a learner can consciously explain,

especially for a learner who acquired her second language at a very young age.

Students may not, in fact, understand themselves why they were successful in their

attempts. Yet, Wenden (1986) pointed out that retrospective accounts of learners are

quite valuable and that language learners were much more lucid about their learning

experiences than was often thought. Wenden found that learners demonstrated the

ability to speak intelligently about the language learning process, to give descriptions

as to their own language proficiency, to explain their role in the learning process, and

give an opinion of which teaching methods worked best. I thus used the interview

70
process to ask subjects about concrete experiences related to language, which in turn

helped shed light on differences in attitude and feelings toward the language learning

itself.

As an employee of LAIA, it was not difficult to obtain access to potential

subjects for the study. I organized with colleagues potential times I could interrupt

their classes to present my project and describe the nature of their potential

participation. I was careful to visit all high school classes from 10th through 12th to

make sure all students, regardless of background, native tongue, or academic

success, were aware of and given the chance to participate in the study. Because I

was a teacher at the school, I was extremely careful to make sure that all students

understood that participation in the study or refusal to participate would not affect

their grades in any way. None of the students that I addressed were in any of the

classes I taught currently even if they had been my students in the past. I stressed

that the study was completely independent from the school and that no personal

information obtained would be shared with the school or their parents. All students

showing an interest in the project were given forms to take home to discuss the study

with their parents. My personal contact information was provided in the package

sent home. Initially, 28 students stepped forward to volunteer for the study, although

the conflicts of some ultimately lead to my conducting 25 interviews. Subjects chose

the interview site. Only two chose to have me come to their house. The remaining

23 interviews were held at the school in an available classroom when subjects did

71
not have class. All interviews were taped. The shortest interview lasted 25 minutes,

the longest was one hour and 15 minutes. Most fell between 40 and 50 minutes.

Because the information I was trying to obtain is not necessarily something

an interviewee could give a “quick” answer to, the semi-structured interview process

was used to guide the interviewee to think about and contemplate how he/she feels

about language learning, while allowing the flexibility to delve into areas that may

be important to one interviewee and not to another – although still providing insight

for the researcher. This interview style further gave me the flexibility to follow my

subject‟s lead and end with a train of thought that could not have been pre-planned,

although it definitely furthers the research. By interviewing subjects who fit a

variety of criteria, i.e. learners who started at different stages of development;

learners with diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds; learners who have

had varying levels of success within the program, the interviews were rich and

varied. Any signs of similar behaviors and experiences were tracked with regards to,

their success as a language learner, when they started to learn the language, and what

their individual profile was. Some information from the interview process,

specifically the initial questions, helped paint a picture as to the learner‟s specific

history and cultural background.

The bulk of the interviews, however, related to learner experiences and the

interviews were transcribed and coded to allow for in-depth analysis. In an effort to

understand the important socio-cultural forces at work in the learner‟s language

learning experiences, analysis was guided by the main research questions posed.

72
Major themes related to: (a) Learner histories and sociocultural influences, (b) socio-

psychological issues, such as motivation, and an individual‟s own perception of their

level of achievement, (c) the instructional influences, such as response to teaching

style, (d) agency relationships which relate to catalysts, parental influences, and

integration within the school community.

2. Review of student files and academic transcripts.

Student files provide a wealth of background information on each student,

including date of first enrollment, nationality, languages spoken at home, parent

occupation, and academic results.

The review of student files was conducted only after all interviews had been

held and transcribed. This created an additional unanticipated hurdle since the eight

12th grade students who had participated in the study had since graduated, and their

files had been archived before I could access them. The delay in data collection

from files, however, did provide one advantage as it meant that the graduates‟ files

included their International and French Baccalaureate results, which did help confirm

the assessment as to their level of success as French learners.

I reviewed grades on academic transcripts for all subjects to determine their

academic standing and understand what kind of students they are, paying specific

attention to how successful they are in their French language courses. All files

contained written evaluations on report cards and language evaluation forms

submitted by French teachers as to their level, which is reported on report cards and

notes home to parents but is not reflected on the academic transcripts. I further

73
reviewed student files which identified their nationality, their family background, as

well as several indicators about the socio economic status of the family (whether or

not they receive a scholarship, are able to prepay tuition in advance, etc.). All these

data were collected and coded. To these data were added demographic and social

background information obtained in the initial part of the interview process (for

example: information related to the parent‟s level of education; their marital status;

whether or not students lived in a bilingual household; their educational goals). All

help paint a picture as to the learner‟s specific history and background.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Reliability of Method

I obtained reliability by making interview situations as comfortable as

possible. I have always been a member of the school community, and as such most

students knew me and had had contact with me. At some point, I may have had

some of these students in English class in middle school. The school is extremely

small and I have a congenial relationship with the high school students. At the time

of the interviews, as a middle school teacher, I had no direct influence on their

existence but they recognized me as a member of the community.

The desire was to conduct all interviews away from public places, which

could interfere with the interview process by offering too much noise and/or

distractions for either the interviewer or the interviewee. All interviews were thus

held in an empty classroom or at the student‟s house. Further, all interviews were

recorded and then transcribed at a later date. Finally, interviews were conducted in

74
English, the interviewee‟s dominant language, so that language did not become a

barrier for them. Interview transcripts were printed and coded. Information

provided by subjects with regards to their academic achievement was triangulated

through review of student records.

Reliability in Relation to Selection of Subjects

Reliability in relation to the selection of subjects is based on an effort to

avoid using subjects who would have had any prolonged schooling in France. Only

one student had spent her early years in grammar school in France before arriving in

the US. This ensured that the second language training is a result of the immersion

program and possibly the home environment, although not a product of having been

educated and having lived in France or a French-speaking country. Therefore, all

subjects, be they younger or older learners, be they successful or unsuccessful, are

describing experiences related to their language learning within the immersion

program.

Validity of Data Generation Methods

To ensure that the research is valid, I followed standards for transparency,

consistency-coherence, and communicability set by Rubin and Rubin in Qualitative

Interviewing (1995).

Transparency

All interviews were recorded in their entirety. All tapes have been kept even

after interviews were transcribed. In addition, a record has been kept of all original

75
coding categories and the marked-up transcripts have been kept. The transcripts

include in-text comments that I may have noted during the course of the interview.

Consistency

If at any time a subject appeared to provide contradictory information, I

asked for clarification either directly or indirectly if a direct inquiry would make the

subject feel uncomfortable. Once an interview was transcribed, I reviewed the

transcript and tried to identify potential inconsistencies in the responses. The

interviewee‟s responses were looked at to make sure that any inconsistencies could

either be explained or noted. All transcriptions were reviewed this way so as to

facilitate the recognition of inconsistencies between interviews as well. In the event

that inconsistencies could not be resolved, I presented both views as being possible

interpretations.

Communicability

All questions were designed to draw from the subject‟s personal experience,

and I did not expect interviewees to act as informants on the experiences of others.

The goal of the project was to give as complete a picture as possible, by gathering as

much evidence as possible from subjects that are both younger and older learners,

that are deemed by the school as being successful or unsuccessful foreign language

learners. The research process was completely transparent, carefully gathered, and

fully documented.

76
 Validity of Interpretation

Validity of interpretation was facilitated by a systematic approach to the data

treatment, developing clear categories and seeking solid evidence to support each

category. The research questions as well as the data suggested a classification of

respondents by level of success in language acquisition. Thus, I created three

categories of learners: successful, moderately successful, and weak learners. An

explanation for conclusions drawn was made explicit. Further, possible alternative

interpretations are discussed, even if ultimately dropped in favor of what appears to

be the more compelling explanation.

Initially, I studied each interview transcript to compose a general explanation

of the subject‟s language learning experience. Once all interviews had been initially

reviewed, I then attempted to compare all interviews. After the initial review, I

sorted data and coded all transcripts. In order to help index the data, a table was

drawn to compare answers between learners to help track the results. As predicted,

the categories did not turn out to be perfect “variables” that fit uniformly (Mason,

1996, p. 115). What ultimately did arise was that each ability group of learners,

successful, moderately successful, and weak learners, had, as a whole, answers that

helped illustrate possible areas that needed more scrutiny. The study provided a

starting point which may shed light on differing language learning experiences that

students are confronted with.

77
 CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

Overview

Despite the emphasis placed in the SLA literature on the need to unearth a

code and/or system that would map out a universal language learning mechanism, no

such absolute has been found – at least not one that can counteract external

sociocultural factors that inevitably creep into the language learning process. This

may be because we are still unclear as to how and to what extent external, social,

psychological, and affective factors impede or enhance the SLA process.

This empirical study strives to provide context behind the SLA experience of

25 language learners enrolled in an immersion program. The goal of the

investigation is to uncover the significance of sociocultural and psychological factors

in the ability of a student to adapt to and accept a foreign language when the

surrounding external environment does not provide reinforcement or incentive to

learn. By focusing questions on experience, opportunity, and integration within the

new culture, I sought to better understand how or why some learners excel, others

plateau, and still others fail altogether.

With these broad brushstrokes to guide the discussion, this section will

present a descriptive analysis of the given group. With 25 subjects, the objective is

not to claim statistical significance, but rather to paint a picture of the subjects and

their background. The goal is not to find measurable correlations, but rather to look

at frequencies to gain a better understanding of who comprised the study. Breaking

78
down the data will help to determine the successful vs. the unsuccessful learners.

Once a picture has been drawn of the given sample, the discussion will be expanded

through qualitative analysis of interview data.

The following research questions guide this study:

1. A learner‟s ability to actively communicate in a new language may impact

their willingness to participate openly. It is important to understand how the

learners themselves feel about their language level and, specifically, how

comfortable they are with using the target language in a variety of contexts.

How do these learners situate themselves as language learners? What are

their perceived strengths and weaknesses?

2. As learners are products of their previous history, socio-economic

background, and cultural context, the student‟s home environment becomes

an important element in their success or failure. In what ways do

parents/family play a role in the language learning process?

3. Other key agency relationships abound in the learning environment. What

relationships has the learner formed within the school community? How

well has the learner integrated with the native French speakers within the

school community? How much have the French language and culture

become an active part in the learner‟s existence?

4. Activity theory forces us to take into account an individual‟s motives and

goals for undertaking any activity, as these motives influence the learning or

progress that may or may not take place. Therefore, a key question relates to

79
 the learner‟s motivation. What is a learner‟s motivation for succeeding and

remaining in the school? How much is motivation linked to success with

regards to the French language vs. academic success at school?

5. As different individuals respond differently to teaching methods which

directly affect results, what teaching methods have the learners been

confronted with? What experiences have been positive or negative? How

much do relationships with individual teachers affect the learner‟s desire to

succeed?

Participants

The participants in the study were all students of Los Angeles International

Academy (LAIA). They had all entered the program at different ages, some as early

as pre-school and one as late as 11th grade. No learner entered the program without

prior knowledge of French after 6th grade, as this is the last grade at which the school

accepts beginning French students. All participants were in high school at the time

of the interview, either enrolled in 10th, 11th or 12th grade. The average age of the

subjects was 16.7 years of age, with a range of 15 to 18 years of age at the time of

the interview. Of the 25 participants, one stated having two French parents and eight

said that one parent was French, therefore a total of nine of the 25 could consider

French a heritage language. At the time of the interview, all were either currently

enrolled in or planning to follow either a French Baccalauréat or an International

Baccalaureate course program. Two subjects from tenth grade ended up transferring

out of the school the following year, and when asked why, cited “social” reasons and

80
a desire to get a “real” high school experience. Both the French Baccalauréat and

the International Baccalaureate (IB) programs are considered extremely demanding

and are usually taken by students who wish to attend a university either locally or

abroad. These students were thus all competing under particularly challenging

circumstances.

Table 1: Overview of Participants

Grade at time of Place of
Name* Gender Grade entered interview Birth Nationality/Origin
Benjamin M Pre-S 10 USA French-American
Beth F Pre-S 10 USA American
Ophelia F Pre-S 12 USA American
Mastaneh F Pre-S 12 USA Iranian-American
Ralph M Pre-S 12 USA American
Clara F Pre-Kinder 10 USA Dutch-American
Danielle F Pre-Kinder 11 USA American
Joseph M Kinder 10 USA American
Isabel F Kinder 11 USA Mexican-American
Nathalie F Kinder 10 USA American
Jean M Kinder 10 USA French-American
Shelley F Kinder 10 USA French-American
Amelia F Kinder 12 USA American
Linda F Kinder 10 USA Dutch-American
David M 1st 11 USA French-American
Sam M 1st 12 USA French-American
Louis M 3rd 11 France French
Emma F 4th 12 France French-American
Stephanie F 5th 12 USA American
Adrien M 5th 10 USA French-American
Heidi F 6th 11 USA Korean-American
Peter M 6th 10 So. Korea Korean
Roxanne F 7th 10 USA American
Vincent M 10th 11 USA American
Aurelie F 11th 12 France French-American
*all names are fictitious

They further can all be considered particularly committed to the immersion

experience, as they had elected to continue the program through high school, this is

rare in the French immersion schools in the United States for, of the 36 accredited

French schools, only 10 have a high school program. All 10 schools with high

school programs experience great attrition in the higher grades as students abandon

81
dual immersion programs in favor of all English programs for a variety of reasons.

These schools, therefore, have enrollment structures with very large numbers

enrolled for elementary and steadily decreasing numbers enrolled in junior high and

high school. Such is the case at LAIA.

Table 2: Languages Spoken

Name Languages spoken at home Native Language

Ophelia English English
David English, French English
Danielle English English
Beth English English
Stephanie English English
Sam English, French w/ mom English
Emma English, French English
Ralph Arabic, English, French English
Clara Dutch, English English
Amelia English, French, Spanish English
Mastaneh English, Persian English
Nathalie English English
Benjamin English, French English
Vincent English English
Roxanne English, Spanish English
Linda Dutch, English English
Isabel Spanish, English English
Shelley English, French English
Joseph English, French, Spanish English
Louis French French
Aurelie French, English French
Adrien French French
Jean French, English, Spanish French/English
Peter English Korean
Heidi Korean, English Korean

Given the nature of their program of study and the prolonged enrollment in

an immersion program, the members of this group should be in a good position to be

successful language learners. In other words, most students have received

continuous formal instruction in French, and further have had the opportunity to

practice their language with members of the school community even outside of class.

The combination of formal instruction in French, immersion into French for other

82
content subject matter, and an environment that allows for continued exposure to

French even outside of class, qualifies these students as having received an optimal

learning experience which should guarantee success.

Of the 25 subjects, 10 are male and 15 are female. Most subjects were born

in the United States (21 of the 25), although 13 subjects attached a parent‟s

nationality in a hyphenated format (e.g. Iranian-American) when asked their

nationality, despite the fact that they were born in the US.

Only 2 of the 13 considered their parent‟s native language as being a native

language for them. When asked how many languages they spoke, all respondents

listed at least two languages. Sixty-four percent of the subjects reported speaking

more than one language at home.

The majority of subjects, 16 in all, entered the program at or before first

grade. Since no French as a Second Language (FSL) courses are not provided for

students of this age group, these students were thus immediately immersed into the

advanced French class whether or not they had any previous knowledge of French.

Students at this age are deemed by the school to be young enough to simply learn the

language through exposure to it and immersion into the regular class. After first

grade, new students are separated from the group during French class and are given

FSL support until they are able to follow the standard class. It is expected that all

students will be able to matriculate out of the FSL class within two years of FSL

instruction, although some students do move faster and others have trouble even after

the two years of FSL. Most French immersion programs do not have FSL programs

83
for students and, therefore, simply choose not to accept students who do not speak

French after first grade. LAIA is the only French immersion program that accepts

students with no prior knowledge of French through the sixth grade.

The enrollment policies and practices of French immersion programs reflect

the views of the critical period (CP) advocates who feel that younger learners are

better at language learning, and that older learners are either not able, or require

special classes, to learn a new language.

The 16 young learners of this study would thereby be within the age group

that proponents of the critical period theory would deem young learners, and these

students should ultimately be the most successful French students – especially in

terms of accent.

Academic Achievement of Learners

Whether or not a student was deemed a successful language learner did not

correlate directly with the general academic level of the student. Typically all

students in this study were good students with the exception of a few who obtained

more average results in school as a whole. Although GPA is not necessarily a strong

indicator of academic ability as it does not reflect the course of study students have

selected, the weighted GPA provided below does demonstrate that as a group, the

learners in this study were typically strong students. Table 3 below provides the

overall weighted GPA of each student for all grades in high school. As some

students were only in 10th grade, the GPA is a reflection of merely two years of study

as opposed to others whose GPA is the average of three to four years of high school.

84
 Success Among Learners

For the purpose of this study, a bilingual student would be one who had

developed advanced levels of fluency in both languages, to include both verbal and

written skills. This does not mean a student has to be native, but rather that a student

be functional with relative ease. The success of students here was assessed by the

Table 3: General Academic Achievement of participants

Rank
in Cum GPA Ranked
Name study GPA French by GPA
Stephanie 1 4.16 4.15 1
Danielle 2 4.04 3.43 17
Linda 3 3.79 4.08 2
Roxanne 4 4.1 4 3
Adrien 5 3.64 3.43 18
Ophelia 6 3.95 3.89 9
Louis 7 3.99 3.92 7
Vincent 8 3.66 3.75 12
Jean 9 2.98 4 4
David 10 3.95 3.27 19
Emma 11 3.3 2.63 23
Aurelie 12 3.49 3.65 15
Ralph 13 4.14 3.96 6
Nathalie 14 3.82 3.83 10
Heidi 15 4.12 3.83 11
Sam 16 3.34 2.96 22
Mastaneh 17 3.79 3.9 8
Amelia 18 3.93 3.58 16
Beth 19 3.81 3.98 5
Shelley 20 3.9 3.68 14
Isabel 21 3.35 2.98 21
Peter 22 3.99 3.73 13
Benjamin 23 3.13 2.6 24
Joseph 24 3.28 2.5 25
Clara 25 3.27 3 20

85
level of difficulty of the French courses the students were enrolled in; the level at

which the student ultimately tested or will test; students‟ results on the 9th grade

French national Brevet exam, as well as by their teachers‟ assessment as to both their

verbal and written competence, accent, and relative ease when communicating in the

language, whether or not an accent could be detected. Each variable was assigned a

score from 0 to 5, with 5 being best. An average of all scores was then attained and

students were ranked by perceived ability in French. The Brevet score obtained by

each student was converted from a 40-point to a 5-point scale as well.

Two different ranks were obtained, one which included the Brevet grade and

then a second rank which did not include the Brevet score. The Brevet is an

externally graded exam, and, therefore, the grade obtained on this exam was used as

a means of independently measuring each individual‟s level. However, three

students had not taken the French Brevet exam and, therefore, rank was also

calculated without the Brevet score being a factor. In Table 3, students were

ultimately sorted by level from weak to strong without taking the Brevet score into

account.

Three groups generally appear: those who can be deemed particularly

successful (a global score of 4 or above), those who were having difficulty or

considered weak (a score below 3), and those who fell somewhere in the middle and

were placed under a moderately successful category.

Once learners were placed into one of the three categories of level, it was

then possible to look at interview data and analyze responses based on which level

86
they fell into. The rest of this chapter focuses on the findings related to these

interviews. The findings are broken up into five parts with most having subsections.

These five parts correspond to the five research questions of this study.

Table 4: Language Level of Students (from weak to strong)

Teacher
Assessment
Level of of Teacher Overall
Level French Converted Teacher Performance Assessment rank
Testing class Brevet Assessment in French of Oral Overall w/out
Name at taken Grade of Accent class Fluency Rank Brevet
Clara 3 3 2.25 1 0 1 1.71 1.60
Joseph 1 3 .75 2 2 1 1.80 1.80
Benjamin 3 5 1.5 1 0 1 2.00 2.00
Peter 3 3 2.50 1 2 1 2.08 2.00
Isabel 2 3 2.13 3 2 1 2.19 2.20
Shelley 3 3 2.00 3 2 1 2.33 2.40
Beth 3 3 2.00 3 2 1 2.33 2.40
Amelia 2 3 1.75 3 3 1 2.40 2.40
Mastaneh 2 3 2 3 3 1 2.40 2.40
Sam 3 3 1.375 5 1 1 2.60 2.60
Heidi 3 3 2.13 5 2 1 2.69 2.80
Nathalie 3 3 1.375 5 3 1 3.00 3.00
Ralph 4 5 2.75 3 4 1 3.29 3.40
Aurelie 2 3 5 3 5 3.60 3.60
Emma 5 5 1.75 3 3 3 3.46 3.80
David 5 3 2.63 5 3 3 3.60 3.80
Jean 3 3 2.63 5 3 5 3.60 3.80
Vincent 4 3 5 2 5 3.80 3.80
Louis 4 3 3.13 5 4 5 4.02 4.20
Ophelia 4 5 1.88 5 4 4 3.98 4.40
Adrien 4 5 2.75 5 3 5 4.13 4.40
Roxanne 4 5 3.50 5 5 3 4.25 4.40
Linda 4 5 5 5 3 4.40 4.40
Danielle 4 5 2.88 5 5 4 4.31 4.60
Stephanie 4 5 3.13 5 5 4 4.35 4.60

Language Level

In a dual immersion program, the new language becomes the medium or tool

used to acquire and communicate new information. The ability to communicate is

key to developing relationships. Getting a feel for how comfortable students are

87
using this key artifact is important to understanding why it is they have or have not

developed ties in their linguistic community.

This section will focus on determining the comfort the individual has

established with the medium of communication employed in the environment, the

French language.

When successful learners were asked about their comfort level with the

French language, their answers were generally short and to the point. The questions,

for them, were basic and did not generally deserve much thought. When asked, for

example, if they were comfortable speaking French to both adults and students, these

learners typically threw out a monosyllabic “yeah.” Ophelia is the only one who

wants to temper the blanket assertion. She expresses frustration with her choice of

taking an IB instead of following a French program, as she feels that the sudden

abundance of English in class has hurt her French. She explains somewhat bitterly,

“Yeah, but I used to feel a lot more comfortable.”

One learner, Roxanne, who was more reserved about her abilities and insisted

that she was generally a shy person and did not particularly like to spontaneously

break out into French, explains: “I am totally comfortable with people who don‟t

speak English but I wouldn‟t just go to French for no apparent reason.”

For all successful learners, the ease is a result of repeated exposure to the

language. They feel at ease in all situations because they have made it a habit to

communicate in French in a variety of situations. What comes across as bitterness in

Ophelia is the result of her feeling that opportunity for content and exposure has

88
been reduced by virtue of her choosing a more American option. Similarly,

Roxanne‟s hesitation for speaking French outside of a completely French context is a

result of her experience in the language school where her interactions with bilingual

students remain in English. French for her is a language used during a year long stay

in France, with occasional exchange students in Los Angeles , or with teachers.

There must, therefore, be a reason, something the other successful learners do not

require to use the language, even though her level is sufficient to be less selective.

A similar response is obtained from successful learners when asked how

comfortable they would be communicating in writing, via e-mail, for example. All

such learners stated that e-mails were both a common occurrence for them and

something they felt quite comfortable with. Roxanne, our shy speaker, stated that

she preferred to communicate through writing. Again, the successful learners have

developed relationships sufficiently that this translates into them having been

provided with opportunities for and by extension, an ease with written

communication.

When asked how they responded to being corrected in French, successful

learners stated that they did get corrected, but generally viewed this as a means to

progressing. Ophelia explains, “I always took it into account… I remember in 10th

grade, Madame Clampe, all the time… she would correct you and I would just repeat

how she said it.” Some successful learners get annoyed, but they are not annoyed at

the corrector but at themselves for making the mistake, which they recognize as

being one that is not acceptable at their level. Linda explains, “It was annoying

89
because it was a feeling that I was not as good as I used to be in French.” Danielle,

like other successful learners, explains that not only does she take corrections into

account, she actually requests that her friends help her in this way: “I kind of always

asked my friends to correct me, especially with Marie, especially when I was there to

speak French, I would say, „If I say something stupid, tell me quickly.‟”

These learners are not native speakers, and thus do still find themselves in

situations where their performance is flawed. Their skill is such, however, that

weaknesses are often seen as being “stupid” or a sign of an unacceptable lapse in

social situations. Coming from a teacher, the correction is seen as a tool for

progressing. In all situations, corrections are absorbed and taken into account.

When asked about whether or not the students would feel comfortable doing

the current interview in French, students were generally confident. Adrien, our

successful heritage learner was amused: “Yeah actually, yeah, are we going to?” He

almost invites the challenge. Linda was very specific about the fact that, although

she would be able to do it, the comfort zone would not be completely the same, “A

notch down, but I could do it. I would have more difficulty finding my words.” The

interview scenario becomes a zone of non-comfort, or at least of lesser comfort,

because it is a situation that is less familiar or typical.

When moderate learners were asked the same questions, they were much

more expansive. Most felt they needed to justify their answers and give specific

examples for what they were saying. The question about general comfort speaking

in French was, for example, much less straight forward than it was for successful

90
learners. While successful learners all felt comfortable with both adults and

students, only one moderate learner, Ralph, stated he was generally comfortable

speaking French. Others felt the need to qualify the statement and explain in what

situations they might be comfortable and where they would not. Heritage learners,

for example, stated they were generally comfortable, although they expressed a clear

preference for communicating with family members. Aurélie explains:

Well, what do you mean “comfortable?” Because, I do like talking to

them but, sometimes, I don‟t feel like I am really expressing myself, so
I don‟t think they really see my personality.… Usually it‟s fine. It
really matters about who I feel comfortable around for speaking.… If I
feel comfortable with the person, I am comfortable because I don‟t
have to rethink about what I am saying in French. Sometimes, if I am
speaking to my mom, it just comes, I am thinking in French… but if I
have just met someone, I have to think to make sure that I don‟t mess
up.

There is an “us versus them” implication in Aurelie‟s comment. The question

related to general comfort speaking French, and her response relates to speaking to

French people. Comfort for this learner is situational and requires a very close

relationship to the person with whom she will share the conversation. The fear

relates to her inability to shine, or be completely natural in a way that she would like

to be in social situations. As a heritage learner, French is the language of the home

and the outside world is less safe and more judgmental. The ability to feel

comfortable allows her to actually shift into the language altogether, as true fluency

is attained when the language is not merely spoken but processed unconsciously.

Again, what is clear is that it is exposure and opportunity that make the learner feel

91
comfortable. For the heritage learner, additional exposure and opportunity is found

at home.

The other moderate learners stated they were probably more comfortable

speaking to adults than friends. They expressed the notion that adults, or rather,

more specifically, teachers, do not judge them the same way students do. Vincent

has clearly thought about the issue, as he is very specific with regards to why he does

not feel comfortable in French:

I have less of a struggle if I can put my anxiety issues, or my fears of

being judged on hold. I think I speak impeccably well, but it is very
difficult because I feel like I can‟t make an error in French like I do in
English.… I feel that people will judge my French whereas my English
is native, and still I find that I make so many grammatical errors when I
speak English but I catch them myself…. I am more nervous of
students, because I feel I speak very very very eloquently with my
teachers, as long as students are not present.

The non-heritage learners do not have a family base to create a comfort zone

for themselves with the language. Therefore, the most frequent source of interaction

for these learners becomes the school and, more specifically, the interaction with

teachers. Vincent‟s comments reflect anxiety related to speaking French. As with

the moderate heritage learner, there is a form of judgment attached to speaking, but

for the non-heritage learner it is more than just a fear of not being able to shine, it is

a fear of being perceived as incapable or inadequate. He has the very conscious

impression of not being in control of the language the same way as he is with the

native tongue, which boils down to his inability to auto-regulate. For this non-

heritage learner, anxiety is attached to fearing the judgment of his peers. He does not

92
feel anxious with his teachers, for it is their role as educators to impart language, just

as it is his to learn.

Moderate learners who show some reserve to using their French in social

situations are also reserved and more tempered than their more successful

counterparts when confronted with the question about written communication, like e-

mail. The successful learners speak as if this is a common occurrence. The

moderate learners are generally comfortable with the process, although two heritage

learners, Emma and Aurélie, express reserve and state that they may feel less

comfortable if the e-mails were going to someone more official, and that even for

family, they might ask to have the e-mail proofread by an adult to make sure there

were not too many errors. Heritage learners have an added burden of their ancestry,

which leads to perceived expectations placed on them by virtue of their lineage.

Because they are of French decent, others think that somehow their writing in French

should be flawless. Yet, the reality is heritage or not, these moderate learners, unlike

their successful counterparts, do not appear to have created links with native

speakers that would provide them with opportunities where e-mail in French could

become a common occurrence.

Moderate learners were further resigned about the reality which people would

correct their French when they spoke. They tended to see it as a necessary evil.

Ralph explains: “I did not like it so much at the beginning because every sentence I

would have a correction. But, unless you understand to accept it, that it is beneficial,

you aren‟t going to learn.” All learners in the study had experienced times where

93
their French had been corrected. There is in this statement a very clear sense of the

volume of correction that the moderate learner is showered with, which was not what

successful learners experienced.

David, a heritage learner, is the only learner who actually confesses to the

corrections being something that really basically shut down his desire to speak:

Well, especially with the teachers, I understood because they are here
to teach and to correct you but, when my dad corrects me in French, I
get really pissed off even though I know it is good.… I mean, I should
be thankful. I should listen to all the corrections but I just sort of get
pissed off because I am trying to speak and like he sort of like derails
my train of thought.

David‟s statement paints a picture of a heritage learner whose thought is derailed by

corrections his father provides. As with Ralph, David‟s statement suggests that the

frequency of correction is often and, in this instance, overwhelming. The barrage of

correction takes away the comfort zone of being oneself in French, even at home,

and thus, the place of opportunity for practice is lost in the process. David perceives

that it was not his father‟s role to correct him, and that this job is reserved for the

teacher. Like Ralph, he understands the value of the feedback, but only if it is

coming from the appropriate party, as only in this case it is not infused with

judgment. Ultimately, judgment becomes a common leitmotif for these learners, and

being corrected is the realization of this fear.

Aurelie explains:

I am happy that they help me. Sometimes, I feel embarrassed because I

will say something that is like a “franglais” type and I will feel like an
idiot for having said it. But I am glad that they help me correct it… I
feel like an idiot because I should know better. And in IB, I am the one

94
 that is most French. I actually lived there, yet, sometimes I make
mistakes that they don‟t.

Aurélie‟s main frustration is that she shares a space with learners who “should” be

weaker than she is by virtue of the fact that she was actually born and raised in

France, and only arrived in the states at age nine.

Holding the current interview in French was not an idea the moderate

learners embraced. In fact they were much more reserved than the successful ones

were when faced with the same question. No moderate learner openly embraced the

concept. Most of the moderate learners stated they would feel comfortable with

doing the interview, but felt the need to explain why they would not be quite as

comfortable as in English. Ralph, a learner who previously stated he was

comfortable in French both with adults and students, explains the problem:

I wouldn‟t be as comfortable because I would probably be hesitating.

When I speak in French - not when you are talking, I can understand it
perfectly even if you talk fast or slow - but when it comes to me
actually expressing myself, I have had more of a difficult time than in
English and I would be a little more hesitant.

Ralph paints a classic portrait of a language learner for whom fluency in passive

comprehension has been attained, but production skills are still being perfected.

Some are more extreme, and they declared they would, in fact, be very

uncomfortable in that situation. As Vincent explains, “I would have to like translate

the whole thing, like going from English to French in my head.” This need to

translate is symbolic of having a language that is present, but has not cracked the

unconscious and become a completely active part of an individual‟s repertoire.

95
 Ralph and Vincent represent two extremes of a very similar situation. One

would hesitate, while the other would feel the need to translate everything. Both are

similar linguistic issues which paint a picture of learners who are not unconsciously

processing language. The translation is the most extreme, but both deal with the

learner not being able to perform in a language. A formal interview again, as with

the successful learners, represents unchartered waters.

Weak students, like their moderate counterparts, could generally not declare

they were comfortable communicating in French without being very specific about

the context. For them, however, it is less a question of being placed in a familiar

situation and more related to their perception of what their audience‟s expectations

were. Therefore, even the two weak heritage learners who declare they are

comfortable with both adults and students do so because they have no fears of being

judged for their level. Moderate learners feared they would make mistakes and be

judged for them. The moderate learners are not comfortable with their inability to

speak flawlessly. Weak learners are much more accepting of their own levels, as

long as they are placed in the right situation. Weak learners know they will make

mistakes, and only worry about this if their target audience might be someone who

does not accept their level. The error is an inevitability for the weak learner, and

they are fine making it as long as their audience understands where they are coming

from.

The weak learners do not like to be faced with the reality that their level is

not what it could be. Many weak learners compare themselves to more successful

96
learners at the school, and their superior language skills are a source of frustration for

them. One learner, Isabel, who arrived at Los Angeles International Academy

(LAIA) in kindergarten, was adamant about the fact that comfort for her was related

to non-LAIA situations, and that she basically felt self-conscious about her abilities

in French:

I am comfortable outside of school because my image is completely

different than it would be here because here, they are really hard on you
and they expect you - it is actually related to the time I have been here
because there are people who have actually been here a shorter time
than I have and they have excelled and they have developed it so much
more…. There is a girl in my class who has been here the same amount
of time as me but her level of French has really excelled and that is
because she has become friends with the French… and she uses it
outside of class a lot and also she has traveled to France a lot more than
I have - I have only gone one time.… I mean I really don‟t have anyone
to practice with on a consistent basis, whereas she does and she has
developed more. She has gotten more in tune with it because of that,
she enjoys the language more, whereas I just seem very frustrated and it
is hard.

Isabel isolates her learning environment as being a source of anxiety. Her anxiety is

directly linked to what she feels are expectations others have of her, be it teachers or

students. She has an idea of the level she should have, and she bases this level on

her observations of other learners in the environment. She does not take into account

all the learners who have not progressed or have remained less than fluent; she

targets those that she feels are stronger and more proficient. These learners become

the model she should have lived up to, and who thus become constant reminders of

her own personal failure. She is extremely lucid and communicative about her

extreme frustration. The one specific learner she refers herself to is one of the

successful learners in this study. Isabel gives a formula for success which involves

97
the making of friends, the ability to practice, and traveling. All her suggestions are

clear cut and reasonable. Her frustration is evident, yet, what she does not offer is

why she has not taken the same steps as the successful learner. Traveling to France

would indeed be something that is beyond her control, however, the choice of

practicing and making friends seems more attainable. The status of victim is

comforting, although it does not allow room for progress. She has made LAIA, the

only place that provides the linguistic opportunity she claims to want and need, the

only place in which she cannot be comfortable. Thereby, she has made her

insecurity about being weaker than other students a self-fulfilling prophecy.

E-mail communication in French is clearly not a common occurrence for the

weak learners, who all seem to deal with the question as being a hypothetical

scenario. One learner, Beth, explains proudly that she has done this, but it is obvious

that this is a major event for her. Most learners think about the question and hesitate

and the finally explain that comfort would depend on the audience. Given the right

audience, friends for example, would be a situation the learner would undertake

without fear because, as Shelley explains, “I am not like worried about my grammar

because I am writing to my friends.” Again, as with verbal communication, it is not

that mistakes would not be present, but rather that they would not matter or be a

source of judgment as there is a sort of quid pro quo implied that neither she nor the

friend would place any importance on errors. Many, like Isabel, declare that “It

would take me a while, I would not be able to spit it out like I would be in English.”

98
 Having their French corrected is a common occurrence for weak learners,

although it does not appear to be a particularly useful tool, nor is it something they

actively seek out. The two heritage learners, Shelley and Benjamin, see it as a minor

inconvenience. For the others, who the corrector is, is of vital importance. It is a

teacher‟s job to correct and, therefore, is not as threatening. Coming from a student,

the situation is far different, and opens up the doors to judgment and self-doubt.

Amelia explains that correction by students makes her feel “stupid at first, because

they know I have been here for so long, so I would feel like they would think, „How

can you make that mistake?‟” Some students ignore the correction completely, as

Mastaneh does when she dismisses the question and the process with a short “yeah, I

blocked it off.” Not taking the correction into account is a common strategy for

weak learners. Isabel is lucid enough to have learned that this is counterproductive

to the learning process, even though it has been her coping mechanism for years.

She says, “Before I would just ignore, it but now I see the importance of it.” Even

the few learners who acknowledge the reality of being corrected, might not actually

use the corrections to further their French. As Peter says dejectedly, “I try to take it

into account, even though I might forget some of the time.”

Weak learners were quite reticent at the idea of doing the current interview in

French. Only one learner, a heritage learner, declared he would be comfortable. All

the others explained that, at best, it would be harder and they would hesitate.

Mastaneh explains, “I would probably stumble on my words.” Most needed to

justify their discomfort for doing it in French by explaining what exactly the hurdle

99
would be for them, namely vocabulary issues, hesitation, or just plain lack of

comfort, compared to English. Isabel, again, stands out with her ability to be

particularly vivid: “I would come out pretty bad and I don‟t think I would get the

message across, and I would walk away feeling extremely disappointed in myself.”

Just the thought of being asked to do such an interview in French evokes feelings of

failure, frustration, and disappointment for this learner.

Isabel‟s reflex of comparing herself to a successful learner is not unique to

her, as the question related to doing the interview in French launches Beth into a

similar frame of mind:

In French? Uh, you‟d hear me hesitating a lot more and I would have
to really think out my thoughts because I wouldn‟t be able to say them
as well as I can in English…. I could do it but… I would have to stall a
couple of times and be like, “What‟s the word? I don‟t know it in
French so I will say it in English.” I wish I knew it a little better, I
mean, I watch these other kids in my class and they have only been
here for like two years and they are already in the higher level and… I
wish I could do that.… Roxanne, she has only been here for like three
years…. I mean, I can‟t really expect much because she already had the
Spanish on her side, I only had English. I have been exposed to French
but it is just, I don‟t know, not being able to use it when I get home…. I
mean, you don‟t really get to build a whole vocabulary.

What is ironic is that Beth, who compares herself to the late-arriving but

successful learner Roxanne, is actually comparing herself to the one successful

learner who is a self-proclaimed shy speaker, and who was the only successful

learner in the study who would not have wanted to do the interview in French. Beth

is attributing ease and success in an area where this one successful learner does not

feel particularly successful. She further is blaming a monolingual and non-

Francophone home environment for being her biggest handicaps. Although Roxanne

100
did indeed have Spanish in the household, she did not have parental support at home

for French, as both parents were not French speakers.

The view both Isabel and Beth have is one of envy for a success they

themselves have failed to attain. They do not acknowledge that the success these

others have attained is a result of their proactive effort to learn a language. They

want to declare that somehow the others were provided with opportunities or abilities

they themselves were not fortunate enough to be blessed with. Their envy is infused

with excuses for their lack of success.

In short, successful learners are comfortable using their French with adults

and students. They have no difficulty, and are even accustomed to, communicating

verbally in French, as well as in writing via e-mail. Their ease is clearly the result of

repeated exposure to the language, and they have created for themselves an

environment where constant exposure is a positive thing. Lack of access is a source

of frustration. Being corrected when they speak by adults or students is seen as a

way to improve, even if they do get annoyed with themselves for making the error in

the first place. They further proactively seek out people and ask for feedback on

their French.

Moderate learners are much less comfortable speaking in French. They fear

they will be judged, they fear that their true personality and self will not come across

in the target language as it is not their real vehicle for communication. This is true

for written communication as well, as they do not regularly engage in e-mailing in

French. They have not created for themselves a network of opportunity to use the

101
language the way the successful learners have. Being corrected, for the moderate

learner, is seen as a necessary evil, but which remains a source of embarrassment as

it represents a concrete example of their weakness in French. Ultimately, although

moderate learners are fluent in terms of passive comprehension of the language, they

remain decidedly less comfortable with producing the language, and this is a source

of frustration for them.

Weak learners are generally much less comfortable speaking and using their

French. They can feel comfortable as long as their target audience does not actually

expect them to perform with any real level of fluency. Their fears are not linked to

anxiety at making mistakes, for they expect that to happen. The fear comes into play

when they are faced with someone who may not, like them, expect or accept their

errors. E-mail communication is not common, nor would it be particularly

comfortable for the weak learner. Like the moderate learners, these learners have not

created a network of opportunity for themselves. Having their French corrected is

commonplace, although most learners shut the feedback out and ignore it. At best, it

is white noise, at worst, it is an uncomfortable way for others to point out their

inadequacies. Weak learners may compare themselves to successful learners, and

they do understand that they have not lived up to what others have been able to,

although they are quick to point out that peers were given more opportunity. The

contrast in level is a source of frustration. Doing the interview in French is pretty

much out of the question as it would be uncomfortable, and, for some, even the

thought of it propels them into a moment of self-doubt and frustration.

102
 Familial Involvement

A central argument made by sociocultural linguists is that the kinds of

learning strategies people employ in learning another language are very much

influenced by their histories, because this is where the motives for studying a second

language and the goals related to this are rooted. Basically, to understand learners,

one must understand where they come from. This section will thus focus on the

family influence in the language project these students have undertaken. Initially,

the focus will be on trying to understand family motivations for choosing a bilingual

French/English program, then on getting a better understanding of the emphasis

placed by parents on student success within the program, and finally on trying to

understand the kind of investment, above and beyond the mere enrollment, that has

been placed by families for this language learning project.

Family Encouragement

Successful learners‟ parents did not pick LAIA haphazardly. Although

proximity to home appears to be a convenience, the major reason for enrolling a

child at LAIA is some connection to France. The most direct link, of course, comes

from the two male heritage learners, for whom the choice appears obvious. Adrien

explains why his parents chose LAIA, “Well, they are French and the French system

is known to be better.” A certain amount of chauvism exists in this French family,

but even in the others, a conscious and clear connection to France or the language

has been made. One learner‟s father had attended at the Sorbonne, and another

learner‟s parents want to retire early somewhere in the south of France enrolling their

103
daughter prepares her for this eventuality. A third has spent a year in Paris and her

parents want her to perfect and, more specifically, keep her new language. The

catalyst for these successful learners‟ parents is a clear link they have created for

themselves to the country, a link the students themselves have been made very aware

of and which they themselves can explain quite freely.

When asked about why they have stayed in the program this long, and if the

choice was theirs or their parents‟, successful students did not all positively endorse

the school. On the contrary, their enrollment is very much a parental decision,

especially for the two heritage males, for whom the idea of switching schools is

absurd. Louis explains, “It would not be an option for me to switch schools.”

Two successful girls declared that they had actively campaigned to leave the

school, but their parents would not let them. Ophelia speaks of an all-out war:

They never wanted me to leave…. I would cry like, “Oh, all my friends
are leaving! So, why can‟t I leave? I hate it here!” And they said, “No,
you are not allowed to; you‟ll thank us one day.” It was really, really
important…. They really understood how important it was for me to be
here, so they made me stay.

This learner fights, but she herself seems clear about the importance of the project as

she acquiesces to the fact that being at the school was an important thing for her.

Danielle‟s parents give in to their daughter‟s desire to leave the school, but do not

bend with regards to the language. She explains:

This year… was the first time that I actually had hesitations about
leaving. It was right before I started in like August, I was totally
miserable for various reasons and my dad for a while was actually
thinking about shipping me off…. I would have gone to spend a year
in France.

104
Danielle‟s options did not include abandoning the French language. The

commitment for the successful learner families is linked to the parental desire to

have them maintain French. Their insistence on keeping them enrolled at LAIA, or

if not LAIA another French school, demonstrates that they feel the language learning

project is a long-term commitment.

One learner found herself in the opposite position, where she had to actually

fight to be allowed to stay in the French school, as her parents started to shift focus

away from language and onto what they perceived as being more crucial, the

sciences.

Well, in the past couple of years my dad has been doing an awful lot of
complaining about how there is not enough emphasis on science and
how the sciences are horrible; How it is a very bad level, a very bad
standard; That there is not enough and that all the emphasis is on
languages. But then he got proved wrong because I went to my
cousin‟s school and we were at the same level if not better and, when I
went to New Zealand, he saw that we were far beyond what they were
doing in New Zealand.

Linda finds herself in a position where it is her father that criticizes her program of

study. The student strings together a litany of phrases she has heard time and again

from him. It is not that the father rejects language, but rather that it takes a backseat

to what he feels is more valuable, the pursuit of excellence in math and science. His

successful daughter becomes a passive receptor of his dissatisfaction, and the only

thing that assuages him is a concrete, scientific proof that his hypothesis is wrong.

The fact that language has become such a central part of this learner‟s life is a source

of family tension, as her father feels she must assign less importance to language.

The family‟s expectations for language are competence. She is the one who

105
demands fluency. They want their daughter to be able to “get by” in a language,

whereas she strives to be completely bilingual and would even like to be mistaken

for being French.

In general, parents of successful learners have maintained a positive attitude

toward the French project their children have undertaken. This enthusiasm for the

project, however, does not unanimously extend beyond the walls of the nuclear

family for successful learners. Successful language learners explain that their

extended family takes the language learning project for granted. Adrien, a heritage

learner, explains, “They think it is totally normal for me to do this.” For a heritage

learner this could make sense, but the same types of responses are given by the non-

French successful learners, although their answers are justified with explanations

about how their family is “very international,” or that they are of “German

background,” and this is enough in their minds to explain why such a project is

almost expected. It is not that extended family is not interested, but rather that

expectations are very high in general. Taking on a new language is an

understandable and almost expected project.

Two successful learners have more expansive extended families who got

quite enthusiastic, and one learner proudly explains that she is the “star baby” of the

family, while the other states that her grandparents are constantly seeking out distant

friends who may have some link to French to help their granddaughter make

linguistic connections.

106
 Ultimately, extended families either endorse the project wholeheartedly, or

they take it for granted. Both attitudes of course lead to expectations for the learners.

Those who are showered with praise, have the burden of living up to it. Those for

whom the family takes it for granted, must make sure that they do not fail at

something that is so obviously expected and normal.

For moderately successful learners, the family picture is slightly shifted.

Like the successful learners, the moderately successful learners are extremely clear

about why they were enrolled in the program. There is a stated link to France,

although the connection is almost more cultural than linguistic. Four of the seven are

heritage learners, and thus they cite a parental desire for them to keep their culture.

Jean says, “My mother is French. She wants me to have some of her heritage inside

me and my father agreed with her.” Similarly Emma states, “It is our nature. My

dad is French [first], and then they are American. They felt it was very close to

home, you know?” Both of these learners give the language a connection that is

intrinsically a part of them through their parents, like eye color or a peanut allergy.

The goal is not actually fluency, but the ability to maintain some connection to a

family legacy.

One student creates a link to the type of education received at LAIA being

similar to what his parents, who are Lebanese, received, in which the vehicle of

instruction was the French language. The actual desire is for a system they are

familiar with and trust as being good, since they themselves went through it. French

is only indirectly the desired goal.

107
 The connection for Vincent‟s parents is social stature and respectability. “In

our community, bourgeois blacks, they always sent their kids to the French Lycée. It

was pretty significant to my parents in terms of what you can achieve with this type

of education.” For this family, it is less about the French language and more about

the perceived doors this type of education can open.

The final moderate learner, Nathalie, who does not have a direct link to

France or the French Lycée community, paints the picture of a very determined

mother:

My mom definitely wanted us to be bilingual, so she put us in this

school from kindergarten so I could learn. She looked at schools that
taught Spanish, she looked at a German school, and then she decided
that the French she thought would be the best.… She wanted us to be
more well-rounded and to be open to more culture and stuff. My dad
didn‟t really want it in the beginning but now he thinks it‟s OK.

The goal is not true language fluency, but competence and, equally important to the

mother, the added benefits she perceives such exposure will bring, namely culture.

There is conflict within the family, and the learner initially gets mixed signals about

the value of the project. What stands out in her narrative is the emphasis on the fact

that this truly is not her project, but her mother‟s, which is very different from what

the successful learners expressed. The fact that the project is more her mother‟s than

her own ultimately affects her longevity in the program. When asked about their

current enthusiasm for the project, and whether the choice to stay was theirs or their

parents‟, Nathalie explains:

They have been really pushy on it until the past year „cuz of the social
part of the school. They were like, “You will have fun in college” and
“it is just a step to get through” and that I will benefit from the

108
 program.… I have tried to kick and scream and get out…. They are still
really into it.… My mom says little things once in a while, “attends,
attends.” That is all she can say.

The fateful words are both the only ones her mother knows in the language, and also

a symbol of attempting to stall the daughter‟s decision to bolt from the program.

Unlike successful learners in the study, she does not acquiesce to the fact that the

language is important to her. The project is her mother‟s, and although the dad does

end up supporting it, Nathalie never fully adopts the mother‟s vision as her own. She

ends up abandoning it a few months after the interview for this research project.

Nathalie is not the only one to request a change in schools, but she is the only

moderate learner to have succeeded in her campaign. Her parents do not have the

French connection to impose the decision with. The other students in the moderate

group who try to leave are forced to stay. They explain that their parents all value

the private school education, and emphasize it; and this is priority number one,

although French does also creep into the mix. Emma for example explains:

I said I didn‟t want to be here several times and they just said, “No, this
is the French education. Several languages, it is perfect.” Mostly that it
was a private school but they were really proud that I was learning
French „cuz it‟s my culture.

Their emphasis on language is more diluted, and the overall education is cited

as a main concern. Emma herself is skeptical of their real idealism for the project,

and suspects financial reasons play very heavily into the decision. This focus on the

gratuitous nature of the program can only diminish the value of the benefits it has to

offer.

109
 With regards to how outside family views the project, moderate learners‟

families‟ are quite different. The successful learners‟ families were either quite

enthusiastic or took the issue for granted. For the moderate learners‟ family

members, there is a repeated emphasis on family members being unclear about why

they are doing this. David‟s family is openly hostile:

So one of them… said, “French, why you learning French? You are
Armenian?” It is still sort of weird for people that I learn French as
opposed to Armenian, because I really don‟t speak Armenian well at
all, so it was like it‟s pretty weird.

The picture painted here is one of betrayal, almost, of one heritage in favor of

another. Jean‟s family is more subdued, but hardly energetic: “They aren‟t

enthusiastic, but they accept it.” This family is more passive. They do not openly

criticize, but their silence does nothing to reinforce, or encourage, the learner. The

theme remains as with most extended family of moderate learners that the project is

somehow not useful. It is at best tolerated, and only one moderate learner speaks of

her extended family as openly endorsing the project. The grandfather specifically

supports her mother‟s vision, even financially. She explains,

The grandpa on my mom‟s side is really cool. He paid for it and he

wanted it really badly because I guess he had some great great great
grandfather who spoke it and it never got passed down, and he wished
it would have, so he was for it.

Nathalie‟s family member here is supportive because learning French represents

something he himself was unable to do, and regrets. The underlying question, of

course, for the student being why she, as a child, should have to shoulder her

grandfather‟s regrets and the burden of learning this language. It is her mother‟s

110
project, her grandfather‟s desire, and she has been at LAIA since kindergarten, but

she does not let on that it could also be her own.

For weak learners, the reason for their initial enrollment is more nebulous to

them and, although all eventually give reasons for their being at LAIA, many hesitate

and preface their explanation with phrases like “I don‟t know” or “not sure.” The

three heritage learners do credit their parents‟ desire for them to speak French,

although their explanations are tempered. Benjamin states that “French is part of my

history,” thereby making French some ancient relic and not a very current reality.

Sam, a heritage learner who receives a 100% French government scholarship to

attend LAIA, explains that in addition to his mother wanting him to speak French,

“There is the bourse3: private school education for the price of public.” The goal is

not language acquisition but a free education.

This fear or distaste for the public system is a justifiable reason to enroll at

LAIA for four other weak students. Expressions like Beth‟s “better here than public

school” are typical of the weak learner. For these students, the concept of school

being free, or not public are solid reasons, but they do not involve a strong desire to

learn French. In fact for some, French is not even part of the equation as far as they

know.

Diversity, culture, and the ability to speak any other language are other

reasons that weak learners give for the parents‟ wanting them to attend LAIA. Heidi,

the late-arriving learner of Korean descent, explains:

3
French term for the government scholarship

111
 Um, I think that my parents, they really like the fact that you learn
more languages and they want me to be extremely multilingual and
they also want me to learn even more languages like Chinese and a
bunch of other languages that will help me when I grow up and stuff.
This way also I could always have like another choice where I could
always translate.… Usually when you know more languages it seems
more easier to go into a working environment and be paid more and be
more respected because you know a language that other people
don‟t.… I think that is still true.

Heidi speaks from the experience of having a father who was a licensed medical

practitioner in Korea and, because of his poor English skills, has been forced to

abandon his medical profession to sell fruit for a living here in the States. Language

becomes a symbol of empowerment, something the parents will make sure their

daughter has access to. The goal is an accumulation of language for this and other

weak learners‟ families. French is convenient because there is a school that offers it.

Clara, the weakest of all learners, also emphasizes this notion of needing

another language and yet, if possible, she is able to get even further away from

French as a goal than the other two did.

Part of it is when we moved to the area, my mom was looking for a

private school for me to go to. My mom grew up until she was 15 in
Holland and wanted me to get a European education. It was more
about a European outlook or the way the teachings were and how there
was another language involved which lacks in a lot of other schools.

For this family, it is the European system that is the appeal. Part of the process for a

European school is to expose children to more than one language. Exposure is a

good thing, however, nothing in this desire to be exposed actually requires a student

to be fluent. Complete fluency is not a target, nor does it end up being the result in

this case.

112
 Weak learners and successful learners end up being diametrically opposed

when it comes to issues of why they stayed in the program for such a long time. It is

not that the successful students were never tempted to leave the school, but,

ultimately, their reasons for staying were in great part the French language. This

appears not to be the case for weaker students. Again, the notion of doubt, as with

the question related to their initial enrollment, comes in. Again, many learners have

terms like “I don‟t know” or “I am not sure about that” or “I think” pop into their

answers. Such doubt does not exist for the moderate or successful learners, and their

parents‟ support, or in one instance lack of support, is something the moderate and

successful learners are quite clear on. When asked about why they stayed, after

some hesitation, in general, there seems to be a notion that having another language

is something that is useful. Mastaneh explains: “Um, I think [my dad] sees it as

something useful and impressive in a way that will help you.” The instrumental

utility of the language clearly comes second to the desire for their children to benefit

from an IB program, and many students list access to the IB as being the key

incentive to staying in the program to the end.

What comes out strongly from this group is that staying in the program is a

matter of parental choice and that the students themselves are often resistant. Isabel

wages a battle with her mother, which she ends up losing:

I was six when she picked it so I did not know what was going on…
later… I think it was last year or the year before there was this huge
fight because I really wanted to leave, I wanted to be in a different
environment with different people.… She said, “No” but after about 12
months of constant fighting she finally gave in and I decided not to
because the only option that she gave me was Ribault, and I didn‟t see

113
 that that would be an equivalent academically, and I figured I would
just tough it out.

Isabel speaks of toughing it out, clearly a non-voluntary participation in a process

toward perfecting French. The impression given is that keeping her in the school has

made her unhappy, she must be forced to stay and endure a painful process. She is

not the only one to use such language. Shelley, as well, speaks in these terms as she

explains, “My dad really wants me to stay, but he also wants me to be happy, and I

am not and my mom wants me to be happy too.” Shelley does end up persuading her

parents to allow her to seek happiness and, a few months after the interview, Shelley

leaves the program.

For those who do “tough it out,” the choices for staying revolve around the

IB program, and not around the language. For both Korean late learners, there is a

feeling of obligation involved in their active participation in the program. They

describe their parents as having been forced to sacrifice to put them in a good school,

and it is their duty as good children to live up to their parents‟ expectations. Heidi

explains that she stays at the school and wants to succeed in her acquisition of

French, which she reveals to them by doing well.

The whole reason that they put me in this French private school when I
could be just going to Monroe4 or some other place is so that I learn
French so they wouldn‟t be very happy with a bad grade because that
defeats the whole purpose.

A final impression that some of these learners give is that the initial glamour

and excitement for the French project has worn off for some parents. Beth describes

her household: “I mean now it is kind of like they have gotten used to it. It‟s like
4
Local high school

114
„Beth goes to LAIA – wow!‟ It is just the way it is; it is not that big a deal

anymore.” Sam goes a step further, and it is almost as if he feels his father is not

proud of his efforts. He explains that: “For my dad, it‟s not that big of a deal. I

mean when I was little, sure, he was like, „My son is learning French.‟ He is still

proud that I speak French, but not that I am learning French.” The distinction is

subtle, yet damning. The implication is somehow that the language should have

been mastered, and because there is a need for continued learning of the language,

Sam has somehow failed his father.

With regards to how extended family views the LAIA project, weak learners‟

families have different impressions. Two students actually feel extended family is

more impressed with the project than their own parents; Amelia explains, “They brag

more about it and make it more of a big deal than my parents do.” Benjamin, the

heritage learner, as well senses enthusiasm for which he philosophically gives his

own explanation: “The ones in France love it that I speak French. They don‟t speak

English. If I did not speak French, we could not have contact.”

Others have no idea what their extended family thinks, and use expressions

like, “We never really talk about it” and “I mean there is nothing really negative ever

coming out.” The double negative is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement, although it

is less disheartening than the open doubts some families express. Isabel explains that

when planning a trip to France, extended family members bring up the fact that so

much time has been spent at a French school:

Well, their philosophy is, “OK, we are going to test this education to
see what it has really gotten and how all this money has been invested

115
 in you and to see what work you have done with it.” I passed the test
because we got lost a couple of times and we popped a couple of tires
so I had to be there.

Isabel has to prove herself to her family as distrust about the program is instilled in

them. The family is satisfied because Isabel can function enough in French to

understand directions or ask for help when the car has a flat tire. To pass the test,

she does not need to prove real fluency, she merely must be able to function and

prove basic communication skills in the language.

Mastaneh‟s doubts are more substantial, and although she attributes them to

her family, it is somewhat clear that they actually spring from her. On several

occasions, she brings up family members (her father, her aunts), who had once

spoken French fluently and who have since forgotten it. When asked about how her

extended family views the project, she places her doubt into their reactions, and

states:

Well, my four aunts went to France for college also but they don‟t
speak it anymore, but I have one cousin that still speaks, but I think that
they think that it is a lot of work and that it takes a lot to actually
complete it.… They realize that you don‟t necessarily live the same
life as their kids who went to public schools. It is like a whole different
level… and they think it is very impressive.

The impressiveness is thrown in at the end, after a comment about not living

the same life as her cousins, who basically have it easy. There is a futility to the

project that runs through her comment. With a strong chance of all this effort only

bringing temporary results, the language project seems a waste of valuable energy to

this young learner.

116
 One last question related to parental enthusiasm that is asked of all learners

related to parent enthusiasm brought results that were not distinguishable by level of

success. When asked whether or not parents bragged to their friends about their

child‟s linguistic abilities, answers were clear cut. All but heritage learners declared

that their parents did, in fact, brag. Heritage learners unanimously stated their

parents did not brag. Basically, only American or non-French parents bragged. The

distinction was so clear cut that all students who had one French parent and another

non-French parent were adamant about the fact that it was the non-French parent

who bragged about their French. The underlying assumption behind a French parent

not bragging is that, for them, their child‟s ability to speak French is a given, a must.

This is where our heritage learners‟ parents in the study stray very far from reality, as

there is no guarantee of success. As this study shows, mere blood ancestry is not a

guarantee, and thus in and of itself is not sufficient. Of the nine heritage learners in

the study, only two are deemed successful, and none make it to the top four. They

are outperformed by students who have no familial French connection. Maybe it is

the very concept of ancestry or heritage that is to blame, or as Benjamin calls it, “It is

part of my history.” This is a thing of yore, and thus not part of a sense of current

identity, personal self, something that is created and re-created throughout our lives,

for these students the notion of ones‟ heritage lives in a distant past, and learners

may not feel the need to connect, as they themselves are moving to the future.

With regards to family encouragement, answers of students are distinct for

each ability group. Successful students are clear about why their parents chose the

117
program, they are equally clear about why they have remained in the system, and the

decision to do so is directly linked to perfecting French as a language. Extended

family members are either enthusiastic or deem this project is natural, and success is

expected.

Moderate learners, as well, understand why they were enrolled, and for most

of these students, the catalyst is some familial link to France or the French

educational system. Longevity in the program is linked to parents‟ wanting their

children to receive a good education. The emphasis on perfecting French language

skills is more diluted. Moderate students‟ extended family are generally more

unclear or even openly hostile to the French school project.

Weak learners hesitate much more when asked why they were enrolled in the

program, and why they have stayed so long. Initial enrollment, when not linked to

being in a private school and avoiding the public school system, is related to the

benefits of learning another language, whatever it may be. Continued enrollment is a

result of parental coercion, filial obligation, or the benefits of an IB program.

Again, as with questions related to their parents, weak learners are frequently

unaware of what extended family members think about their enrollment in a

language school. When they do know, they contrast the extended family‟s

enthusiasm to their parents‟ lack thereof, or they claim their family is dubitative

about the program.

118
 Parental Expectations and Support

Language learning is an ongoing process. It does not happen overnight.

Although parents may say they want their children to succeed in a language program,

their actions speak as loud as their words, and it is interesting to see how each

group‟s parents react on an ongoing basis with regards to this language learning

process. How supportive are they? What are their expectations?

The notion of having to deal with their parents‟ reactions to a bad grade in

French is treated as a hypothetical situation. As Danielle sheepishly explains, “I

don‟t really get bad grades.” Once this is asserted, the hypothetical scenario is put in

place and imagined parental responses range from disapproval: Louis states that “my

mom doesn‟t really like bad grades for any subject;” to disbelief, as Stephanie says:

“They wouldn‟t understand… I have done so well before;” to extremely supportive

as in the case of Adrien‟s mother: “My mom places an important role [on my doing

well in French]. This teacher is really hard, so she helps me.” Ultimately, the

concept of failure is not acceptable. Linda‟s parents, both PhDs in molecular

biology, are the most extreme:

My parents are extremely focused on scientific matters, and whenever I

talk to them about my homework or tests or whatnot they tell me to just
forget about any of the language subjects and focus on science…. In
any class they would react badly but I think it is even worse when it is a
beta subject.… if I get a 19/20 I get a, “Oh, that is pretty good, get a 20
next time.”

Ultimately, the whole concept of failure in this family is not acceptable, as they

simultaneously tell their daughter to focus away from one area, language, and yet,

she knows very well that doing poorly in any subject, even language, is out of the

119
question. Linda‟s parents emphasize the scientific subjects, and the language is a

secondary concern. As long as she does well in language, this would be sufficient if

it meant excellence in science. They have raised her to accept nothing less than

perfect, and in the case of language, this is a goal she feels she can attain.

Although Linda‟s parents seem to be the most extreme, what is evident is that

all students in the successful group emphasize that it is not French specifically, but

rather general academic success that is expected.

Successful learners were adamant about the fact that they would never use an

excuse like they were not able to understand something because it was in French to

get out of something or for doing poorly. To them, the mere notion was

unacceptable as they all state it would be too obvious, and no one would believe

them even if they tried. Linda, whose parents are not pushing the French, still knows

she could not use this excuse.

No, not at all. They know that I am good enough in French to

understand and my grades are good enough in French. I mean, I am
one of the best people in the French class, even though I am not even
native speaking.

Linda, as are other successful learners, is quite conscious of her status as a high-

performing learner. This is a source of pride, a secure part of her identity.

Danielle exclaims that this scenario is unrealistic, “I have just never used that

as an excuse.” To use such an excuse for a successful learner would be an abdication

of the success, which is something they value too strongly to dismiss that lightly.

120
 Parental involvement in doing homework and providing tutors for their

children was varied amongst the successful group. Only Adrien, the heritage learner,

still got help for homework, and it was specifically for French:

This teacher is very difficult this year… so I will sometimes ask my

mom to help me on a certain subject just to explain, analyze…. She
helps me and I still manage to get like OK grades. Like, last time, she
helped me like a lot, you know, we had this really difficult thing and
she was like, “You need help” and she helped me and I got 125.

Adrien is a successful learner because he is a heritage learner who happens to be in

an extremely French environment. This alone does not make him a literature-minded

student. His mother‟s commitment to his language learning is such, however, that

she will lend support when needed to ensure his success. Due to this, Adrien‟s

success is more than just prolonged and repeated exposure to French. It is also a

result to a parental commitment to ensure success.

All other successful learners stated that they did not get help because, as with

Stephanie‟s parents, “No, they can‟t, I mean.” Even when they did help, in general,

help was fleeting as with Linda‟s parents: “Maybe when I was in kindergarten, but

never beyond.”

Five of seven did say that they had tutors at some point in the process,

although often not for French, but for math. Tutors are brought in where gaps are

perceived, or rather where potential gaps might develop should no action be taken.

When moderate learners were asked how parents would react to a bad grade

in French, they did not find themselves in a situation where this question must be

treated hypothetically. They are quick to point out that parental reactions would not
5
Equivalent to a B-

121
be geared at the French. Emma answers, “Obviously they don‟t like it, but I don‟t

think they give it any more importance than any other subject.” Some of these

learners express a feeling of annoyance toward their parents. Jean, a heritage learner,

is animated in his response:

My mother bothers me a lot about my homework… a bad grade, they

are like, “Oh, you have to be kidding me, we studied this!” But
sometimes they go over board which makes me kind of want to go into
my room and just blast the music, I mean, “go away.”

The use of the “we” pronoun suggests that this mother is extremely invested in her

son‟s schooling, to the point of actually sitting and doing homework with him. This

is similar, although apparently on a more ongoing basis, to the successful learner‟s

mother helping with French literature assignments.

An alternate reaction is for the moderate learner to defend her parents and

explain how supportive they are, specifically for French, as Aurélie would explain,

“My parents always try to motivate me.” Ralph paints a picture of conflicting

expectations:

They place an important role on me doing well in everything, so French

is part of it, yeah. Yeah, they react poorly to a bad grade. They
understand more if it is in French class because they know that it is not
one of my favorite things - especially when it comes to analyzing books
and stuff like that, and they will accept more but, they are still not
pleased with it. They want me to still go into that aspect of language
too and just learn it. They don‟t want me to just shut myself off from it
just because I don‟t like it.

His parents want him to succeed, and yet they also accept the fact that French will

not be his area of focus. He has given up on certain aspects of the language learning

122
process, namely literature. They have accepted this as a given, and meekly try to

encourage him to keep at it. They send a message of being tolerant of his disinterest.

A major distinction comes out between successful an moderate learners when

asked the question related to whether or not parents would accept and excuse of not

being able to understand French for doing poorly on an assignment. Successful

learners clearly stated that this was inconceivable as an excuse. Although some

moderate learners do specify that this would not be an acceptable excuse, they

temper this somewhat. Jean distinguishes between his parents, “I mean my dad, he

would be OK, he would be fine, but my mom: No! You would see the house jump a

few times like „what???‟” Jean, a heritage learner has a French mother and an

American father. The same way a French parent would not brag, they also would not

accept such an excuse. This may well be a result of this parent having worked so

much with her son, as was made evident in a previous comment. Nathalie assumes

that it is an excuse that could possibly be used sparingly:

Because I don‟t do it that often, I guess it would be OK but if I did it

constantly they would not let me. They would get active and say,
“What is wrong with this? We have to get someone to help you! Then
you need a tutor! You should understand it.”

The notion that it does not happen “that often” suggests that it has happened

at some point, something a successful learner would never admit.

Vincent confesses that feigning incomprehension was for him a common

strategy, although he is actually speaking of a different kind of miscomprehension,

one that is geared to content and not language. He uses language as his way out: “I

will say that, but it is not what I mean. I am not playing around, but that is the best

123
way to explain it to them because they wouldn‟t understand it if I tried to explain

really.” For a non-heritage learner with non-French speaking parents, language

becomes an excuse that they will accept, a term he used interchangeably with the

word “understand.” His parents would not understand or accept that their son might

have trouble with content but, as they do not speak French, they will tolerate a

linguistic incomprehension.

For the moderate learners whose parents do not accept the “I don‟t

understand excuse,” their approach is to encourage them to use dictionaries. Ralph is

emphatic, and has apparently heard this response a time or two: “Oh, no way, no

way, they would say „pick up a dictionary and go help yourself‟ or even „come ask

questions‟ – no way would that be acceptable!” Ralph‟s parents, like other parents

of moderate and even weak students, refer their children to dictionaries and the

students themselves comment on the need to use dictionaries on a repeated basis.

This tool, or more importantly what it represents, namely the reliance on translation

to attain comprehension is something the successful learners have moved beyond.

This is a linguistic dimension that is brought out by successful learners, not as a tool

but as a means of measuring true success. The moment they stop relying on

dictionaries for complete translation is the symbolic move into a world of true

success. Dictionaries become a tool, the same way they would in English, as a

support as opposed to being the key to basic comprehension.

With regards to help with homework and having tutors, it appears the

moderate learners generally need more support than the successful students did. Five

124
of seven state that their parents helped them with homework on a regular basis.

Concerning tutors, three of seven moderately successful learners say they never had

a tutor. The other four state that they did have tutors, and although Nathalie accepts

the process as being something necessary for short spurts of time, the others were

more negative about the whole system. Vincent is violent: “I had so many tutors. It

was horrible, my weekend was dedicated to French tutors.” The use of tutors for

these students is clearly a parental effort to help their child succeed. The tutor is the

extra edge they feel their child might need, and not a desperate attempt to curb an

extremely bad situation, which would explain the students‟ resistance to the process

as they do not see the situation as being so extreme.

Weak learners present the opposite side of the spectrum on all counts, and

when asked how parents respond to a bad grade in French, they speak of their own

personal experience. The situation is far from hypothetical as it was for successful

learners, and their general attitude is that the situation is much more common place

than it was for the moderate learners. Again, like the moderate learners, they

emphasize that expectations are generalized to all subjects, and not restricted to

French. Mastaneh explains, “I think they generalize it as school but, you know, it‟s

kind of like every subject is important to them. It is not like one is more important

than another.” French is exclusively seen as a subject, and not as a language that

must be acquired.

125
 What stands out with this group in general is that these students paint a

picture of a family environment in which expectations are either non-existent or

generally low. Shelley is a key example of this fact:

No, my parents don‟t place an important role on anything really….

They don‟t say anything about a bad grade – they don‟t really ask. I
mean, I tell them and they say “how come?” They don‟t really care –
they care obviously but they know I am frustrated with it.

What is even more striking is that this group is the first for which

expectations for French as a subject have been set very low. Benjamin‟s French

level is targeted at just being able to get by:

Because they know that I am learning French to keep up my French and

to maintain a high level of French… I am not going to study French
later on. They know I am going to stay here, it is just so that I can
sound educated when I speak French.

He does not have to be a scholar, and the usefulness is basic communication.

Therefore, there is no need to set the bar too high. Isabel‟s parents actually

specifically place emphasis in other areas: “It is just another subject. They would

rather have me do well in areas where I am stronger, like English or history.” For all

these learners, parents expect little, and their children are quite conscious of these

low expectations.

With regards to not being able to understand something in French as an

excuse, the weak learners have a whole spectrum of responses. There are those who

would never be able to use this as an excuse and who emphatically refuse the

possibility like Mastaneh, “There is no way I wouldn‟t understand it, so that is not an

excuse;” and those who have tried and failed, like Benjamin, “No, that wouldn‟t

126
work, I tried.” Both of these options existed with the moderate and successful

learners. What is new to this group are the students who genuinely feel this is a

reality and, therefore, a legitimate excuse. There are of course some learners, like

Isabel, who do have real difficulties and do not understand but have also discovered

that this linguistic issue can be used to their advantage:

There are some things where I seriously do not understand and there
are some things where I just make it up because I didn‟t want to do it.
They never knew the difference and that is where the politics comes in
there.

The excuse becomes all the more credible in a home environment where parents do

not expect much in the way of grades, and who never ask about school.

One case stands out. Whereas some learners, like Isabel, use the excuse as a

convenient crutch and a reason to justify their difficulties, one learner in the group,

Heidi, the late learner of Korean descent, rejects the no comprehension excuse and

paints a very unique picture of late learner strategies to succeed in this demanding

environment:

Well actually… that never really happened to me. Like, for example,
history: if you don‟t know French and you are learning history in
French it is impossible to do well. But what I did was that I just
memorized word by word the lesson like really meticulously. I did not
understand what I was memorizing, but I just memorized it so
whenever I saw a word or a phrase that I memorized on the test, I
would just spit out the lesson and I would always get a good grade… I
had no idea what I was spitting back but I always got a good grade!

Heidi is conscious of her parent‟s commitment and sacrifice, and she has already

stated she feels an obligation to reward them with good grades. Here is a learner

who truly does not comprehend, and, yet, finds ways around the problem in terms of

127
keeping this from hurting her academic results. The strategy is effective in terms of

grades, although linguistically it is ineffective, as she herself confesses. It does not

really serve her in terms of progressing with regards to comprehending the content of

the course.

With regards to support at home for homework and tutors, parental support is

either non-existent, as for Isabel, who somewhat resentfully states that “I never had

help with homework in any subject, even for projects, I did it all by myself,” or

sporadic at best with students using words like “occasionally,” “sometimes,” or

expressions like “for some things” or they restrict help to their very early childhood.

No student in this group paints a picture of ongoing or constant support the way the

moderate learners did. And whereas the successful learners who did not get help

also insisted that help was not necessary, weaker learners seem to imply that their

working on their own was difficult and use expressions, as Shelley does who

explains, “I was on my own.” The absence of the weak learners‟ parents in their

academic life is felt very vividly in these learners‟ responses.

Tutors do come into play with the weak learners, but they are clearly an

extreme measure brought in to try and salvage a situation that has gone seriously

wrong. Clara says she gets tutored, “When I really need the help.” The use of tutors

is further sporadic. Amelia says she had tutors “here and there.” Ultimately, their

utility in the whole process is questionable in the minds of these learners. Shelley

declares she did have a tutor: “Math, but it didn‟t help.”

128
Heidi expresses frustration because:

I had tutors, I had a couple of French tutors but it didn‟t work out that
well. I don‟t think that I really learn with tutors. There was this girl in
12th grade that tutored me after school but what ended up happening is
that she… didn‟t really help me understand or anything, she just ended
up doing the homework for me…. Or she did help me but I did not feel
that it was worth it…but then the grades that I got were worse and also
I think I learned more just doing it by myself.

Finally, the decision about getting a tutor, or the determination of the need for

a tutor, is often left up to the child, and not the parent. Benjamin states that, “I have

never asked for it.” Successful and moderate learners‟ parents were very clear about

their children‟s level and, even if they did not actively help with homework, as with

the successful learners‟ parents, they were nonetheless involved in schooling; they

were aware of grades, and they instigated the use of tutors if they perceived a need

for them. The weak learners are “on their own.” They set the bar, they monitor their

own results, they must even be responsible for seeking help.

When trying to understand parental expectations and support for the learners

in the study, it is clear that students of each group have very different home

environments.

Successful language learners appear to be generally successful students. They

treat questions about bad grades or comprehension issues as hypothetical situations.

It is clear that their parents expect them to succeed, and, for the most part, they are

independent learners who do not receive much help with their homework. Tutors are

provided when necessary to help give them a continued edge and to make sure they

do not fall behind.

129
 Moderate learners are not as autonomous as a group as their successful peers.

The parents have high expectations and want their children to succeed and, for most

of these learners, their parents are usually willing to provide ongoing support with

homework and tutors to make sure success is attained. Success with regards to

French, however, appears to be less stringent as many learners in the group explain

that their parents would understand if they occasionally had trouble comprehending

or did not want to perfect certain areas of the language, such as literature.

Weak learners have a different home environment, and the concept of bad

grades is more commonplace for them. Their parents further do not place the bar

very high for school in general. French is merely a subject in school, and not really a

target language to acquire. They are the only group for whom not understanding

French, and this being a hurdle to success, is a reality, as opposed to a convenient

excuse as it was for some moderate learners. Parents provide little to no support at

home with homework and tutors were called in, usually at the request of students, to

try and salvage a bad situation.

Investment in the Program

Parachuting a child into a dual language program is one thing, but this alone

does not guarantee success, nor does it indicate how invested parents truly are in the

program. Students, therefore, were asked about externally appreciable examples of

investment – symbolic manifestations of parental support for learning French,

namely related to whether or not families had actually traveled to France, and/or

provided extra opportunities for their children to be exposed to the language in the

130
form of books, TV, or film; basically, if they had provided any type of incentives to

encourage their children with this project.

All successful learners had been to France at least once. Some had been

repeatedly. The two heritage learners had gone several times to visit family, but two

others as well, Danielle and Linda, explained that they went every year. For some,

this commitment is in fact at the expense of other things. Danielle tells of her

experience:

It is just because it is such a part of our lives – we work around France.

I mean, we have had all sorts of issues with like financing our trips to
France. It has just been something we have always done – there are
things we give up. People are like “how do you live without cable
television?” and I am like, “I go to France, I don‟t care.” And that has
always been an issue. And then when we have to pay for the tuition,
we were like, “That is just the commitment we have made.” We have
made a huge commitment to France.

Danielle speaks with a “we” pronoun. This is not “their” project or “her” project, it

is a group effort, and she is conscious of the investment, both financially and

emotionally that this implies.

The fact that these students were so well traveled is evidence of the

commitment parents had made to the French project. Although their stays were as

tourists, two families had gone so far as to purchase a second residence in France,

and the fact that going to France became a yearly expected vacation resulted in

ongoing and repeated exposure for these learners.

Successful learners‟ parents were also quite proactive in giving their children

extra exposure to the language during the rest of the year, even when they were not

traveling. All successful learners have memories of renting French movies, and

131
watching them with their parents. This was a conscious family activity that they

engaged in. Stephanie recalls:

They actually… used to rent a lot of French movies and they would sit
there and watch them with the subtitles and they would always ask me
how much I understood and how much I needed to still read the
subtitles.

The movies become a time where parents can share the language with their daughter,

and she can show off the progress she is making.

With regards to books, many successful learners are emphatic about the fact

that such opportunities were provided. These learners further remember reading the

books parents purchased for them. Ophelia explains the whole system that she and

her family took advantage of:

Yeah! I remember the library like had something where they had…
different levels and there was one for each year and you would get a
book every month like… just a regular French literature book for kids
and every year I got those so I would get a French book every month
outside of what we were doing in class and I would read them.

As Ophelia recounts the trips to the school library she took with her parents,

it becomes clear that, here as well, outside projects, like traveling, movies, and even

the borrowing of books are a time where parents participate and endorse the project

their children have taken on. The extra activities serve two purposes: they provide

added and ongoing exposure to the language, but they also are a way that parents

validate the effort their children are making, and thereby endorse the language

learning.

132
 In Linda‟s house, her ever demanding parents have a very low tolerance for

TV, and Linda is able to sneak in TV by pretending to watch the French TV5:

We have TV 5 now but it is recent… four or five years. I watch it with

my dad. He doesn‟t really like it when I watch TV, so when I do watch
TV and he is there, I watch TV5 and when he leaves, I switch it.

Linda‟s father has previously been very opinionated about emphasis needing to be

placed on sciences. His endorsement for language is at best what it is here, an

indirect one where, what is seen as an otherwise frivolous and useless activity is

tolerated because of the language. Although French is not science, it does provide a

moment for father and daughter to spend time together.

The heritage learners are the odd men of the group, for their parents

apparently did not provide the extra stimulus in the same way. That is, they

themselves became the extra stimulus as they provide constant French in the

household and, therefore, tricks like movies and TV are rendered unnecessary.

Adrien explains, “Instead of speaking in English with me, they just spoke French.”

It is not that this learner does not watch movies in French, for he does, but movies

are seen as something normal and commonplace, and thus he does not recognize it as

a special strategy his parents may have employed.

Moderate learners were somewhat less well traveled. The four heritage

learners had all been to France more than once to see family. Vincent, however, was

the only non-heritage learner to have been there more than once, and Nathalie had

been once, but only very recently and for a very short stay. Ralph had not gone at

all. The non-heritage learners who had gone, had been there as tourists, the way the

133
successful learners had, although they did not have the repeated nature of visits and

they had not developed traveling as a habit, the way the successful learners had.

Moderate learners were also not as well-read. Parents provided material and

purchased books, but these efforts were met with resistance. Students either rejected

it outright, like David, who laughs as he declares, “The books, yeah, my dad used to

buy me lots and lots of books that I have read none of!” Others found the endeavor

to be too difficult. Nathalie explains that she tried to read the books, but that

ultimately it proved to be too difficult.

As with the books, viewing of movies was not quite as widespread as it was

for the successful learners. Whereas successful learners remember physically

purchasing or renting movies, the moderate learners are less proactive about the

process. When asked if he had seen French movies at home, Ralph states, “Not

particularly, I have seen some if they were, on but nothing out of the way to take me

to go see it.” As with the books, Nathalie‟s parents provide the outlet, but again she

finds the process too difficult to engage in: “My mom tried to a little. She had us

watch French movies like Amélie when we were 10, and it was too complicated.”

One student, Vincent, is actually kept from French movies altogether, “They were all

rated R and I was not allowed to see a rated R movie… so I was never allowed to.

They would view foreign films but I was not allowed to.” None of the moderate

learners recount experiences of movies or books as being a special project or

moment between parent and child the way the successful learners did.

134
 With regards to traveling, the heritage learners in the weak group had all been

to France repeatedly to visit family. Four of the other weak learners had never been

to France, although two of these explained that they had been to Belgium. Clara

defends the choice: “I have gone to Belgium and Holland. I was supposed to go to

France this year… but Belgium, there was French there too.” The final four weak

learners had been to France, but their trip was either quite distant, like for Mastaneh,

“I went once when I was six… but I don‟t remember” or very recent and late in the

language learning game, like Isabel, for whom the trip was an eye-opening

experience:

I mean, I went last summer and – we started in Province and we

worked our way up to Paris. I went with my grandma.… I loved it, I
absolutely loved it! And I felt like I fit in too... everybody thought I was
Moroccan, I did not feel like an outsider at all and my French, it is
funny, because the first couple of days I was like, “Oh, I don‟t know if
I can do this!” But hearing it, and being forced to work with it, it came
to me like that! And, you know? I felt like I was a native!

Isabel‟s trip is an invigorating experience, one which makes her feel comfortable for

the first time with the language. She leaves the country feeling empowered and

energized. It is the only moment in the whole interview where she equates French

with any type of success on her part. It is an experience that comes just before her

12th grade year in the program, and which could have changed the outcome for her

fluency, had it come earlier and maybe been repeated more than once. It is further

not a trip taken or planned with her parents, but with her grandmother, and thus does

not send the same parental message of support.

135
 Books for the weak learners are even more systematically rejected than they

were in the moderate group. If parents tried at all, students would not read.

Benjamin confesses, “They tried at first, but I rejected it.” For most of these students

however, books were never even offered. Sam declares that his parents only

purchased books required by the school and he, like the other students, confirm that

even if they had been, they would “probably” not have read them. A couple of

students volunteered that they themselves had proactively purchased their own

books, but had left them mostly untouched on a shelf. Beth tells the story:

When we went to Belgium in 98-99 I actually bought a few books at a

book store there and I started reading one but my problem is I can‟t get
into reading French books. It is not my native language so I mean so I
will read it and I will be like “what are they doing?” I mean, “Why?”
and then I would just be like “forget it.”

Beth has taken on the purchase of these books on her own. As with schooling, the

parents are not engaged in the process, and the language learning experience is for

the learner to tackle, like homework, alone. There is a sense of futility and

helplessness in her words for a task too difficult and, ultimately, seen as not being

worthwhile.

Whereas most moderate learners had at least been exposed to movies, only

two of the weak learners, Shelley and Sam, both heritage learners, stated they had

seen many French movies. Six of 11 weak learners had not watched any movies

outside of school. For the remaining three, movies were an exceptional treat, as with

Heidi, who says, “I just went recently, it was fun actually;” or they insist it is not

because it is French that they may have watched them, as when Clara explains: “I

136
mean, it is more of a cultural thing. We just are in with a lot of different things, like

see movies in French, and Spanish, and German. They did not take me out

specifically for French.”

With regards to visible symbols of parental investment in the program, and

specifically the learning of French, successful learners‟ parents were the most

proactive. All successful learners had been to France repeatedly. In addition, for all

but the heritage learners, parents had taken steps to give them extra exposure to the

language through books, TV, and movies. Learners recount events that make it clear

that language learning had become a family project, as parents participated in their

own way in their child‟s language learning. Students had further bought into the

whole process, and had actively done the extra reading and watched the movies with

their parents.

Moderate learners, if they were heritage learners, were also relatively well-

traveled. The moderate learners were not, however, well-read, and although parents

attempted to provide reading materials, students resisted. Movies were not sought

out, but viewed when available.

Weak learners were the least well-traveled. Unless they were heritage

learners, weak students had either never been or had only been to France once. Extra

exposure in the form of books or movies was usually not provided to learners, and

students themselves confess that they would most certainly not have read books even

if they had been.

137
 Conclusion

Family environment is a key element to understanding a language learner and

in the case of the learners in this study, understanding the families‟ expectations and

investment, with regards to their children‟s schooling helps give an idea as to why

students fall into the groupings they do. Successful language learners for the most

part are extremely literate and well-read. They are independent learners with parents

who hold them to very high standards. The parents are further proactive in their

efforts to be supporters of the program and they actively participate in trying to

provide their children with as much exposure to the language outside of the school as

possible. They plan frequent trips to France, purchase French books, and watch

French movies with their children to support the project to its full extent.

Moderate learners are not generally as independent or literate. Their parents

are demanding and want their children to succeed academically. Their parents are

further extremely proactive and involved in their education, although the

involvement does not typically extend beyond the school doors. The involvement is

restricted and related to helping and supporting them in their school work.

Opportunities to extend their child‟s education to areas beyond schoolwork are not

typically actively pursued by these parents. Books are provided but not read. Trips

to France are less systematic, and movies are viewed if available, but not sought out.

Weak learners are faced with families that have a much more laissez-faire

attitude. Expectations are vague and certainly less demanding. Schooling is

something children deal with alone, and academic results are generally mediocre or

138
weak. Parents do not systematically provide extra opportunities for language, be it

trips, books, or movies. Even when such opportunities are made available, their

focus is not linked to the pursuit of language.

Agency Relationships

Activity theory maintains that it is impossible to understand a human being‟s

internal psyche without taking into account external realities. Our consciousness is

not isolated in our minds, but is situated in direct relation to interactions we have.

The goals we set, and what we accomplish, are entrenched in the social network we

belong to and our response to this environment. Understanding individuals means

getting a feel for the interconnection that exists between themselves, other people,

and the language medium utilized in everyday activity.

This section will focus on understanding the agency relationships the learner

has created for him or herself within the language learning environment. The focus

will initially be on understanding how secure the learner feels in the classroom

setting, specifically, with regards to using the acquired language, and then on

understanding what kind of relationships the learners have developed for themselves

with members of their surrounding community.

Comfort in the Classroom

As the actual language learning setting for these learners is a physical

classroom, it is important to understand how comfortable students are within their

learning environment. Is the classroom a stressful environment, and how freely do

they participate within it? Learners were asked how comfortable they felt

139
participating orally in class, be it for general comments or more formal presentations.

If they felt uncomfortable, they were asked where the source of their discomfort was

found.

When asked if they participated in class regularly, all successful learners

declared they were shy in class and did not participate much. All learners say they

have a fear of what other students might think. Successful learners are far from

feeling free of anxiety in their environment. They share moments of genuine angst,

and express the sentiment that their peers hold power over them, the power to judge.

At times, this fear of judgment paralyzes them, although what is significant is the

anxiety they feel is related to the ability to master course content, and not the ability

to express themselves in French.

Linda tells of her problem:

I am freaked out in math but it has nothing to do with the French. It is

just that I have difficulties comprehending and then I know that the
questions I ask are stupid and I see everyone else, you know?… It is the
students that bother me and the teacher because the teacher looks at you
like you are stupid… yesterday even… I was too scared to ask this
question to the teacher because I know that there would have been a
person who would have said “Oh! Come on, that is easy” so I didn‟t
ask it… I have never had that problem in French though, never… ever.

For Linda, French is a comfort center, an area where she knows she can excel and do

well. Her wording is emphatic, she “never, ever” has a problem in French. Her

hesitations in participating are absolutely not linguistic. If anything, French would

be a moment where she is free of fear. Her fear is subject-specific, related to math.

140
 For Danielle, participation is a fear she has conquered somewhat and, as with

other learners, it is linked to the judgment of her peers:

It took me a while but I finally realized that at LAIA it is impossible to

get judged and even if you do get judged, I mean, who the hell cares? I
mean like no one has ever made fun of anyone‟s accent. Actually that is
not quite true, a few people have gotten a little mocked before. Isabel
gets mocked sometimes but frankly, sometimes she deserves it…. She
gets mocked for being kind of like a pathetic student.… I got over it.... I
think that is also a whole teenage insecurity thing. I kind of got over
that being scared of what people think.

Participation is a time where students can be judged by others. Danielle accuses a

weak learner, Isabel, of not working enough, and the implication behind this is the

notion that her own success has come through work, and she has little tolerance for

someone who was not willing to put in the same effort she did to advance. The lack

of success, and resulting mockery from other students are to Danielle a result of what

she perceives as being a lack of work on Isabel‟s part, and not innate inability.

Danielle has somehow separated herself from the fear of judgment, for she has taken

herself out of the judgeable category. Her initial concern may have been linguistic,

but she herself understands that this is an area she has excelled in, which in a sense

puts her out of harm‟s way.

Students were asked as well how comfortable they were with standing up in

front of their class to make an oral presentation. Public speaking is an extreme

situation, and as such is scary for many people in any language. Adding a

requirement that communication be exclusively in French, their second or third

language, would put extra pressure on a person, and their ability to handle this does

speak to their comfort within the group.

141
 Successful students did not look forward to making the oral presentations,

and confessed to getting the jitters in front of their target public. Most feel that the

fear is similar in both languages. Linda explains that extreme preparation is one way

of distilling the fears. Many do report that French is slightly more nerve-racking.

Danielle expresses this sentiment best when she explains the subtle distinction for

her between the two languages: “English is my best friend.” She states that her grasp

of English is such that she can turn things in any direction and still be able to come

out with a coherent sentence. French, for her, is not as forgiving or giving. These

successful students are bilingual, but they do not feel that French is a second native

language. The extra uneasiness they feel related to an oral presentation in French

attests to that. The very thing that is her force for class participation – superiority

over others - is now open for scrutiny during an oral presentation. The slight

discomfort in French for oral presentations that Danielle and other successful

learners speak of, are thus, in part, because they are so gifted and others expect so

much of them.

Moderate learners, like our successful ones, were also typically self-

proclaimed shy students who did not participate much, and only one stated that he

enjoyed participating in class, no matter what the language. The others were more

reserved. A couple of learners claim that their fears are something they have been

able to conquer and were directly linked to fear of peer judgment. Jean explains that

“It was me worrying about what other people thought of me, not really about how I

said something. It was not a language thing.” Maturity and time have allowed Jean

142
to move past his fears. For Nathalie, it was a conscious effort, “One summer I just

kind of read and worked on my French and English reading, and got more

confident.” The effort is a general literacy awareness that was needed and was not

restricted to one language.

A dimension that some moderate learners bring to the participation situation,

not present among the successful learners, is a picture of extreme anxiety in their

classroom setting. It is anxiety that is directly linked to French, anxiety that has all

but paralyzed their ability to function normally. Heritage learners David and Emma

are the only learners in the study who were enrolled in a French Baccalauréat

program as opposed to an IB program. Students enrolled in this section are usually

French, and being heritage learners with a preference for English put these two

students at a linguistic disadvantage that made them tremendously uncomfortable in

their group. Emma‟s comment, “I was always very insecure about participating in

French class” is mild compared to David‟s description.

I am pretty afraid to participate orally - just getting made fun of [by]

students because teachers, they won‟t make fun of you. Kids were
horrible. It is the French, not so much the content…. The content they
probably wouldn‟t even understand, they probably wouldn‟t even
listen… I was given the choice today to go in front of the class and do
an oral thing to help me… and I rejected it because I am sort of just
afraid to do it in front of [them]. They are all ridiculously French.
They all speak with perfect French tongues and… they are all…
merciless, especially the new ones.

Rather than face the dreaded group, David will refuse a chance at extra credit. He

openly suffers from his classmates‟ teasing, and it paralyzes him so much that he

actively refuses to participate, and the fear is apparently justified. The student does

143
not exactly describe what it is the other students do or say, although he claims they

are “horrible” and “merciless.” There is an extreme disconnect between himself and

his peers. He perceives them as being “ridiculously French,” although he himself is

technically half-French. The implication is that there is such a thing as being too

French as opposed to his sufficient amount. He further appears to refuse to give

them complete power over him as he states they are either incapable and “would not

even understand” or disinterested as they “wouldn‟t even listen.” The fact that he

singles out the “new” ones suggests that the “old” ones are somewhat more tolerant

and patient, as they have become more integrated within the school community as a

whole and, by virtue of this, understand that David is one of many, as opposed to the

single inferior member of an otherwise completely French group. This also explains

why Jean and Nathalie, who are enrolled in classes with a more heterogeneous mix

of learners, and thereby benefit from reduced peer expectations, are not as afraid of

participating.

The anxiety is ultimately a result of the learner‟s perception that French

students expect him to perform at a level that he cannot. The frustration is

particularly acute for these moderate learners, as they state that they do not feel this

way about participating in English class and that were it not for the French, they

would want to be more actively engaged in the class.

Moderate learners were basically uncomfortable with the whole process

related to oral presentations. Speaking in public was a source of extreme stress and,

for three learners, this stress was not a language issue.

144
Vincent explains his fears, “Those are really bad in both languages.… I can‟t help

anxiety issues and panic attacks and stuff like that lead to massive brain farts.… I

have not figured out a way to deal with that in either language.”

Three learners actually make an important distinction between their comfort

for oral presentations done in English as opposed to French. One of the learners is to

be noted, as he had previously stated that he was comfortable participating in class in

both languages, and also stated he was fine with speaking French to both students

and adults. He justifies his fears and is candid about the source of discomfort, as

well as the clever strategies he adopted for himself to compensate and overcome his

problems:

When I had to go up to do a speech… that was more difficult because I

was not as comfortable expressing myself in it and in French class they
grade you on expression.… There is more pressure on.… I mean there
were times where you would see me struggle a little maybe so I might
be a little slower. What I do to adapt to that is I slow down my speech,
the whole thing, so I give myself time ahead to figure out what I am
going to say and how I am going to say while I am doing it, so when I
get there, I won‟t really have to stop and be embarrassed.

Ralph is comfortable with his peers, and when asked if they were part of his

discomfort, he philosophically says that at some point they would be in the same

situation – be it French or English – and therefore the ultimate fear rests on not

performing well for the teacher, and not making the grade. The impediment to

making the grade is directly language. It is no longer sufficient to understand and be

understood, now perfection is the key, and focus is drawn on form. The strategy he

adopts is to slow down and give himself time – time he would not need in English,

145
which is a language he processes unconsciously by virtue of the fact that it is his

native tongue.

Weak learners are more at ease with participating in class. Four of the 11

students explained they participated in both English and French classes, although

Clara‟s technique was not particularly common:

I mix it with English all the time especially in math where I get in
trouble for it… sometimes I don‟t comprehend stuff as easily if it is in
French and I know I can‟t wait for the IB where everything is in
English and I am so happy because my vocabulary is just so much
better and I am able to comprehend everything.… It gets to a point
where they have to explain it to me in English and he starts explaining
it to me in English and starts speaking in English and he catches
himself and says, “Great, look what you have me doing” and the class
starts cracking up at us.

Clara‟s French is weak enough that understanding course content becomes a

problem. She is confident enough among her peers to actually force the teacher into

English, and thus makes sure she does get the attention she feels she needs and

deserves. With the anecdote, this learner distinguishes herself. Successful and even

moderate students have been clear that any issue they may have with regards to their

language ability is one of production, as they never experience issues when asked to

digest input. Here a weak learner alludes to problems of simple comprehension,

despite the fact she has been enrolled at LAIA since kindergarten and has been

exposed to the language daily for more than 10 years. She, however, demonstrates

how she has been able to make this happen as she actively engages the teacher in

English, and manages to rely on the knowledge that course content will be provided

in English if she pushes hard enough. She has created an environment for herself

146
where fluency is optional. Her participation is essentially in English no matter what

language the class itself is held in. For successful learner Ophelia, having fewer

classes taught in French for the IB program was a source of bitterness and

displeasure. For Clara, a weak learner, the idea of not having classes taught in

French becomes the beacon of hope.

The other students are generally non-participators, at least during French

class, not by nature but by fear of judgment, both from teachers and students. Sam

explains that, “When I was younger, I did not feel really comfortable with my

classmates.” His fear, like that of the others, is related to being judged by his peers,

and maybe even his teacher. The fear is a combination of people judging the actual

language, and the fear that the comment or question may be thought of as stupid.

Heidi, a late learner, is the one that most concerns herself with pure linguistic

communication. It is not so much the content that concerns her, or even whether

people will mock her French, but her actual ability to get her point across, both with

students and teachers:

Being tossed into an atmosphere where everybody is able to speak it

pretty well and like me being one of the few people who doesn‟t speak
it well, I think that kind of put a barrier for me to participate.… I
thought the teacher would misunderstand the point and I thought it was
kind of useless.

She attaches a feeling of powerlessness and futility to class participation as her

language ability was so limited that production becomes an insurmountable hurdle.

For weak learners, oral presentations are seen from a different angle. Many

of these learners see oral presentations as a time to shine. For Isabel, who has

147
previously been very self-conscious about her French in all situations, oral

presentations are the one time she enjoys herself with the language:

Yeah I like them a lot.… French or English it does not matter if I am

passionate about my topic.… I will just go home and, like, rework my
script and like work on it and I have a bunch of papers as a security
blanket then I am OK.... The French requires the most preparation but I
like the whole system…. It is not the same as participating in class
because by that time I have already had all my thoughts formulated and
I can put them forth in the right manner and say “this is what I think.”

What was a rare moment of self-doubt for successful learners, who held

themselves to very high standards and felt that oral presentations were the one

moment where others might scrutinize their language level, is seen as a time to shine

for this weak learner, who previously had reported feeling tremendous frustration

and self-doubt in most all French-related situations. Oral presentations are unique

for this learner as they allow her to rehearse spoken content ahead of time. There is

no pressure to actually spontaneously have to produce language. Language in this

context is not a part of the learner‟s self, but an adopted and rehearsed persona. The

learner speaks of reworking her script, she works on the speech or rehearses it. She

is able to hide behind a security blanket of papers to prompt her, if needed.

This concept of being extremely prepared comes back with Heidi, who sees

this as the key, and as well as a means for progressing with the language:

Presentations actually I am very OK with that I mean I thought that

since I am not really able to participate and like I am not really good at
expressing myself I thought I would not have a really good time
presenting them but actually they were pretty enjoyable and it was
pretty easy too. I didn‟t feel that nervous or anything. I thought that I
would be more nervous.... The reason I was comfortable was that I
spent so much time on preparing, time to memorize exactly what I was
going to say…. I really prepared and I wrote down everything that I

148
 would say but, after a while, it became kind of useless. I just wrote
points down because writing everything down would take such a long
time and I just ended up writing a few points down.

As with Isabel, Heidi initially treats the oral presentation as a part that is to be

performed, something separate from her own self. She “memorized” her lines and

prepared, and is rewarded by the enjoyment success provides. Where she goes

beyond Isabel is in her ability to make this more than just a time to shine by virtue of

playing a part or successfully assuming a persona that is not her own. For Heidi, the

speeches become a vehicle to progress with the language. Heidi sees value in the

exercise. She understands that through the process, her French does get better and

her reliance on pre-prepared and written text diminishes in favor of spontaneous

communication in the target language.

Beth, as well, touches upon the fact that this process is one which pushes her

French to a higher level and, yet, the explanation alone gets her frustrated:

I love doing speeches in English I mean, you can vouch for that.…
French is different because… I can‟t explain an idea. I can‟t say it like
I really mean it. But I like doing French as well because you get a
whole new point to think “oh, I have to translate this” and that is when
I start thinking in French and I am like, “yes, I am doing this.” Again, it
is really the language barrier, I mean I would rather do a speech in
English.

Oddly enough, the moment in Beth‟s explanation where she sees success, and

discusses the thought of getting excited because her French has hit a new level, one

where she moves beyond translation and into a world of direct thought in French, is

the moment she shifts, somewhat drastically, and regresses in her confidence to a

state where there is a language barrier. Where Heidi saw a chance to dig deeper and

149
progress is the moment where Beth surrenders. The effort is real and, ultimately, not

worth making, a barrier not worth overcoming.

Sam does not seem to share Beth‟s frustration. Whereas she sees the speech

as a moment of frustration and almost but not quite success, he sees French in this

case as a convenient excuse for underperforming:

I am so nervous when I have to speak publicly in either language….

Actually not really worse in French mostly because I feel like the fact
that people know that I have trouble in French I can kind of hide behind
that and so it is OK that I didn‟t do as well because it was in French.
But when I am in English, I just get nervous and it messes me up and
then I have no language excuse.

Sam‟s comfort, like the successful learner‟s discomfort in the same situation, is

related to what they perceive is their audience‟s expectations of their level. For the

successful learner, a public error would be something their audience would not

expect and, thus, the successful learner has the burden of living up to the pedestal

they have been put on. For the weak learner, peer expectations of his level are low,

and the speech becomes a moment where what is usually seen as being a cause for

shame, becomes a convenient alibi and actually plays in his favor.

Successful learners are un-communicative in class. They declare they do not

participate much, and a big source of discomfort for them is the risk of peer

judgment. The fear is geared not at the ability to speak, in fact French is identified as

an area where they might feel more confident, for they understand that their level

puts them out of harm‟s way of judgment, but at actual content with regards to what

they say. When asked about oral presentations, successful learners finally reveal a

150
preference for English in a solid fashion. This extreme situation of standing in front

of a crowd is the one time where the security blanket of English is appreciated.

Moderate learners, in general, are also concerned about peers judging them

when they participate in class. For those whose fear is related to content, it is

something they have been able to conquer through work or time. Those whose fear

is related to speaking French, is a result of being mixed into a very French group,

and they explain that participation has remained for them a source of much anxiety.

What comes out with these learners is that, somehow, participation in class is

something they would actually want to engage in but do not do so for fear of

judgment. The fear is directly linked to their inability to express themselves, and

less to what they are trying to say. Similarly, public speaking is a source of extreme

anxiety for these learners, and most equate French as being an all but insurmountable

hurdle.

Weak learners are scattered with regards to class participation. A group of

weak learners stated that participation was difficult because of peer judgment which

in turn was linked to both content and language. These are the only learners in the

study who actually speak of linguistic hurdles in French being such that they impede

their ability to both understand course content, as well as communicate intended

meanings effectively. Some, however, are comfortable with it as a concept and will

stubbornly participate in English during French class. Oral presentations are not

judged quite as critically as they were by the other learners. At best, weak learners

see presentations as a moment in which they can prepare a script and shine. At

151
worst, French becomes a good excuse for not performing well. It is a win-win

situation. Liked or disliked, the oral presentation is viewed as a valuable exercise by

these learners.

Friendships Outside of Class

Acculturation is often seen as a driving force for the language learner. A

person‟s ability to integrate within the target community is important to advancing

their language skills through practice and, ultimately, the desire to belong will allow

the learner to make room for this new identity. How, therefore, have these students

integrated within the French community of the school? What types of agency

relationships have these learners carved for themselves?

When successful learners were asked about relationships that had been

formed with French people, they were eager to respond. They all, for example, had

developed at least one very close friendship (or in one case a dating relationship) for

which they communicated exclusively in French. Linda credits one of her

friendships with being a catalyst for her improved language skills:

Well, in 6th grade there was Julie…. That is when I was really good, I
was completely speaking French and no one could tell that I wasn‟t
French and then she left and then for a year I was with the American
people and for a year I got a little worse and I had a strong American
accent and then new French people came in and for three years or
something like that I hung out with them.

Linda is particularly proactive about making friends with French students who arrive

at school. Friendship for this learner represents a key to success. It is thanks to a

friendship, she feels, that she was able to obtain native-like fluency at one point,

something which she feels is a goal worth pursuing. As a result, she actively seeks

152
out French students and tries to create active social networks for herself that force

her to engage socially with other students in the target language.

Danielle tells the story of her success in being able to merge her American

world with her French one. Her French friends have taken an important enough

place in her life that she will force a fit with her American friend:

When I brought my best friend to my group of friends she is totally

American English speaking and she is so not used to being like the
“American girl” [fake French accent]. She‟s like, “I know people are
talking about me „cuz I can tell and it is really annoying because I
can‟t, I don‟t know what they are saying” and so…that has always been
an issue because she was like the American and I was translating for
her but now they know her and love her.… It is weird because now she
is part of the group kind of.

She has brought two worlds that should not be able to coexist into alignment. She

has gotten the two sides of herself, the American and the French, to accept each other

and merge to form one unit.

Their ability to befriend members of the target language community would

thus explain their answers related to the question of whether French people at school

felt they had to stop speaking French around them and continue in English. They all

stated that this was never an issue, and that for the most part, like Louis, they tended

to say that, “The kids would speak to me in French, and I would respond in French.

We would never have a conversation in English.” Only Roxanne states that some

people made an effort to move to English: “They went to English for me, they saw

me as American.” This perception comes from the fact that she herself explains, that

for the most part, she spends her recess with the American kids and, therefore, the

French group views her as American by association. This association was not

153
strong enough for her to feel that the group of French students treated her like an

outsider, even though in the very beginning her shyness did lead her to feeling

somewhat out of place. Two successful learners, however, had suffered from this

outsider feeling. Ophelia is quite bitter about a situation that is new to her:

In 10th grade, when we were all in the same class, we would speak
French and it was fine and when [they] moved to French Bac… the 11th
graders and like the 12th graders they decided to sort of isolate
themselves from the IB and… like they wouldn‟t talk to us anymore
and I don‟t know if it was a cultural thing or just a snob thing or I don‟t
know what it was but it is still now…. So we never like talk to each
other which I think it is weird because it is such a small school that
everyone complains that there is no one to talk to… and then we don‟t
talk to each other.

Several times during the interview, she makes reference to her no longer feeling like

a part of the group, and she even goes so far as to regret her choice of Baccalaureate

section as she feels it has hurt both her level of French, by lack of exposure, as well

as her ability to maintain friendships with the group of French students. Linda, as

well, deals with a new sense of loss when she is treated like an outsider by a group of

new French students who have matriculated into the school:

Well, the thing is that there are the Frenchies and then there is the
American group in this school and in the beginning of the year I was
friends with one of the Frenchies and I was with her all the time but
then these new people came throughout the year and they were talking
about France all the time and the French public schools and the „4eme‟,
the „96‟ and all this stuff…. I don‟t know all these numbers so I kind of
drifted off and went back to the Americans…. I felt like an outsider or
actually it just felt different with them. It is more that I would not feel
like an outsider, but they would treat you like an outsider. They treat
me like I am the American.

Linda stands out as being particularly proactive and resilient when it comes to

developing relationships with French people. She gives us examples of friends who

154
are French and who move away. She explains that she seeks out the new French kids

as soon as they are available. She is hurt by the fact that this new group has made

her feel excluded, but her exclusion is not a result of faulty language but rather of her

inability to connect with cultural references. Day to day realities of French Parisian

life are foreign to her. She understands the words but not the reality, and it is this

that makes her feel like she does not belong. Despite this sense of being left out, she

never completely abandons the connection to the group as she continues to flutter

between two social worlds that are available to her at the school.

Two students seem surprised by the outsider question and turn it around.

Danielle explains that she has indeed felt like an outsider at school, but “for other

reasons, not because of the French… because kids are mean and Americans were the

worst.” She complains at having been the victim of taunts from American kids, and

her shelter against childhood victimization is the French community within the

school, with whom she feels more at home and comfortable – which becomes an

obvious incentive to develop language skills.

Adrien, the heritage learner, who was born and raised in the US, explains

new French students:

They right away thought of me as French and we bonded.… We speak

in French and everything and they think of me as a French person. For
some reason I developed the slang from there. I watched French films
and I speak French at home and my parents prepare French food so I
had the French culture.… I always feel more French or European but
when I am with Americans I never feel left out.

Adrien feels so French that he must approach the question from the perspective of a

French person who could, potentially, feel like an outsider with an American group.

155
He credits his success with the very area that Linda stated as being her inability to

mix in with the group – and that is cultural. Adrien is able to understand and

participate in the slang and the everyday culture. His added advantage, therefore, is

not strictly language.

When successful learners were asked if friends or people at school ever made

fun of their French, five of seven said that this never happened. Two, Roxanne and

Linda, declared that it was not so much their French, but their accent in French that

was occasionally a cause for teasing. Linda explains that students make fun of her

accent now but that she does not take offense, because what draws their attention is

the fact that it is not American but faintly Dutch-sounding. This somehow makes the

teasing more complimentary than unpleasant, as it is a symbol of her uniqueness in

the environment rather than a pointing to a failure of some sort.

When moderate learners were asked about friendships they had developed

with French people, they did not have any compelling stories to offer. No moderate

learner had developed close ties to the French contingent in the school the way the

successful learners had. Although one moderate learner, Ralph, states he had one

very close childhood friend, he, unlike Linda, his successful counterpart, had not

sought out to make new ties. He was currently in a situation where, like other

moderate learners, he only had casual connections to the French group. This is

explained as something matter of fact. As Vincent puts it, “I never particularly

integrated.” It is a statement to which he does not particularly attach any judgment,

156
although the implication of it is that he is the one who could or should have

integrated amongst the French students, and not the other way around.

Two heritage learners stand out in the moderate group because not only do

they not have any particularly close ties with the French group, they seem to have

formed no close alliances with anyone in their age group at the school, and both

report to actually “get along better with adults.”

When asked whether the French students move into English for them, all but

one moderate student report that students did not. This was true with the successful

learners, but where the successful learners are explicit about the fact that such a shift

would be both unnecessary and somewhat silly, the moderate learners seem more

resentful about the fact that French students do not make the effort, or as David

explains, they “refuse to speak English.” This is not true for Emma, who declares

that the students do move to English for her when necessary. She has developed the

reputation of one who has trouble communicating, so much so that even a group that

refuses to speak English will make concessions for her: “They try to explain

something, at first they will talk to me in French, „cuz they know that I speak French

obviously but if I don‟t understand it they will go into English.” Her lack of

comprehension appears in social situations in which a clear lack of integration and

practice have led her to not develop a register for slang and casual discourse in

French. Her problem is stronger than the pure cultural holes that the successful

learner spoke of earlier, but does not represent the actual linguistic gap that the weak

157
learner spoke of when she needed the teacher to explain core course content in

English.

Ralph agrees with David in that the French are not quick to try a new

language, but there is not the same resentment, in fact he is one of the few to see this

as a positive thing: “That was really beneficial at first because they would speak

only French so it would force me to speak French and at that point my confidence

became very high „cuz I was able to express myself a lot better by practicing it with

them.” His ability to buy into the casual discourse with the newly-arrived French

students is related to the one friendship he had when he was younger, as this

historical precedent provided him with a clear picture of the value that additional

contact had on his level.

When asked whether or not people ever made fun of their French, moderate

learners tend to pause and hesitate, as if searching the recesses of their minds. The

thought is not out of the question, but it is also not a common occurrence for most

either. A couple of learners remember instances where they had been teased, but are

adamant that this did not bother them and that it was all just fun and games. Ralph

describes, “No, not like „Oh, you can‟t speak French.‟ As a joke, yeah, but not like

„you can‟t speak!‟ They didn‟t mean it like a huge accusation, they were just playing

around.” The words seem harsh and it is difficult to imagine them being taken in

jest. Emma‟s description is similarly hurtful: “Yeah, this year was the only time

really. Well, they just said that I had an accent… well they also said that I say things

that don‟t really make sense, but that didn‟t really bother me either.” Emma‟s

158
description becomes progressively less pleasant. She initially refers to being teased

for a slight accent, but then explains that students openly tell her she is hard to

understand and that what she says doesn‟t “really make sense.” In both instances,

the taunts seem harsh and cruel. What seems unrealistic is that the teasing has really

had no affect whatsoever on the students who were receiving it.

Aurelie feels that the question about teasing is a time to justify her level:

No, I don‟t think so. I don‟t think it is to that point.… They don‟t tease
me but they can tell that sometimes I have a hard time. It‟s a little
embarrassing because I feel that I shouldn‟t, you know. I don‟t think
sometimes people realize that it is tough to keep a language going.… I
don‟t think people ever realize that it has been tough you know, I didn‟t
write in French for seven years so of course I am not going to be as
great speaking French.

The thought that there might be something to tease her about is a source of insecurity

for this French-born student who did not start learning English until she arrived in

the States at the age of nine. The presence of other French speakers, and their

fluency versus hers remains a troublesome spot for Aurelie, who enrolled at LAIA in

the 11th grade in an effort to reconnect with a language she felt was slipping away.

As the only French person in an otherwise all-American IB class, this learner feels

that she is expected to outperform her peers. The fact that she does not is a source of

insecurity. This is similar to her half-French peer, David, in the French Bac section

who felt that his French classmates had expectations of what his French should be

which was the source of anxiety and led to his refusing to participate in class rather

than face his peers‟ judgment.

159
 Vincent points to a very different type of teasing related to members of his

own linguistic community. His ability to speak French becomes a source for being

teased outside of school with his regular American friends. He tells of this:

Out of my peers here no one makes fun of my French but my American

friends, some of the more patriot ones, they find it very interesting but
they also find it kind of gay but not in the literal translation, in the new
definition.

Vincent is confronted with the taunts of fellow Americans who do not accept this

learner‟s taking on what they perceive to be an unnecessary and inferior identity.

This is a great irony as it is Vincent‟s resistance to making French a true part of his

identity that has halted his progress and kept him with the moderate learners of the

study.

The weak learners were not particularly proactive in developing friendships

with French speakers. Benjamin states that he is close to Adrien, the successful

learner, and that they have been known to speak in French. Sam recalls that a long

time ago he had befriended a French student but that they had lost touch. When

asked how his French was at that point in time, he thinks back and surprises himself

as he says, “It was really good, actually.”

Unlike the moderate learners who basically state that they have not really had

friendships with French speakers, some of the weak learners do to associations.

Most, like Shelley, will acknowledge having some friends who are French, but

confess that “I have never really had a close friend that speaks French.” What is

even more distinctive is that they are equally quick to point out the fact that, unlike

the successful learners, they do not speak to their new friends in French. At best,

160
like Clara, the weak learner, “I do a real big mix of the French and the English.”

Others, like Mastaneh, state that the French friends she boasts of are heritage learners

and, “We speak English because they are born and raised here.” Amelia, who

actually does speak of new arriving French students when she deals with the

question, makes it clear that her contact with the new students is beneficial for them.

Amelia thus distinguishes herself from the successful learners who saw an

opportunity to improve their French when new students arrived. Amelia feels it is

she who provides the new student with needed support. She explains, “If they want

to learn English, maybe I will help them.” The burden is on the French speaker to be

proactive and move to the dominant language. No relationship could be developed

otherwise.

Despite their claims, weak learners do not develop friendships with native

French speakers, and they fall more under the category of what Isabel describes

when she says, “I am not particularly close to the French…. We will chit chat off

campus but it is not anything great…. If we chit-chat, it is in both languages.”

Therefore, communication between the weak learners and the French seems to be

limited to civilities and does not go beyond that. If there is any chance of a

friendship developing, it is only if the French student is willing to move into English.

When asked if French students stayed in French around them, moderate and

successful learners both confirmed that they did. Moderate learners, unlike

successful learners, were slightly annoyed by this and even snippily asserted that

French people refused to speak English. The weak learners do not perceive things in

161
this manner. Heritage learners Shelley and Benjamin are the only weak learners to

report that French speakers stay in French around them. Many of the weak learners

do not suffer from French people staying in French around them for a variety of

reasons. For one thing, many weak learners state that they avoid, or are avoided by,

the French speakers. Beth explains:

Well, the people from France they don‟t like speaking English. Like
the kids in my class, they hate speaking English. They would just
speak French and they speak French to each other…. The French
people mostly hang out with each other and if they hang out with the
Americans, it will be someone who can speak French fairly fluently
and basically they just hang out with each other.

Beth matter of factly declares herself not to be part of the learners who a French

student would hang out with, and thus, by implication, she confirms that she is not

one of the “fairly fluent” students who they would frequent as she is not a successful

learner. She also, with this statement, makes it clear that she herself would not

proactively seek out a French student, unlike a successful learner, like Linda, who

would make the first step.

Another reason some of the weak learners do not feel bitterness towards

French people who stay in French is that some of these weak learners have found a

way to get these resistant speakers to make an effort in English. Sam explains that

when he is around the French speakers, they view him as an American. When asked

if they speak French with him, he confesses that they don‟t: “Not really. I mean I

always tell them that I understand even if I make some mistakes speaking.”

For those that cannot make the French speakers to go into English, a deal is

tacitly struck and communication becomes a mix of two languages, with each

162
speaker choosing to communicate in their native language. Amelia explains the

system: “Well the French kids, if they weren‟t comfortable with their English, they

would speak French, but I would respond mostly in English.” Isabel speaks of this

system but is one of the few weak learners to understand that this lack of effort and

integration on her part is a linguistic downfall. She, however, feels paralyzed by her

environment, and cannot break through the barrier: “I guess there are French people

here, but I just feel so intimidated, you know? A lot of times the students make me

feel intimidated.” The intimidation comes as much, if not more, from the perceived

judgment she feels the more fluent non-French speakers around her would bring

should she try, like them, to create ties with the new students.

With regards to feeling like outsiders, successful learners were generally

comfortable with the situation and did not suffer. The two successful learners who

were made to feel like they did not belong were particularly resentful at the injustice.

Moderate learners, however, did feel at times like they just did not belong to the

group as they did not feel they were competent enough with the language to actually

feel like a member of the group. The weak learners, like the successful ones, are

more positive, and do not suffer the way the moderate students report to have.

Shelley and Benjamin, the two heritage learners, are conversant enough that they do

not have trouble dealing with the French around them. The other weak learners are

not, but what is interesting is that one argument that is put forth by many weak

learners was that they did not feel excluded because their mindset was that the

linguistic burden was not theirs to shoulder. Mastaneh explains: “They are very

163
nice.… No, they don‟t make me feel like an outsider at all. If anything, they would

feel like one because they are the ones… living in this country.”

Heidi, the late-learner, arriving into a school of French speakers in 6th grade,

states that she was made to feel like an outsider and when asked if people were

welcoming she asserts, “No not at all, to be honest. They did not try at all to speak

English…. We got treated as outsiders.” Even though the two students have

diametrically opposed impressions, the implication of their statements are similar, as

both learners feel that the French students are the ones who should be making the

effort to speak to them in English.

Isabel, who previously had expressed discomfort around her classmates, and

had even bitterly compared herself to one successful learner, has a much more

positive feeling when it comes to the actual true French at LAIA.

They are really nice. They know I have difficulties in French so they
don‟t give me a hard time for that. They don‟t treat me like an outsider.
They will include me in a conversation and everything and I can get my
two cents in.

In her mind, these are real French, not LAIA French. To them, she is an American

who speaks a little French, and not a weak learner who has been enrolled in the

school since kindergarten, and who has never been able to get any better while others

have. The label she has given herself is her albatross to bear, and she feels that with

these students she can let it go. Her biggest handicap is the perceived expectations

she is convinced others have of her.

When weak learners were asked whether or not people had ever made fun of

their French, about half were candid, and stated that they had, in fact, been made fun

164
of. They are all quick to add that the teasing was done in jest, and not in an attempt

to actually cause real distress, but as Heidi, the late learner, states: “In class

sometimes, but just kind of joking…. Well, obviously when you are trying to learn a

language and someone makes fun of you no matter how light heartedly you do, it is

not really funny.” A joke is only funny when all parties are amused. Having

language skills be made fun of is of limited amusement to the object of the jest.

Many weak learners, when faced with the questions, looked perplexed and

stated that that had never happened, although they were hesitant about their response,

and attached “I don‟t think so,” “I am not sure,” or an “I don‟t recall” to their

answers. The implication behind the hesitation of these learners is the uneasy feeling

of doubt such a question raises. They are warped back to moments in time in which

other students found something they did not understand amusing, and they cannot

honestly say that the subject of everyone‟s mirth was not, in fact, something they

themselves had said incorrectly. One learner explains that she is proud to have

sheltered herself from this situation:

No, I don‟t speak it very often.… I see that with Shelley too because
they say her French is really bad and she kind of messes up a lot and
you see sometimes that makes me not want to speak French because
they might be saying the same thing.

Clara reserves her speech because she does not want to suffer the same fate as her

friend Shelley, who was one of our hesitant responders who stated people did not

make fun of her French. In Clara‟s mind, the only thing worse than being made fun

of would be being made fun of, and not even knowing it. This is the second instance

in which Clara is hyper-aware of how other people perceive her various friends‟

165
shortcomings. This fear of being judged is what paralyzes her, and her ability to

vicariously suffer for her friends stunts her progress and keeps her from taking any

risks.

Successful learners actively sought out French speakers and tried to develop

friendships with them. Native French students spoke French around the successful

learners, and the learners responded in kind comfortably. They did not feel like

outsiders amongst the native French students and, if a situation did arise where they

did, the feeling stemmed from cultural incomprehensions, and not linguistic ones. If

they did find themselves feeling left out amidst a group of French speakers, they

were quite resentful of it. Their French was not something people made fun of,

although a couple of learners stated some people pointed out that they had an accent.

Moderate learners were not at all as integrated within the French group.

They did not have a strong track record of having developed friendships, although

the French contingent at school generally stayed in French around them, and

expected the moderate learners to reciprocate. Some of the moderate learners found

this to be annoying. Students had been teased about their French, but it was not a

common occurrence.

Weak learners generally avoided the native French students at school

altogether. They had not systematically made connections with French students, and

felt that if anyone should feel like an outsider it was the French, who were, after all,

on American soil. Native French speakers clearly understood that these learners

would not actively participate with them in French, and thus made concessions for

166
them, such as tolerating a bilingual conversation in which each person speaks in their

dominant language. Many weak learners had been teased about their French, and

some actually cited the teasing as a reason not to communicate in French, as this was

the perceived risk.

Conclusion

Successful learners are extremely proficient and at ease with using French.

This ease is what allows them and may also be a consequence of the fact that they

readily seek out and engage the French students at the school. They are comfortable

speaking and interacting with the native French students, and although they confess

to a preference and added ease with the English language, they are in no way

incapable of performing in any situation because of French.

Moderate learners have not developed strong ties to French students at the

school, although the French students themselves generally viewed them as being able

to use the language, and thus see no reason to make concessions for them or to

engage them in any other language but French. Despite the perception other students

have of them, moderate learners do frequently feel inadequate in their abilities and

fear their French peers‟ judgment.

Weak learners are not at all integrated into the French community at the

school. They normally do not engage other native French students, and even when

they do, they make little effort to stay in French for them. They view the native

French students as the outsiders in an American setting and generally do not accept

167
or take into account efforts made by French speakers to correct or improve their

French.

Motivation

A cornerstone of sociocultural thought, or more specifically, activity theory,

is that motivation for an activity will determine how the activity is treated by the

learner, and thus will influence the ultimate result. In other words, why a learner

engages in an activity, and what is expected as a result of this activity, will determine

what is ultimately obtained from it. Two learners can take a language class, but if

one is taking the class to learn the language, while the other merely wants to pass a

course, their differing motives will affect the results obtained. Even though they

both follow the same course, they will not get the same result from it because their

initial goals were different. In this light, it becomes imperative to clearly understand

the motivation our learners have and how they view their language learning

experience.

This section will focus on understanding what exactly the learners want and

expect from their course of study. Initially, attention will be drawn to understanding

the learner‟s satisfaction of their level and motivation for their project. Then the

focus will be on getting an impression of whether or not they felt this program was

worthwhile, and finally on trying to understand what they hope to get from the

program.

168
 Learner Satisfaction and Motivation

It is pertinent to understand what the learners‟ perceptions are with regards to

their target language. Understanding what standards the learners place for

themselves is an important step to getting a better understanding of how demanding

they are of themselves and what they expect to achieve. Therefore, all learners were

asked questions related to this issue, namely: Are they satisfied with their level? Do

they feel the need to sound French, and does having an accent present a problem for

them? What do they feel their motivation level to progress in French is?

When successful learners were asked about their satisfaction with regards to

their level of French, they were generally satisfied with their level of success.

Danielle states, “I am comfortable with it, in fact, sometimes I feel really proud of it.

It is one of the things that I really do pride myself on, especially around French

speakers.” This pride around French speakers is due to the fact that they take her

French for granted, and that this is a credit to her level. Most successful learners

start out as Danielle, and state that they are satisfied but then immediately they

temper their satisfaction and start pointing out everything they would like to improve

about it. For most, their target area of improvement is oral communication. They

would like to go beyond the label of fluent and enter a level of native performance.

The immediate reflex for the successful learner is to throw out the problem and

simultaneously explain how this problem can be solved. Louis, the heritage learner,

explains his strategy: “I think it could get a little better…. I want to live in France so

I could speak a little faster and use better words.” This moving- to-France desire is

169
very much the norm for successful learners, as they feel that the school does not

provide enough exposure to the language for oral communication.

When asked about whether or not they had an accent, and if that posed a

problem for them, all successful learners state that they do indeed have a slight

accent. Even Adrien, the very French heritage learner, explains that his mother

occasionally detects an accent in him. Louis, the other successful heritage learner

complains that he can generally fool the LAIA population but that when he is around

“French people who only know French, they say I have an American accent.” This

is a source of frustration for a learner who would like to be able to blend-in in any

situation.

Most successful learners state that sounding French is quite important, and

link it directly to getting enough practice with the language outside of the classroom.

The key for language to be accent-free is for communication to be ongoing and

constant. Therefore, some have become resigned to the idea that this may never

happen. Stephanie wonders, “I don‟t know how realistic that is.” Others are more

obstinate. They place an equal importance, but are much more adamant about the

need for this goal to be reached. Ophelia complains it was something she had

previously mastered and declares, “I have to get it back.” Linda explains that her

insistence on accent has been a bone of contention with her scientist parents who are

too pragmatic for her taste:

I don‟t want to have an accent! I always complain to my parents when

they say, “You are fluent when you can be made understood.” When
they are trying to speak Italian in Italy… you can tell that they have an

170
 accent. So I always tell them, “You can‟t say you are fluent if you
don‟t have the [correct] accent.”

Linda is not satisfied with what they say is sufficient, just as they were not satisfied

with what she felt was sufficient in math. She is ambitious in what she has mastered

and they have raised her to accept nothing but the best. French has further become a

time were she can outshine them and better yet, she can even criticize. Her

frustration for accent is very typical of the successful learner in that she has a plan to

deal with what she perceives is a problem, namely, propelling herself into the target

environment. Her goal, in fact, is to go live there “for a year or two.”

Late-learner, Roxanne, is the only one to declare that having an accent is not

a problem for her, as her goal is actually related to fluency. She does not link that

success to the perfect French accent, but on an ability to speak French completely

freely, which she does not feel she has mastered. She states: “It is more the way to

turn a sentence or like expressions and stuff like that, that I never really learned. I

want to know the everyday stuff.” That absolute fluency is also a question of

continued and prolonged exposure. Although her ultimate goal is not linked to

accent-free communication, her solution to what she perceives as her handicap is the

same – namely investing a year in the target country in an effort to progress.

When asked about motivation, successful learners felt that their motivation

was quite strong. Late-learner Stephanie explains that her motivation has undergone

a shift, although it has never faltered: “I think it is different because when I started it

was just motivation to learn a language at all, just to be able to speak it even a little,

but now… it is to become as fluent as possible.” Even Stephanie‟s initial goals were

171
ambitious, and from the get-go she knew she wanted more than just basic passive

comprehension. Her first goal was to be able to communicate, which is a very

proactive approach to language as this implies that the learner wants to be an active

member within the target community. Another key element is that Stephanie

attributes this motivation to a personal desire for communication. This is a common

response for successful learners, like Ophelia, who was motivated “more by myself”

than by some external parental, or teacher-related force.

Two successful learners rejected the question of motivation altogether.

Successful learners, Adrien and Danielle have both taken the target language to

another level because for them French is not a motivation issue. Adrien explains:

“For Italian it is a question of motivation, French not really, it comes naturally.”

Danielle explains: “I have never really thought about it as doing well in French. I

mean I can speak well because I have always spoken it… kind of like English class, I

don‟t want to do well in English just to make sure I can speak English…. I do it

because it is a class I want to do well in.” Danielle‟s response is similar to Adrien‟s

in that the motivation for French is a non-issue, it is a given, as natural for her as

breathing. French is a language, not a subject. It is an end in and of itself, and not a

means to getting a grade.

When asked about their satisfaction for their level of French, moderate

learners were, like successful learners, generally satisfied with their level. Moderate

learners, like successful learners, also immediately then pointed out why their level

was not as good as it could be. The difference is that, where successful learners used

172
this weakness as a target to attain, or a problem to solve, moderate learners were

much more matter of fact about their weaknesses. They basically explain that their

level is not sufficient, but that somehow this insufficiency is OK or justified.

Vincent states it is OK because his level “is very impressive” to Americans or non-

French speakers. While the successful language learner‟s barometer for success is

the native speaker, the moderate learner measures success by his ability to do better

than other language learners in a similar situation, and should that fail, to look fluent

to someone who does not speak the language.

Heritage learners are similarly conscious of, but satisfied by their level. Jean

asserts that “I know I can learn more, but I am fine (that is my lazy side) with how

much I have learned.” Basically, the moderate learner‟s attitude is that their level is

sufficient, given the opportunities they have had and the need they have for the

language. Communication is the goal, and not integration within a language

community. Ralph states, “I am satisfied enough…. I am at a point where… I won‟t

have any trouble communicating in French… if I ever need to.”

The successful learner wants to become a member of a group, and thus

incorporates a new language into their identity. The moderate learner merely wants

to be able to communicate with a linguistic community which is essentially not his

own.

Accent is an issue that is completely divided along gender lines for moderate

learners. Female learners in this group stressed that sounding French was extremely

important to them. The importance was linked to a question of identity. Emma is

173
clear about this concept: “I would like to be considered as a French girl, rather than

as an American girl who speaks French.” The young ladies emit a desire, like their

successful counterparts, to sound French. They further are forced to admit that this

is not the reality, but they do not actually develop a plan of action to do something

about it.

Males in the moderate learner group are much less concerned about whether

or not they have an accent. They are, in fact, pretty comfortable with this state of

being. Jean states, “I am not ashamed of having an accent.” Ralph is pragmatic and

explains: “As long as I can understand what they are saying and they can understand

what I am saying… it is fine.”

For successful learners, motivation was a constant in their lives. They

wanted to succeed and they actively pursued the goal. For moderate learners,

motivation is not quite the same kind of guiding light. Moderate learners confess

that, over time, motivation has faltered or shifted. Vincent states that he pretty much

felt he had accomplished what he had come for by the end of junior high. This

represents the moment in time when he became aware that he had surpassed the level

of his monolingual peers, in terms of general cultural awareness. This notion of

accomplishment could have a negative impact on the language learning process as it

is frequently accompanied by the motivation killer, complacency.

Nathalie confesses that junior high was a test of her motivation as well but

her test does not come in the form of feeling successful, on the contrary:

More now… it has gone up and down yeah for a while in junior high I
felt I was losing it a little in 6th and 7th. The French teachers were very

174
 strict… because I was put in higher level and my speaking wasn‟t as
good as my writing… and there were all the French kids in class. I
think I dropped then because I didn‟t want to speak in front of the
others. I was the quiet one in class.

Nathalie paints the picture of a typical language learner who has been able to master

comprehension but for whom production is limited to written communication as

school becomes the only viable moment of practicing the learned language. Unlike

the heritage learner, whose verbal skills are generally stronger than their written ones

by virtue of the exposure to the language in the home, the non-heritage learner must

create a social network beyond the classroom and outside of the home if they are to

truly be able to develop verbal language skills. Nathalie‟s fear of being judged by

who she sees as more successful peers ends up halting progress and, by extension,

stifling her motivation. Too much comfort, too little, both extremes have brought

about a negative result for language learning in these learners.

Some motivation shifts for moderate learners are more positive. For Ralph,

the idea that graduation is just around the corner, has actually sparked his motivation

somewhat: “I am more motivated to just practice it because I feel that I need it and I

don‟t want to lose it.” For Ralph, leaving LAIA means no longer using his French,

and whereas he was not particularly proactive when it came to seeking out French

friends, he now does consciously feel the need to use his French to make sure it stays

active.

One learner admits to initially having resisted the whole process. Her

motivation shift has drastically altered her perspective and brought her to be less

resistant, albeit somewhat late in the game. Emma explains, “More now because I

175
was not motivated then. I guess I just kind of thought it was too hard to learn so it

was imposed and I just thought „why not learn English?‟” A common theme for

those who do not become completely successful is to focus on the difficulty that

attaining true success implies. It is not that the language is not a desirable target, but

rather that the hurdles to get there are not worth clearing. Emma‟s change of heart

leads to regret, although she still does not develop any realistic plan of action to do

anything to make up for lost time.

Ultimately, motivation for the moderate learners is more of a struggle than it

was for successful learners. It is not that they don‟t want to speak French, but rather

that the effort involved in really being fluent is probably more than they are willing

to put into the project. Much of this is due to the lack of need for a language for

which they have basically developed no social network, and that they only use at

school and, for some, occasionally at home.

Weak learners are generally comfortable or satisfied with their level of

French. Two scenarios arise: Learners either state that they are generally satisfied,

and justify this statement by explaining what it is they can do, or they express

dissatisfaction, and justify this dissatisfaction by pointing out what they are not

capable of doing. What is glaring about both the positive and negative statements is

what they have in common, which is the desired level to be attained. Shelley, for

example, points out, “Pretty satisfied. I mean I can speak it, I can write it, and I can

read it.” Elsewhere, Shelley has also said she stumbles on her words in certain

situations, she makes numerous grammatical errors when she writes, and that she

176
basically does not enjoy reading in French because she does not understand what is

going on. Therefore, her satisfaction is one of basic communication and seems to

reflect what all weak learners are expecting of their French. Amelia is specific, “I

can‟t speak it well and if I try to write it, I will have plenty of mistakes.” She is

however, “pretty satisfied” with her level “Because I can understand it very well.”

The weak learner‟s satisfaction is thus often a satisfaction for passive ability

as opposed to an active one. They comprehend, even if they are less than fluent with

production skills. This satisfaction is in part a result of the knowledge that the

language is not absent, but merely dormant. As Isabel explains: “It is there… there

is like this transparent wall.” This wall that keeps her from speaking could be

brought down given some exposure to the language in a French context. This

exposure is, however, not proactively planned, but rather thought of in the abstract.

The weak learners employ expressions with regards to their language skills that

would be foreign to a successful learner, as they are constantly using terms like

Beth‟s “I wish I knew it a little better.” The verb “to wish,” which is frequently used

by weak learners with regards to their language skills, is not one that implies a

proactive energy to attain a stated goal. It is a passive desire to get something for

free.

A pattern appears related to what students put forward as being their

strengths and weaknesses. Heritage learners, like Benjamin, point out that they are

successful, but feel more comfortable with oral communication. He explains matter

of factly, “The written is worse. I can express myself on a piece of paper, but my

177
level of vocabulary and fashion of expressing myself isn‟t comparable to English.”

This is similar to comments made by heritage learners like Jean, Adrien, Shelley,

Aurelie, and Louis, who have explained that, no matter what level they fall under in

this study, they often feel more comfortable communicating orally. The opposite is

seen with non-heritage moderate learners or late-learners who, no matter what their

level, profess a clear preference for written communication. Peter explains, “I wish I

could speak better… the whole written part, I have no problem with.” Ability to

communicate orally is a direct result of exposure, and for that, heritage learners have

an advantage through family, although this advantage is restricted to oral

communication, and the frustration felt is that written communication is an

altogether different exercise. Late-learners, who have constant practice with the

written French, master this skill first as it is the only form of language production

that they continuously receive.

Students that begin learning the language early on, and who do not fall into

the heritage or late-learner categories, are not guaranteed any end success. They end

up being successful, moderate, or weak, in general. The successful early-learners

master both comprehension and production skills in both written and oral forms.

Moderate learners are more comfortable with written expression, and they

comprehend everything much like the late-learner. The weak student has still not

entirely mastered comprehension, and has trouble with both written and oral

expression.

178
 With regards to accent, all learners, but one, state that they have an accent.

Few are concerned by it. The two heritage learners in the group who admit to having

an accent say that they are upset to have people point it out. Shelley says, “It annoys

me when they say that, I don‟t want an accent, I want to sound perfect.” The desire

to sound perfect is, as with Beth‟s wishing her French would improve, never

accompanied by any form of proactive strategy to ensure that native-like

performance is attained.

Sam, the last heritage learner in this group, who is somewhat proud of the

fact that French speakers have pointed out the fact that he does not have an accent,

sees this as also being a negative: “If I had an accent, then it‟s obvious that I would

make mistakes, but mistakes surprise people because, you know, I sound French.”

Amelia seconds this assertion and states that her accent is an indirect way to get

compliments: “I think it is cool because that way people will recognize that it is a

second language so it is like, „Wow, you have learned it! That is amazing!‟” For the

successful learner, the accent was a source of shame. For the weak learner, the

accent becomes a badge of honor that points to the fact that they have learned a

foreign language and they are proud to be able to communicate at all.

Most learners end up stating that they have an accent, and confess that it is

not anything they concern themselves with. Peter explains, “I don‟t try.” Beth

declares: “I have a little bit of an English accent but who doesn‟t if you are learning

another language, and all you ever speak is English at home?” The underlying

assumption is that the accent is to be expected and normal. There is thus no need to

179
move past it or get frustrated by it – especially in a world where the ultimate goal is

basic communication and not near-native fluency.

Motivation is a complex issue for weak learners who fall into different

groups. Beth, for example, seems to have run out of steam: “When I was younger, I

think I was more motivated.” Her motivation was linked to her ability to show off

and show everyone that she was learning everything in French, a foreign language.

As this got old and became the status quo, the motivation tapered off somewhat.

Heritage learners express the desire to maintain their French. Benjamin points out

that, for him, French is a question of “opportunity, not motivation.” If he is given

the opportunity, his French will progress. The response is passive and the

opportunities for communication must come to him as opposed to him seeking them

out.

Clara, the weakest learner, rejects the concept of motivation as Danielle, her

successful counterpart, had also done: “I don‟t think I have ever thought of

motivation as a child, it was just part of school. It is just like there is in any other

course, it was just part of school.” Her reasoning seems similar but is diametrically

opposed to Danielle‟s. Clara sees French as any other subject, and she must use it to

get the grade. There is no motivation to learn a language. It is the means to passing

a required course and getting a grade, and thus has no intrinsic value of its own. It

never becomes an end. For Danielle, it was the vehicle that she loved, not so much

the grade she got for using it.

180
 A strong theme for weak learners, with regards to motivation, is the notion of

regret. Several learners report a shift in their motivation later in their schooling,

which has led them to actually want to learn the language. Isabel regrets getting so

frustrated around other learners. Joseph tells of his student exchange experience

which, because he was able to make friends in France, has given him a new found

desire to want to communicate. Late-learners Peter and Heidi speak of an initial

resistance they had when their parents enrolled them in the program which kept them

from actually trying as hard as they could. They now both wish they had had a

different approach to the learning process. Heidi explains:

I wish I could travel back into time… because then I kind of learned
because I was kind of forced into it but also I cried everyday because I
didn‟t understand the language – it was just so uncomfortable…. So, I
was kind of forced into it but now when you think about it, I feel like I
should have been more motivated just because I want to and not
because I am forced to. So if I went back I think I would try much
harder… not just to understand but to be able to participate.

Heidi has regrets and given the chance, she would approach the language learning

process as Stephanie, her successful late learner peer, had done with a desire to

actually make the language an active tool for communication as opposed to

restricting the ability to being a mere vehicle needed for the comprehension of other

course content. Heidi‟s regrets are still infused with the very passive weak learner

language of “wishing something could be done.” Peter, however, becomes the only

weak learner to take a more proactive stance to his frustration. He explains that he

feels his motivation has increased with time:

I think so because before it used to be more of a thing where… for the

first year… I didn‟t really like it because I really didn‟t understand it a

181
 lot at all. But now I understand more of it and I want to speak it so I
might actually pursue it in college. I just want to speak it.

This is the first proactive statement that a weak learner has expressed

regarding the target language and wanting to succeed. It is a far cry from the

commitment successful learners expressed when they all spoke of living abroad.

Peter will take a class which is a lot compared to his weak learner peers, although he

never moves into a world where the idea of a French social network and a stay in the

country are a possibility.

Successful learners are generally satisfied with their language level, although

they speak of strategies and ways to attain near-native fluency that would include

actively trying to lose any form of accent they have. Despite their satisfaction with

their level of language, they continue to be proactive with regards to the language

learning process and motivation remains strong.

Moderate learners also state that they are satisfied with their level of French.

They are explicit about what their shortcomings are, but have no intention of actively

making efforts to improve their French or tackle their handicaps. Accent is seen by

moderate males as an inevitable state of being, and a disappointing reality for

females although, here again, no strategies will be adopted to counter the accent.

Moderate learners confess to having ups and downs on their motivation issue. Some

have regrets about this, although, in general, it is noted that motivation for French as

a language does not appear particularly strong for this group.

Weak learners may or may not be content with their level of French, but what

all weak learners have in common is that the ultimate goal is never native-like

182
fluency, as it was for successful learners. Rather, the ultimate goal for the weak

learner is basic communication, and they are relatively passive about whether or how

they will achieve even that. Weak learners have an accent and do not see this as a

problem. For some, the accent is even perceived as an advantage as it categorizes

them as learners of a language, rather than speakers of a language, and this opens the

door for compliments, and thus makes them feel successful. When discussing

motivation, some weak learners express regrets at not having been more proactive,

although few actually plan to redress the ill.

Value of Program

In an effort to identify what value learners placed on their program of study,

they were asked two questions: If they should be given a chance to relive their

school years, would they choose the dual immersion program again? Would they

enroll their own children in such a program?

Successful learners were all very positive about their linguistic experience

and emphatically stated they would relive it. Danielle exclaims: “In a heartbeat,

France is so important to me!” Two learners, like Ophelia, put a caveat on the

notion: “I would do things differently.” Both she and Roxanne wish they could turn

back the clock, but it would only be to have the new experience be even more

French, as Ophelia wishes she had chosen a French Baccalauréat option, and

Roxanne wishes her parents had enrolled her earlier than 7th grade. Louis, the

heritage learner, is the only one of the group who endorses the project because he

knows what the alternative would have been like: “Definitely, because when I started

183
going to the public school I was starting to forget French completely, but when I

came here I started remembering it again.” The endorsement is for the language. All

successful learners attach value to the language learning project in and of itself, as

opposed to viewing the question in terms of being enrolled in a specific school that

happens to offer a language.

When asked whether these learners would consider enrolling their own

children in such a program, they were generally equally positive. Ophelia is the only

one who expresses some reservations, which are linked not to the language learning,

but to some negative experiences she had had within the school itself. Linda

explains that the bilingual setting would be a must for her children as “I am not

going to make them go to a monolingual school.” The wording she chooses here is

interesting as there would be implied coercion in having a child miss out on the

experience of knowing another language. Such wording was used by other moderate

and weak learners when they discussed the fact that they had been forced into a

language program. Danielle is characteristically emphatic with regards to her choice

of school for her offspring: “I was thinking about that… actually, and I think I

would want them to and I was thinking that if I had a kid, I would speak French to

them.” She continues her imaginary child-rearing thought by endorsing the

importance of being international, and deciding that she would actually want her

children to have some form of international residency. She has transported her

existence to Europe, and describes France as a “gateway” into a whole new world.

184
 When asked the same question, moderate learners were also relatively

positive. With regards to reliving their academic life, they all, ultimately, stated that

they would return to LAIA, although their choice was not like the successful

learners, necessarily exclusively related to the French language. Some cite the

general academics and respectability of the system, and the doors that it opens for

them. Vincent explains: “I would pick the program again only because it is the most

established dual immersion program in existence.” Heritage learners place a caveat

on this whole process. Jean sets a term to his sentence, “Yes, but I would leave by

the 7th grade.” Emma embraces the idea as long as she approached it differently, “I

think I would work harder… I would go to France more.” The idea of getting a

second chance brings out feelings of how to right the wrongs she has made – namely

the ongoing and proactive connection to the country, not for travel per se, but for the

linguistic opportunity that travel provides. This learner can proactively fix what is

broken in a daydream, but fails to make any such plans for a real future – which

implies a sense of it “being too late” in her mind.

Moderate learners pretty much follow the same line when asked about

whether they would enroll their children in such a program. For some moderate

learners, it is more about whether or not the program continues to be seen as a

valuable and socially-acceptable private system. Their decision continues to be

related to the doors the program can open for their children, and the fact that it is

private versus public. Most of the other learners do specifically endorse the idea

openly, and even credit the endorsement to their wanting their children to benefit

185
from learning French. Aurélie explains: “I think so. I would want them to speak

French, definitely.” The implication behind her assertion is that without the

additional influence the school provides, the acquisition of French will be out of

reach for her children. She speaks, like her successful counterpart Louis, from the

experience of seeing her own language dwindle when thrust in a monolingual public

school. She, further, is not as optimistic as Jean, who believes he could have left

LAIA by the 7th grade and still maintained the same level of French.

Weak learners are actually surprisingly clear about the fact that they would

relive the experience of being in a dual immersion program. In fact, nine of the 11

learners stated they would do it again. Shelley actually credits the school with

helping her reach the level she has in French, “I would do it again, yeah, I think if I

had not been in a French school, I would not be as fluent…. I would not be able to

write it.” Success is relative to what a person‟s expectations are. This learner has

attained the level she wanted to achieve, and although it pales in comparison to what

other learners have achieved, it is better than what she could have gotten exclusively

at home.

Two learners are more reserved and although they do not totally reject the

idea of doing it again, they hesitate. A couple of learners endorse the dual

immersion system, but only if it is in a bigger school package. One learner is torn

between two worlds and, ultimately, is not able to make up her mind:

That is a really tough question. I think that I would just because it is,
how do I say it? It is special, it is different, it gives you an advantage.
But then again, I would want to experience normal life because it is a

186
 totally different lifestyle. So, I don‟t even know how to answer that, I
don‟t know.

What is clear is that Mastaneh‟s endorsement of the system is intellectual. She

intellectually likes the idea of having sought the road less traveled, and, yet, clearly

her heart pulls her to a more traditional system.

When asked about whether or not they would enroll their own children in

such a program, most, as well, declare that they would, in fact, do so. The two late

learners approach the idea lucidly, as they understand and see that if they did do so,

they would start them out from the beginning. Peter finds the idea amusing, “It

would be like looking at me.” Both explain that starting early and staying the course

is necessary. Heidi explains, “I would put them in like kindergarten because since I

learned from like 6th grade I think that I am not really as fluent.” By endorsing the

idea, they place value on the language learning process. By altering the

circumstances in favor of starting earlier, they try to remove what they perceived as

being an unnecessary hurdle: age.

Some learners present a very watered down version of language learning for

their children. Two heritage learners, for example, state that they would for a certain

amount of time. As Benjamin explains, “At some point, it is up to them.” Sam, as

well, explains, “Maybe for enough to have them learn French.” The goal is to have

them learn and unlike the moderate and successful learners, Louis and Aurelie, they

do not understand or, do not care, that temporary exposure would most certainly not

bring about any real type of native-like competence.

187
 Clara, ultimately, is the one who paints the most pessimistic view of what she

wants for her children:

You know what? I even thought about this! When I am older I am

going to speak to my child in French… I already got that down….
When I am older, I want my child to know even if they don‟t know the
language fluently, even if they just know words and bits and pieces, I
definitely want my child to know.

Her goal is not even basic communication skills. She has a well-laid out plan, but

she is both pessimistic about what she can expect of them, as well as of what she

herself would have to offer them. “Bits and pieces” and a “few words” hardly seem

like an endorsement for an intense language program. She further, basically, does

not answer the question, or rather, in a positive way, explains she would not enroll

them.

Successful learners readily endorsed the idea of reliving their life in a

language program. If they were to change anything about their experience a second

time around, it would be to start earlier or to pick a more French track. They have no

linguistic doubts about enrolling offspring, and if anything, they would feel like only

giving their children a monolingual upbringing would be cheating them out of

something of value.

Moderate learners would also go through the program again, although their

reasons for doing so are more academic than linguistic. They further would enroll

their children in the program, although, again, choices for doing so are more related

to academics than language learning.

188
 Weak learners would also relive their schooling, although a couple of

students did express some hesitation. This holds true with regards to the eventual

enrollment of offspring into the program. Reservations pertain to a child‟s ability to

experience something “more normal” and for making sure the child is, at some point,

given the choice to opt out.

Desired Benefits of Program

Learners were asked to think both about what advantages they felt they could

gain from the program, as well as what they already felt they had received.

Successful learners were extremely forthcoming about what the program had

brought them up to now, but much less expansive about what their French might

bring them in the future. With regards to how useful it has been or might be later in

life, students remained vague, evasive. They stretched and stated that they could

travel, that they might be able to use it for work. They speak of it giving them vague

benefits, as Linda does, who says: “Obviously, I have another option.” But they are

generally put out by the question. Louis is defensive: “It has not brought that much,

but you know, it is always good to know another language.” He feeds the party line

to defend his choice. Adrien is equally evasive when he speaks about his future with

French: “I plan to live here in the States…. It probably will be useful.” He provides

no concrete example for which this might be. The question makes successful

learners uncomfortable because they do not think of their language learning in

practical terms. It is not about what it can do for them, but simply a truth, a state of

189
being. Stephanie sees this, and is able to dismiss the question as being irrelevant

when she explains:

I think I have already gotten a lot out of it…. I just think that having the
second … language has been really good and just culture wise and
diversity wise just being in this environment…. It‟s given me another
way to connect with different people I don‟t know… there is a self
confidence thing just to have another language almost as fluent as your
first language… just knowing that I could go to France and be fine and
not have to worry about the language barrier, I think that is just great.

The focus is not on what the French language will do, but rather on what it has

already brought. There are added benefits successful learners attach to the new

language, which are in essence the residual effects of being more culturally aware,

more open-minded, more accepting of other cultures in general. Ultimately, the real

advantage is just having the language become an intricate part of who the learner is.

For these advanced learners, the process has made them richer, more confident.

What is clear for these learners is that what French has to offer them has nothing to

do with some distant payoff. The rewards are immediate and they are grounded in

identity formation, for when they are asked about what French has brought them to

date, they open up and become expansive. French is who they are. Adrien declares,

“I am not the same person I would have been.” Danielle explains:

I kind of like being the girl who speaks French. It‟s kind of nice. This is
kind of the security of you know what else do I have? It is such a part of
me…the one thing that stuck is I am in a French school and I am speaking
French, you know? No matter how crappy things are, that has been like a
constant in my life.

190
French is Danielle‟s constant; it is her rock in an uncertain world. There is not future

utility, there is a past and a present, and a notion of being someone whose identity

has been altered in a positive way by the encroachment of this new language.

Moderate learners are less-involved with how French has become a part of

their identity. When asked about what they thought they had gotten out of the

program, many focus not on the language, but on the academic course of study that

should get them, as Vincent says, “Acceptance into one of my top choices.” Others

state that the program has changed them because it has made them more “culturally

aware.” David is the learner who gets closest to identity formation, but it has

nothing to do with French, per se, and the appeal is more about “just being sort of

different from like, you know, the masses.” Nathalie is the only moderate learner to

bring up French directly when speaking of the benefits she has received, although

her enthusiasm is riddled with doubt about how much the outside world will embrace

this, or how useful it might be. She explains that she really wants to, “Just keep the

French…. I just hope it benefits me later on in life because I like to speak it, but I

hope other people appreciate it.” There is uncertainty at how beneficial others will

think the language is, and this uncertainty creates doubt and casts a shadow on her

enthusiasm. Somehow, if it is not worthwhile to others, it can not be to her.

On future benefits of the program, moderate students are more expansive

about the possible use of French, although they do not necessarily endorse it for any

particular purpose. Some are skeptical. David does not feel it is the language so

much as what he has learned at school that will be of use, “Not the language so much

191
as what is taught, especially the math.” Vincent declares that “romantically I think

it is very beneficial… but professionally, no. Mandarin, that seems to be the one to

go for in terms of global economic shift.” This learner is downright pessimistic

about what the skill can bring to his professional future.

Other learners are more generous about the utility of their language, and they

cite job opportunities, and even give specific scenarios, but it is more in terms of

being able to get a job rather than really being able to use the language in any real

way. Ralph paints the picture, “I think that if you have two applicants that have the

same type of credentials and everything, but you have two languages, it can only be

positive, hopefully.” Ralph and other moderate learners speak of the language being

an advantage during the interview process. There is no description of being able to

use the language in a professional capacity once the job is acquired, the picture in

their minds does not go beyond the interview.

Weak learners are generally expansive about what the French program has

brought them, but not many actually pause to consider that one of the benefits might

be French. Of the weak learners, only two heritage learners, Benjamin and Shelley,

imply that French has any connection to who they have become as people. Benjamin

states, “It has made me who I am today. It is part of my life, I have never been

without it.” It is not that no weak learner states that he wants to get French from the

program; for both Joseph and Peter state that they want to learn French. Peter wants

“to actually be able to speak the language.” The statement places this as a goal not

already obtained but worth striving for, which is clearly different from what

192
successful learners have asserted. Despite this, they speak in terms of language. All

others state that the program has brought them “cultural awareness,” a “different way

of learning,” or “a European perspective.” Sam is the only learner to paint a negative

picture of the process, and when asked what the program has brought him, he flatly

answers: “a headache, bad grades, disappointment from my family members.” The

statement is said without any particular emotion, and is all the more damning for its

simplicity. The underlying implication is that the process has been a long road of

successive failure. Viewed in this light, it is not surprising that he would be equally

pessimistic about prospects for making French useful later in life as he states, “I

don‟t think French will give me an advantage on anything.”

Although a few other weak learners share this negativity, and only meekly

offer up possibilities for travel, or the ability to have, as Beth says, “bragging rights,”

most were more positive. In fact, seven of the 11 weak learners were clear that

French would be an advantage for them later on in life. Isabel was adamant: “I am

going to make it useful!” After the pain, the frustration, and anguish the process has

put her through, it most certainly must be good for something! Heritage learner

Shelley was the only student who evoked the possibility of one day living in France,

although it was in fact offered as a very remote option, “Maybe, who knows where I

will be? I might move to France!”

Successful learners are forthcoming about what the program has brought

them. What French has to offer is not an instrumental reward; they do not think they

will reap some distant payoff. The results are related to a sense of self the new

193
language has brought them: a confidence, a power. They know not, and care not,

what the future holds. Their language is who they are, and not what it can bring

them.

Moderate learners feel the program will get them into a good university, and

they credit the school for making them more culturally-aware. French is not

presented as being a part of who they are, and they are not particularly confident that

it will be of much direct use in the future, other than possibly giving them an edge

when they seek employment.

Weak learners do put some value on the French itself, although it is most

often in terms of an ultimate goal they want to get, as opposed to something sought

and found and assimilated into their psyche. The language is seen as a definite

advantage for future careers, and most plan to make use of this skill later in life.

Conclusion

For successful learners, French has become an intrinsic part of who they have

become as human beings, it is a source of pride. They are extremely positive about

their chosen course and are proactive about furthering their level of French.

Moderate learners do not view their involvement in an immersion program as

being necessarily useful in a linguistic sense. They value the cultural awareness and

knowledge they have gained. They hope the program will open doors to universities.

They confess to having moments of wavering motivation or lack of enthusiasm for

the language learning program.

194
 Weak learners have a much more utilitarian view of the language learning

process. It is not who they are, but what it can bring them in terms of cultural

awareness, college placement, or business opportunities. Their ultimate goal with

regards to French, is to attain basic competence, and full-fluency is never brought

forth as an attainable, or even worthwhile, mission.

Classroom Experiences

Students spend much of their waking life behind a desk in a classroom. A

common French analogy equates them to passive receptors of data, and compares

them to a vase waiting to be filled with the knowledge the wise teacher is capable of

providing. The analogy, although popular, skews reality and negates the agency

dimension the learner brings to the classroom experience. Far from being machines

that are merely receptors of data, learners are active agents who respond to their

environment. What they feel about the learning process often guides the effort they

place in the project.

This section will focus on understanding how the learners in this study have

responded to the actual learning process. The initial focus will be on what the

learners think are the key elements needed for learning a foreign language, then

attention will be paid to trying to understand their appreciation for, or resistance to,

French as a subject, and finally focus will be on trying to gauge what have been, for

these learners, the positive and negative experiences they have had with French

teachers.

195
 The Successful Language Learner

When asked about what it takes to be a good language learner, all learners

tended to associate the answer to the question about the theoretical successful

language learner by relating it to what they themselves had experienced. Successful

learners were no exception, and their endorsement of their way of approaching the

language learning process is an indirect acknowledgement of their personal success.

The successful learners tended to emphasize the need to have a language

become part of their identity. Stephanie explains that “The FSL6 with the total

secluded immersion was really key to my getting the French foundation… so

probably basically total immersion in it – that‟s what got me to learn it so quickly,

was that I was forced to learn it - I didn‟t have a choice.” The most important step

for Stephanie relates not to what is done, but rather in the learner‟s own psyche,

“You have to be willing to do it. I mean have some desire to actually learn the

language otherwise you are just going to cut it off.” The burden thus rests on the

shoulders of the learner and her desire to engage in the project. Engagement in the

process becomes the focus of another learner‟s view, who goes beyond what

Stephanie declared as being a desire to learn. For Danielle, success is the result of

more than the desire to learn, it is the desire to become. She compares her choices

with those of her less successful classmates when she states that:

Well, I think that if you kind of compare my past at this school, you
know I have other classmates that have been at the school for a very
long time who also have American families and they have not really
caught on the way I have and I think part of that, I am going to sound
like I am really full of it, is I really immersed myself in that, I think it is
6
French as a Second Language

196
 really partly because I spend a lot of time in France…. I had French
speaking friends whereas most of the American speaking kids actually
tend to stick together weirdly or speak English even to the other French
students and I have always pretty much chosen to speak French when I
had the opportunity…. I just feel like I am just more into the idea…. I
think I just have been more willing to speak it… I have made it mean
something to me.

Danielle focuses on this conscious effort to make the language a part of her existence

outside of class and even outside of school. Identity formation becomes a conscious

and proactive choice for this learner who has made it mean something to her.

The notion of using the language beyond the academic world, moving into

the personal domain, is something that all successful learners stress, although the

heritage learners have a slightly different take. The male heritage learners that fall in

the successful category, again, do not see the question in the same light as the

successful non-heritage female learners. For them, French is the language of the

family and of the home and, as such, they cannot respond to the question in the same

way, at least they are not capable of relating the question to their own experience in

the same way. When asked the question, they both point out that, for them, French is

not a language they had to learn and, therefore, they deal with the question by

referring to a foreign language they are currently trying to learn. Louis explains: “I

never had to learn a language because I knew both when I came here but, well,

Spanish, for example, learning it, the most important thing would probably be

hearing it and speaking it, I think, more than reading or studying it.” Adrien points

to a need to practice:

You need to be motivated because sometimes you get frustrated but if

you see it in a good side and you just try it, it will come by itself, you

197
 don‟t have to see it as something you have to learn but something you
practice and by practicing it even if you make mistakes, it will come
logically and you will just speak.

Both heritage learners, like the other successful learners, speak of a need to

practice and speak the language. Unlike the other successful learners, however, the

heritage learners do not consciously place a requirement of making the language a

part of one‟s identity, the way the other successful learners do. They have responded

to the question intellectually from what they suppose would be a formula for success,

as opposed to the females who answered from the emotional standpoint of a lived

experience.

The moderately successful learners have a different view of what it takes to

learn another language. Moderately successful learners in this study placed an

emphasis on the need for there to be a desire to learn. The unstated truth in this trend

is the notion that learning a language is hard work and, therefore, requires a sincere

desire to learn and, thus, motivation. Coercion must not be involved in the process.

David focuses on the need for a person to want to learn a language:

I guess their want to, their desire, because many people they learn a
language but they don‟t really desire to learn it, it is like their parents
just force them to go to this school or they learn this language that no
one speaks in this country and I guess it‟s mostly desire that makes
them want to be able to know this language so they can appreciate that
culture.

The concept of difficulty is a recurring theme for moderate learners. In

addition to the implication that students are forced into the language learning setting,

David‟s comment tends to sympathize with the theoretical language learner who

would have trouble finding French useful since “no one speaks it in this country.”

198
For David, the only beacon of light is the ability to appreciate a culture. The

statement gives more insight into his state of mind than it does a potential learner‟s.

For David, the successful learner would be one who is not wracked with his own

doubts.

Ralph speaks of a learner needing to “endure through the times where you are

hesitating and not so confident.” The emphasis is on desire and willingness to put

the effort into it. The effort consists of hard work exclusively, and these learners do

not extend the effort to any real desire of becoming a member of the new linguistic

community. As Aurélie explains, “I think determination is a big part of it actually

and being passionate about learning…. I really wanted to learn it and I wanted to

communicate with others. It is tough not being able to communicate.” Again, there

is a distinction between what this moderate learner declares and what a successful

learner emphasizes. For the moderate learner, the motivation is to simply

communicate with others, whereas the successful learner is much more ambitious,

and wants to go beyond mere communication and become part of the group, become

one with the others.

Language learning is a very conscious and deliberate act for the moderate

learner. The language the moderate learners use is infused with a notion of pain and

difficulty. The learner must “endure,” be “determined,” be able to handle the

“frustration” because it is a “tough” process and, therefore, no one should be

“forced” into it.

199
 The moderate language learners brought to the table something successful

learners ignored altogether – that is the notion of techniques for learning. Two of the

moderate language learners actually answered the question of how you get a student

to learn in a very literal sense, and gave a description of the language learning

process. Ralph explains: “I think at first you need to go through the grammar and all

that: basic education, fundamentals, sentence structure, some vocabulary; all of that

in the beginning, but eventually you need to have more practicing the language,

speaking with others.” Jean‟s strategies are creative:

In the beginning you start them out with little comics like Spanish
Garfield or German Archie, or depending on the language and get them
used to the language, have the one and then have the English one to
compare it so that each word is translated so they see the equivalent.

Both learners discuss steps to be taken to learn a language. The implication

of Jean‟s creative technique is the need to try and make the process more interesting

as there is a risk of boredom. Successful learners saw an interest in the language

learning process, and fundamentally learning that boiled down to a strong desire to

communicate and a need to immerse oneself into the language, both inside and

outside of the classroom. The technical steps to get to basic comprehension were

incidental, for it was the repeated exposure through the immersion that caused

success, and not one beginner‟s teaching method over another. When describing the

successful language learner, successful learners tend to give themselves as models,

as they are conscious of their success in this process. Moderate learners do not feel

that the language learning process is innately challenging or pleasurable. For them,

language learning is hard work and a learner must have a strong will to persevere. In

200
light of this, the steps and actual techniques for learning become important because

learners want to be efficient to reduce the burden, and with any luck they can even be

somewhat entertained.

The weak learners, like the moderate learners, do not speak of the need for

active integration within the language community the way the successful learners

did. Successful learners equate motivation with an active participation within the

new linguistic world. Language progress is achieved because of the active

participation, and the ultimate result is that the foreign world becomes a part of the

learner‟s world by virtue of the time and importance that has been given to it.

Language learning and identity formation are intertwined for the successful learner.

This type of integration of language into a learner‟s world does not exist for the weak

learners.

Like the moderate learners, weak learners place a strong emphasis on

motivation in general. What is different is that motivation is not necessarily a burden

the learner must shoulder and is, on the contrary, often something that comes from

without. Clara, for example, stresses the need for a subject to want to learn and takes

a shift beyond what all other learners have done when she places the onus of creating

that desire on the teacher‟s back, as it is the teacher that must make the connection

for the student. The teacher must “relate it to a student.” Her view is diametrically

opposed to the successful learners, who placed the burden on the learner‟s desire to

make this a personal mission. Heritage learners, who do not place the same

importance on the language classroom as Clara, a non-heritage learner, would,

201
nonetheless, share her view that somehow it is not up to the learners to create a need

for themselves to learn. The three heritage learners, like moderate learners,

emphasize a need to speak the language. The burden for making this happen is not

as it was for the moderate learner, on the learner‟s shoulder, but rather the situation

is, at best, one of joint responsibility. The learner must speak, but more importantly,

the learner must be given the environment in which to do so. A key element to

success for the weak learner is opportunity, which somehow makes the process

something someone responds to, as opposed to something the learner must create for

himself. Sam explains how this need and his reality differ: “I mean, I don‟t need

French at all except for French class because my mom speaks English so I can speak

English to her, so my only need is French class.” He refers to actual utility or need.

If it is not needed, it is not useful. There is no element in the heritage learner‟s

vision that would allow for what the successful learners have done, which is

essentially to create a need.

Only one weak learner, outside of the heritage learners, however, touches

upon the communication issue that was so vital for the moderate learners. Heidi, the

late-learner, is the only other weak learner, who underlines the need for

communication, in terms of her own experience, before she generalizes this need to

all language learners:

The reason that I started learning was because I did not understand
anything about what was going on in the classroom…. I hated just not
knowing what was going on, to be completely ignorant of what‟s going
on, and so that is what made me want to learn because I wanted to be
able to understand like basic things…. So, I think that being in an

202
 environment where you have to learn, where you are forced into it, you
have no choice. I think that is the best way.

Heidi‟s view is that of a late-learner who was propelled into a French program in 6th

grade. Her take on communication is different from what moderate learners and

weak heritage learners discussed as what Heidi stresses is communication on a

passive receptive level. She does not demand that the learner actively speak and

produce language the way the other learners did. This passive comprehension is

unique to her as a late-learner because it is something even most of the weak learners

take for granted, as they have forgotten the early moments of immersion when even

comprehension was a challenge.

Generally, motivation for learning this new language for the weak learners

stems from a notion of usefulness down the line. The motivation is thus instrumental

in nature, and has nothing to do with a learner‟s desire to belong to the target

community. For weaker learners, like Isabel, it is having this knowledge of the

language‟s utility that will incite a person to learn. She explains that it is important

To stress the importance of learning another language whatever it may

be, English, Spanish, French, because in today‟s world you need more
languages and that is a fact and you know we are becoming a
worldwide market we are not just dealing with, you know, our own
country, we are working with everybody else. So, I mean it would be
in your best interest to learn another language.

For her, learning a language is like finishing the vegetables on her plate at

dinner time. It is good for you. This knowledge is intellectual, and in no way allows

for an emotional connection to a language. In this context, language learning

becomes one of the many things a person should do, like eating their proverbial

203
vegetables, and the problem with only an intellectual understanding, as opposed to a

burning need, is that the most likely result is failure, or at very best modest success.

The weak learners, like the moderately successful learners, have tendencies

to want to give very specific techniques with regards to the steps required to learn a

language. Joseph, for example, is particularly pragmatic, “Teach them the basics,

first for structure. First, like the grammar, the words, to know the words and start by

the verbs after that so they can conjugate and use and build sentences and then after

that they start reading books and stuff.”

What is specific to this group, is that the time learners explain what is needed

becomes a time for them to explain why they themselves have failed to learn to their

full potential. Beth explains what is needed to learn language, and as she does so,

she simultaneously discards herself as a candidate to be a good language learner: “I

don‟t consider myself that good of a language learner…. My mom would say I am

really bad at it because she would have been with a dictionary every night looking up

words. I don‟t do that.” Other weak learners have similar comments, and the

underlying assumption behind these statements is that it is not just hard work that is

needed, as was the view of the moderate learner. For the weak learner, an individual

must also possess some innate language learning talent or gene that they themselves

are not fortunate enough to possess, and this deficiency means that ultimate success

would somehow require an above and beyond commitment and work load that others

may not have to shoulder, a workload that they have shied away from.

204
 The greatest difference amongst our language learners becomes the

expectations they have. Strong learners have done as Danielle reports: They have

“made it mean something” to them. Even beyond that, it has become who they are,

as opposed to the moderate or weak learners, for whom French is not who they are

but rather something they can do. The distinction is subtle but significant in terms of

linguistic accomplishment.

Strong learners use terms such as immersion rather than practice; they focus

on the need to make the language a part of their identity and the need to be invested

in. Moderate learners view language learning as a difficult process which requires

constant effort and, as such, must be a project the learner is eager to engage in. They

offer concrete teaching methods to facilitate the process. Moderate learners further

emphasize that a learner must be willing to practice the new language both in and out

of class. The weakest learners speak of a learner needing to understand that learning

a language is useful, marketable, and practical because this knowledge will motivate

them. They negate the learner‟s role in the process in terms of creating opportunities

for communication. Communication and desire are a must, but communication must

be needed due to circumstances that are present, and even desire is something the

language teacher must help instill. Weak learners give concrete examples as to what

a person needs to do to learn and explain why they themselves have not risen to the

occasion.

205
 French as a Subject

When students were asked about whether or not they enjoyed French class,

answers differed between groups of learners. The successful learners, in general (six

of seven), emphasized that they generally enjoyed French class. Even if they

expressed dissatisfaction with the class this given year, they blamed this on their

current teacher, as opposed to the subject. Dissatisfaction was overwhelmingly

linked to a feeling of not being challenged by the instructor. Danielle complains she

does not enjoy French class anymore because she feels “the teacher doesn‟t take us

seriously.” She contrasts this to a prior teacher: “Last year I was pushed really

hard…. It was my hardest French, class and it was kind of weirdly enjoyable; it was

a challenge that I could meet.”

When asked about what their favorite activities in French class were, the

successful learners in the study seemed to lean towards activities that relate to

literature. Lack of literary analysis, in fact, was listed as being a reason for disliking

a particular French class. Ophelia is emphatic: “I like reading books in French by

French authors.” Although she chooses literature as her favorite activity, she

blanketly endorses the whole process: “I don‟t think I ever had something I didn‟t

like.”

The two males in the successful group, however, were not as literature-

minded. Both boys in this successful group were French heritage learners, and

declared they spoke French exclusively at home. They both accepted French class

given the right teacher, but neither jumped for joy at the thought of reading or

206
analyzing texts. Louis says, “I don‟t like reading a book, you know, the tests on

what happened and all that.”

The moderately successful learners were less clear cut in their appreciation of

French as a subject. For these learners, the importance of the teacher increases, and

much of the appreciation, or dissatisfaction, for any given class was linked to the

teacher. Emma explains that although French is boring, “the teacher was very active

and interesting so that helped.” Somehow there is the need to give credit to the

teacher for making the subject more tolerable, as opposed to the subject having an

innately interesting component.

Some of the moderately successful students in French blame their lack of

love for the subject on the fact that they are more scientifically-minded. Ralph

explains, “I like mostly science subjects…. I used to enjoy French class but as it

became more analytical – books and literary stuff – not so much. I was interested,

but it definitely was not my passion.” Literature is destabilizing for this learner. It is

less precise, more uncertain, fictional. This learner prefers the more predictable and

rule-governed sciences.

With regards to what activities moderate learners enjoy the most during

French, the group turns out to be quite eclectic, each moderate learner had his or her

own opinion related to activities. Some chose creative writing, others favor

literature. Ralph, the self-proclaimed scientifically minded student, stood out as

being the only student to actually enjoy grammar. “Conjugation, grammar, sentence

structure, foundation of language… I definitely enjoy that stuff. Conjugation: I love

207
learning the different tenses of verbs and all the different verbs you can conjugate, I

just like memorizing it and just being able to recite it when the teacher wanted me

to.” For a scientist, this grammatical world of language proves to be, unlike

literature, a place where a correct answer can be attained and identified.

Ultimately, Aurélie, brings them altogether in one to explain that it is not one

activity but the combination of activities that is pleasurable.

We are reading books, we are writing essays; we are learning about the
French culture through the authors, through poems, through everything,
and I think that is what keeps you interested. You are not just learning
the grammar and how to write it, you are learning how to speak it. We
are learning about subjects, things that are happening in France. I think
this is a much better approach.

The weak learners also placed much importance on the language teacher

when asked about how they enjoyed French class, although their emphasis was not

related to the teacher‟s ability to challenge them, but rather related to the teacher‟s

ability to hold their attention or entertain. Joseph declares he enjoys French class

because, “The teacher has a lot of energy, when he teaches the class he does not just

sit there and lecture the whole time; we always do activities.”

The weak learners who declared they did not enjoy French class generally

blamed this distaste on the content of the program or on the difficulty of the task.

Benjamin declares he dislikes French class, and explains this dissatisfaction: “I have

never been fond of French literature; the books that we‟ve studied, they just bore me,

and I can‟t get through them.” The very activity the successful learners enjoyed the

most, because it allowed them to delve into the subtleties of the language, is the least

208
preferred activity for this weak learner who has no interest in these subtleties since

his goal is basic communication.

Sam states, “I have so much trouble expressing myself in French it is just not

that fun to always have to struggle through translating from English to French.”

Sam‟s reliance on translation indicates that this language has remained quite foreign

to him as this is a strategy that successful learners have abandoned at some point

because their proficiency allows them to think directly in the target language.

For weaker learners, a class period in which the teacher focuses away from

literature is seen as pleasurable. Clara declares she likes the course as long as it “is

not the book-by-book learning and more about the language.”

The only two dissenting voices in the group of unsuccessful learners are also

the two late arrivals into the program who have a different take on the experience.

The late-learners are uncharacteristic for the weak learner group as they state that

French class, for them, is a source of pleasure. Heidi declares French to be a great

adventure: “I like French class because it seems like I am exploring somewhere that I

am not in… like in normal day life I am in America so French class is like the only

time where I only speak French and I hear French.” French is a moment to escape

her own world and enter an imaginary land. It is a beautiful endorsement, but it does

not bring us back to a world where language learning is a result of identity

formation, as it was for successful learners.

The weakest learners were varied in their selection of preferred activities.

Their choices mirrored the moderate group, although their reasons behind their

209
choices were, at times, quite unique. A few students declared they liked writing. For

Sam, writing becomes the preferred activity because if he is writing, it means he is

not reading. He explains: “I prefer the writing with the exception that I am not so

good in grammar or with the expression because I make a lot of mistakes, and I have

trouble expressing myself, but I still have good ideas and I can still put that on

paper…. So, I prefer writing. The worst is probably the reading, reading kills me.”

Sam prefers writing, although he proceeds to demonstrate that he is an ineffective

writer. He accepts his errors as being inevitable and feels that as long as he can

make himself understood, he is content, and this is an acceptable compromise. There

is no compromise for literature, and understanding the subtleties of written language

is not something a learner can partially master. The appeal for writing is, therefore,

the relative ease of this assignment in favor of the more difficult literary pursuit.

One student, Joseph, declared his favorite activity was speaking in class, or as

he put it, “being able to talk in French.” The choice appears odd, as a review of his

report cards shows that teachers are repeatedly requesting that Joseph participate

more in class and that he himself states, “I don‟t participate, I just listen… just

because I get lazy and why do it when you could just sit and listen?”

Four weak students, like the successful learners, chose literature as being the

most enjoyable activity in French class, although their explanation of this activity is

quite different from that of the strong learners. When pushed, Benjamin ultimately

decides that the analysis of literature is, in fact, his preferred activity as well. He

explains, “Just analyzing the text, I guess, I hate reading it, I hate writing about it,

210
but once you pick it apart I am like „oh I didn‟t know that was there.‟” Benjamin,

ultimately, enjoyed the idea of having someone else do the thinking for him with

regards to the literature. The pleasure was in getting the answer, and not so much in

the journey to attain it.

Heidi, the late-learner of Korean descent, again sees French class as a way to

travel beyond her borders. “I think I enjoyed learning about the culture and also this

language that is so different from what I am around. The environment that I am

living around is mostly Mexican-American or Korean.” Her view of the class, again,

represents the ability of getting away, of experiencing something different and is not

a part of her per se.

They may all be enrolled in the same school and taking the same French

class, but they do not have the same view of this process. The successful learners

place importance on the class needing to challenge them. Enjoyment correlates to a

course‟s ability to force them to a new level, to push them. The successful learners,

therefore, chose the analysis of literature as the most interesting activity in French

class. The emphasis here was placed on the challenge this provided. The two

heritage learners in the successful group disagreed with this statement and leaned

towards activities that they thought to be more entertaining.

Moderate learners place more importance than their successful counterparts

on the teacher‟s need to sustain their interest. Preferred activities, therefore, are

those they deem interesting and, thus, variety becomes a positive quality of any

211
given French class. Some moderate learners excuse a lack of interest in the subject

by the fact that their strengths lie in less literary areas.

The weakest learners are the most extreme. Not only is the teacher there to

entertain, but the weak learner ultimately places value on the teacher who focuses

away from what he feels is harder and “more boring.” The weak learner wants to be

entertained to avoid the pain of language class and, thus, the challenge. They often

choose one activity over another, as it means less work for them, or even the

avoidance of a least preferred task.

The preferred activity, like the description of the French class, was varied for

different levels of students, and, ultimately, becomes an example of activity theory at

work, as the appreciation for a class, as well as the preferred activity within it, fall in

line with what students wanted to get out of the class.

The French Teacher

Students are subjected to many types of teachers during their academic

career. As a result of the accumulation of experiences, they develop a picture for

themselves of what a successful teacher does. Be it successful, moderate, or weak

learners, all students in the study basically agreed on what a good teacher was. They

placed importance on things like passion, compassion, an energetic classroom, the

ability to have discussions, and the ability to show respect for all students. Aurélie

possibly best describes the model teacher when she says:

A good teacher is someone who enjoys teaching that subject, enjoys

making kids learn and getting the kids interested in learning; who is fair
to everyone, who really cares about the students, and tries to make
them work - that is what I really like when I can see that a teacher cares

212
 about us and wants us to achieve and just a teacher who sees when a
student is having a tough time will try to help them.

Presumably, this perfect teacher model should then reflect upon the subjects‟ choices

as to which teachers were particularly helpful, or unhelpful, with regards to their

learning French. Yet, this is not the case. While some students would pick one

individual and cite that teacher as being the one who most improved their French,

others would pick the same human being as the perfect illustration of who hurt their

French the most. Although all subjects can agree on what criteria makes for a

successful teacher, they do not all agree on who fits the selected criteria, at least

when it comes to their French teacher.

Successful learners chose teachers who pushed them and challenged them.

Stephanie describes one such teacher who was selected by others for the same

reason:

Madame Startes last year just because she accepted nothing other than
perfect it had to be at the right level otherwise you weren‟t going to do
well. I think she really pushed us to use our French and to really think
in French and not think in English and translate because she could tell
if you were doing that.

The emphasis here is on the teacher who demands perfection, and one of the most

important last steps towards perfection is when a learner stops translating and moves

to unconscious language processing.

All of the successful learners chose teachers who pushed them to become

better learners, although the two heritage learning boys placed more focus on

choosing a teacher who was entertaining and less book-oriented. Jean describes his

favorite teacher, who took a different approach to literature:

213
 I liked Madame Laporte, she was nice and she was fun… like we read
books, you know, but instead of just reading it and testing it, we talked
about it and we read in class – like plays we read in class. It was more
alive and sometimes we acted it out; we watched movies. That made it
more fun instead of just pure reading it from the book.

His description differs from other successful learners, and resembles more

what the moderately successful and weak learners lean towards. The heritage learner

wants to be entertained. He does not need to learn the language per se and has

abundant exposure to the language at home and with family, therefore, French class

is not designed for him to learn a new language, and as such he wants a teacher to be

more entertaining and varied. The focus on literature becomes less important.

When asked about teachers they had had trouble with, successful learners

typically identified teachers who had under challenged them, and for the non-

heritage learning girls, the major culprit of this becomes Mr. Misole. Danielle

emphatically declares that, “I feel like this year I am kind of selling myself short….

It feels like a sell out and I am upset about that…. I just feel the teacher doesn‟t take

us seriously.” Ophelia gives a concrete example that frustrates her specifically about

this teacher and his class: “You don‟t even need to speak French in that class…. My

French has gotten worse this last year.”

The contrast between the two teachers is evident. With the new teacher, there

is an incompatibility between the teacher‟s expectations and their own. They were

particularly pleased with the first teacher because language mastery was the goal she

wanted to attain for her group, and this was compatible with the vision the learners

had set for themselves. Pushing them to a new level and forcing them to think was a

214
difficult task but a worthwhile pursuit in their eyes. This new teacher has lowered

the bar. Not only does he not require them to think in French, they do not even feel

that French is required for class participation.

Again the heritage learners of the group do not fit in with the others. Adrien,

who emphasized the need for a teacher to keep things entertaining, complains his

current teacher is boring: “It is not that I don‟t like the teacher personally, she is a

very nice teacher, but I find it so boring.”

With regards to picking a favorite teacher, the moderate learners are divided

into groups. Like their successful heritage counterparts, the heritage male learners of

this group place importance on a teacher‟s ability to entertain. Jean chooses Mr.

Misole, the professed under-challenger of the successful girls, as his most helpful

teacher because “having fun in class is useful to me.” David chooses the same

teacher, even though he explains that his course is, “the lazy way out.” Language is

hard enough as it is without having French class be a constant reminder of this fact.

The other extreme, again, are students who choose the more challenging

teachers. Emma elaborates more, and the description of her favorite teacher,

Madame Clamp, resembles that of the more successful learners, “she was very

strict…. She pushed students to do their work maybe by intimidating them but also it

was interesting work and it was useful.” This teacher walks a fine line between

pushing hard and pushing too much. She succeeds, although there are abundant

examples given by moderate learners or others who have not faired as well. When

discussing most disliked teachers, the moderate learners focus away from challenge

215
and onto affective response to a given teacher. They pick as their least favorite

teacher someone whom they perceive has done them some wrong, or has caused

them some type of emotional distress. Their dislike for a teacher, thus, comes from

an entirely affective response to a class situation in which they have felt disparaged

or ridiculed.

Nathalie focuses on a teacher in her early junior high years and describes her

as cold and mean: “She would make you read and if you hesitated, she just got mad

and would sit there and file her nails and it felt like, I don‟t know, she was tough.

She was pretty harsh.”

David recounts one event from which he could not recover, and could never

forgive the teacher:

The one thing that pissed me off most with Mrs. Sorrin was this one
day where we were trying to find the champ lexical… what would that
be in English? So she wanted to find the champ lexical in some text
and I asked a question - I don‟t know what the question was exactly but
she just snapped at me and, you know, I don‟t think the teacher should
snap at a question being good question or a dumb question or whatever
I think she should have just answered the question without any anger
and I guess it was just there was pretty much no communication with
her and many people found her a good teacher and that is their thing,
but I was pretty happy to get moved down.

The hated teachers are the result of students feeling that the teacher has

abused their power in some way. Such contact is, at some point, inevitable in an

academic career and yet, the result of this negative interaction for both Nathalie and

David leads them to request a transfer to an easier French group to escape the feared

teacher, a move from which neither ever linguistically recovers.

216
 Key descriptors that pop up with both the successful learners and the

moderately successful ones are teachers who push or challenge and teachers who

entertain. A third important component for the favorite French teacher which comes

in when speaking with the weak learners, is the notion of a teacher being helpful.

This group, like the moderate and successful learners, have students that chose the

teachers who challenge, and the ones who entertain, but there is also a group of

students who particularly value the teacher who is willing to help. There are

specifically three students who pick Mr. Misole as being their best French teacher.

Two of the three are late-learners, who both entered the program in 6th grade with no

prior knowledge of French. These learners explained that this one teacher was

particularly helpful and was willing to spend extra time with them to help them

improve. Heidi explains that Mr. Misole went above and beyond for her by taking

her papers and correcting every single mistake and having her go back to rework

them. Joseph, the third weak learner, explains:

He has made the biggest difference because he is always talking in

French the whole time and if you need help he will translate something
from English to French and then continues in French and we do group
activities and it‟s always good to talk a lot in class and he gets that.

Although this learner is positive about the classroom experience with Mr. Misole, the

description of the class remains similar to what the successful learners described as

being the negative points. Thus, the very aspect the successful learners found fault

with, namely the reliance on English in class, becomes the lifeline for the very weak

learner. This different perspective may be the result of the very different goals and

expectations each group has for itself. To the weak learners, it is an acceptable

217
reality that they should need extra support to understand, something the successful

learner would not tolerate. Thus, a teacher who is seen by others as being too easy,

is viewed by these weak students as being supportive.

Like the successful and moderately successful learners, some of the weak

learners chose teachers that pushed and challenged them as being their preferred

French teachers, although they typically explained that this teacher was good

specifically because they did not let them get away with being lazy. Speaking of

Mrs. Clamp, Sam explains, “It‟s weird she understood my position…. She forced me

into working with what I do and to use that to my advantage and pushed me to move

forward.”

With regards to negative responses to specific teachers, the late-learners

refused to assign a negative comment to any of their French teachers. When asked

the question as to who had been unhelpful or hurt their French, they looked puzzled

and stated they could not even imagine one. Peter responds, “I don‟t think anyone

has, I don‟t think so…. It might be different for other people, but for me I don‟t think

anyone has.”

Interestingly enough, whereas the moderately successful learners focused in

great part on some teacher‟s ability to embarrass or disparage them, the weak

learners, like their successful counterparts, focus on lack of challenge. The weaker

learners agree with the problem of making a class too easy with their own twist, as

they seem to first emphasize how much they like the specific teacher as a person, but

218
must confess he has hurt their French. Because of their like for the teacher, they

delve more deeply into explaining the shortcomings of the specific teacher.

Sam, the ever lucid heritage learner, who likes it when teachers understand

that he is lazy, is able to step back and analyze a class that does not challenge, does

not help him progress. He explains that Mr. Misole is, undoubtedly, the teacher who

has done the least to get his French to progress.

It‟s not a question of him not being helpful or not liking him, it is just
the fact that I am good enough to get a 107 in his class and so I can just
breeze through it and not have to pay attention because he will give me
everything.

Isabel, like other members of her group, chose Mr. Misole as being the

teacher that had the most negative impact on her French: “He made it more kiddish

and because of that juvenile approach…. I mean, I have had to re-catch everything

he has taught me… so, yeah, it has been a no-win situation.” There is a tone of

resentment in Isabel‟s comments, as there are in some of the others. There is a

feeling of passing the blame for a lack of success in this linguistic endeavor to that of

the teacher who has failed them in some way. It may be Amelia who best

understands to what this failure is due:

I think that his way of teaching is helpful for people who are learning
the language because you know when you are more advanced, you
need to do things on your own and it is good that he helps you, but he
helps you too much. That is not good sometimes because you need to
do things on your own to learn.

With her comment, Amelia hits on the foundation of Vygotsky‟s Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) theory with her comment. Mr. Misole is very much

7
The French system grades over 20 points and a 10 is the lowest grade needed to pass

219
appreciated by the late learners because his approach offers much support, and the

late-learners need more support to progress. The ones who have been in the system

for a while, even if they are not seen as successful, do not need the same kind of

support. It is for this reason that early-learners, both successful and unsuccessful,

unanimously chose him as being the teacher that has least “helped” in their progress.

The irony is that, although students agree that, otherwise, this teacher embodies all

the key ingredients of a successful teacher, being caring, passionate, and

entertaining, he fails in his mission by virtue of the fact that he does too much. He

does not allow them to work through their respective levels of development, through

the zone and into a new stage.

Ultimately, all levels of language learners found value in a teacher who

pushed them to be the best they could be. Some, specifically heritage learners who

actually spoke French in the home, placed a lot of emphasis on a teacher‟s ability to

be entertaining. Successful learners tended to focus on teachers who pushed and

explain the pushing through the challenge of the content they were being presented.

Weaker students who chose a challenging teacher seemed to appreciate the fact that

the teacher got them to work. Finally, it is the weaker students, specifically the late-

learners, who pick a teacher as their favorite and state their reasons for their choice is

that the teacher was helpful and spent time on their individual case.

Conclusion

From an activity theory perspective, the goals of the three groups of learners

seem clearly distinct. The successful students stand out because they have made the

220
new language a part of their identity. They have embraced this language and want to

incorporate it into their psyche. This has been done through a systematic and

proactive attempt on their part to incorporate French into their day to day lives

outside of the classroom. Because of their proactive behavior and desire to be fluent,

they have achieved greater success, and they approach French as a subject differently

and seek different things from the classes and teachers they come across. They enjoy

French as a subject, and they want nothing more than to be challenged and to have a

teacher who pushes them to the next level.

Moderate learners do not have the same point of view. Language learning is

seen as a difficult process, one that must be engaged in of a learner‟s free will.

Because language learning is so difficult, it is important that the language classroom

be engaging and entertaining. A good teacher is someone who pushes but does not

disparage.

Weak learners feel a student must understand that learning a new language,

whatever it may be, is useful. Opportunity for practice must be provided to the

learner as this is a key to success. A teacher‟s role is to create the desire to learn the

language, give abundant support, and not let a student get away with being lazy.

221
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Overview

The goal of this study was to approach language learning via a sociocultural

lens. The study sought to understand language learning from a more global

perspective - not merely to isolate one quality or trait, like aptitude or age, but rather

to cast a wider net and seek to understand the complexity of the interconnectedness

of the many elements in the language learner‟s world. By viewing the language

learner through a sociocultural lens, the research attempted to get a better

understanding of different language learners‟ realities. This study was, thus, a

qualitative study of a group of high school students who participated in a French-

English dual immersion language program. The individuals selected had entered the

program at different ages, were from varying social backgrounds, and had varying

levels of success. Participants further had different familial backgrounds, while

some were heritage French learners, others had no direct connection to France or the

French language.

Through in-depth interviews of these participants, the study focused on the

beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and the differences in the language-learning

experiences of the different participants. Learners were categorized as successful,

moderately successful, or weak language learners, and the student responses to

questions were analyzed based on how successful they were in learning French.

222
 Ultimately, by moving away from the cognitive lens in favor of a

sociocultural perspective, this study was able to uncover the strong convergence of

forces that combine to promote success in second-language learning. What was

uncovered was that success was indeed not determined by one key element or trait.

For example, all young learners were not more successful, and all late-learners were

not weak. Furthermore, what became clear is that each group of learners shared

commonalities, regardless of their age of entry into the French school or their

ancestry.

All learners share some experiences, but these are complex, and it is too

simple to think that one element guarantees success. In fact, learners benefit from a

vast network of opportunity that breeds success. It is the development and the

clearer understanding of this complex network of opportunity that future research

could focus on to further the SLA mission. Basically, this exploratory study

uncovered commonalities for each ability level of language learners. The results are

briefly summarized below.

Successful Learners

Successful language learners have become truly bilingual. They are

completely fluent in French, have native-like comprehension and can communicate

in French comfortably, both orally and in writing, in any given situation, with adults

as well as with other students their own age. This success has been attained through

a very proactive approach to language learning, as the successful learners make a

clear effort to create relationships with French speakers, and they have created a

223
world for themselves where constant exposure to the language is a positive and

desired thing. French is more than a skill they have acquired; it is a source of

extreme pride, a key element of their identity, an inextricable part of who they have

become. This has not just happened on its own, but through sustained effort.

The successful learners have parents who are active supporters of their

language-learning experience. They provide added exposure through books, movies,

and trips to France. These parents are themselves typically well-educated and hold

their children to very high standards. The students, in turn, are very strong

academically, and extremely literate and well-read. They see value in their program

of study and are eager to maintain, and even improve, their French.

Moderate Learners

Moderate learners are bilingual as well, although their passive

comprehension is far more developed than their production skills. They declare that

they are not entirely comfortable writing, or even always comfortable, speaking

French. What stands out about the learners in the moderate group is that they are

generally riddled with self-doubt. They have doubts related to their ability to

communicate, they have doubts about how they will be perceived by the native

French speakers. They attach negative experiences and emotions to the language-

learning process. They associate these unpleasant situations to communicating in

French either to some specific teacher or some students, and, somehow, repeatedly

speak of recurring moments where they feel the French community judges them;

they are very frustrated at not being above this judgment. Their frustrations end up

224
being a crutch and, therefore, they do not actively seek out to advance their skills, for

their doubts spread to such an extent that they are not convinced that this language

could ever be useful to them. As such, French never becomes a part of themselves,

but rather remains just a skill that they have more or less acquired.

The moderate learners are not as integrated into the French school

community, and have not developed the relationships with native French speakers

the way the successful students have. The moderate group is not as literate or well-

read as their more successful peers. Their parents maintain high expectations for

them, pushing them to succeed academically, although success is related to school in

general and not necessarily to the French language specifically.

Weak Learners

Weak learners are learners that have failed to become bilingual. They are

extremely uncomfortable speaking and writing French, and some even still struggle

with comprehension. They understand that they have not attained a level that could

compare to the successful, or even moderate learners, but they have many excuses to

explain why the others had things easier than they did. They are only bothered by

their weak level when they feel they are surrounded by people who might have

higher expectations about what their level should be, such as other students at the

school.

Weak learners receive little to no support from their parents for their

schooling, and even less for their French project. They are generally non-readers.

French is seen as a useful language for a career, although these students have in no

225
way incorporated this language into their affective world. French is not a part of their

identity, it is merely a tool that may be useful in the future. They have not created

any ties with the native French speakers at school, and they feel no need to make an

effort to speak the language or use it. They are generally satisfied with their level of

French and, therefore, make no plans to further their skill.

In general, their approach to language learning is passive. They do not seek

out opportunities, but rather feel that it is up to the outside world, their teachers, their

parents, and their friends, to provide these opportunities to them.

What the Study Did Not Find

Age

The literature review analyzed current practices in SLA research and the

tendency to want to uncover specific variables that can, in essence, predict failure or

success in SLA. Traditionally, SLA research has focused on elements, such as age,

motivation, or aptitude as variables worth isolating, and to which success and failure

can be attributed. One such variable is the controversial notion of a critical period,

or age of acquisition, which in this study translates as the age of arrival within the

program. The critical period debate, which has taken enormous room in the volumes

of SLA research, turned out to be an extremely non-predictive variable in the realm

of this study. The study did not actively try to test current research on factors, such

as speed of acquisition or grammatical ability, in terms of age. However, it was the

intent to include both early and later language learners within the study. Of the 25

participants, four were classified as late-learners, entering at or after the 5th grade

226
year with no prior knowledge of French, which meant they had arrived after what

traditionally is considered an early age by SLA researchers. As such, these four

learners should have been at an extreme disadvantage with regards to their ability to

catch up to the 12 early-learners of the study (heritage learners were considered to be

in a different category altogether since the potential for exposure to the language at

home would make it too difficult to determine first exposure to the language).

However, two of the four late-learners were among the four strongest learners in the

entire study. The other two, who were indeed amongst the weaker group, still

outperformed many of the very early-learners.

Proponents of the CP argued that children were at an advantage in terms of

levels of attainment (Oyama, 1976; Krashen, Long, and Scarcella, 1979; Harley,

1986). This was not the case for the learners of this focus group. Even in terms of

accent, this study was not able to detect patterns that other research has found.

Harley and Wang (1997) declared that there existed a strong linear relationship

between age of acquisition and accent rating. This study did not find any direct

connection between age and ability to sound near-native. Accent appeared to be

more directly related to the individual‟s desire to sound French, and their desire to

practice and become a member of the linguistic community.

We cannot conclude from this alone that age is not an important factor in the

language-learning process. The late-learners‟ interviews did suggest that the process

of learning a second language was different for them than it was for the younger

learners. There was an emphasis on the initial extreme difficulty. Whereas early-

227
learners do not remember as much, and even point out that they did not really need to

“learn” the language, late-learners are acutely aware of the process and the strategies

they had to use to learn.

The language-learning process is different for young and old, and the number

of late-learners in the immersion program in general is significantly smaller than the

number of early-learners. The limited number of late-learners enrolled at the school

overall affected the ability to have more late-learners participate in this study. This,

is part, may be the result of the importance of the late-learner‟s voice in the choice of

which school they will attend, a propensity which normally does not exist for the

very early-learner. In other words, a child entering the program later typically has

some kind of opinion related to language learning, whereas a young child would not.

This could signify that the late-learners who do enroll are predisposed to wanting to

be part of the project, which in turn leads to better results. Conversely, early-learners

may all be thrown in and, by mere exposure, arrive at some form of fluency. Just

how fluent they become may be not a result of their age, but of other forces.

For, what is clear from this study is that starting young in an immersion

context does not in and of itself guarantee that a student will attain true fluency.

Furthermore, longevity in the program and repeated exposure do not seem to be

predictors of success, as results in this study were extremely variable. Language

learners had an extremely vast range of ability. At one extreme were the very

successful learners who had attained almost native-like fluency, while at the other

extreme were the weakest learners who were far from mastering any sort of ease

228
with regards to producing the language, and still, even occasionally, struggled with

understanding all input. No learner had failed completely, but clearly, other factors,

such as family influence and the learner‟s own opinion and attitudes related to the

target language, had a much stronger effect on determining ultimate results than did

age.

From an activity theory perspective, early exposure did not in and of itself

give a person the motivation to progress and become members of a linguistic

community. Learners were influenced by their social histories and the social forces

at play during their years at the school. These forces impacted the learners‟ goals

and the way in which these learners approached their language-learning experience,

as well as the strategies they adopted for learning. These social forces are what led

to varying results, more clearly than the age of arrival into the program.

Heritage Learners

Nine students in the study were heritage learners, that is, these students had at

least one parent who was French. The added exposure to the language and familial

connection to the language could conceivably place these students at a direct

advantage. The heritage learners may have had a modest advantage in terms of oral

communication skills, although, in general, the results of the heritage learners were

as unpredictable and scattered as the non-heritage students‟ results were. That is,

three of the heritage learners fell into the weak group, four in the moderate group,

and two in the successful group. Therefore, 2/3 of the heritage learners had achieved

at least moderate success. Their heritage connection to the language did give them

229
an advantage in terms of exposure, which translated into stronger oral

communication skills for these learners, especially those who spoke French in the

home on a regular basis and, therefore, had indeed developed a definite ease with

spoken French. However, having a French parent did not automatically make these

learners the most successful in the study. The fact that they often had more

opportunity for oral communication did not give them an advantage for written

expression. Further, the fact that they could speak French at home did not

necessarily mean that they actually did. Only three of the heritage learners actually

reported speaking French as their sole language of communication at home. Most

admitted to speaking in English to their parents, and French was reserved for

extended family when they visited France. Ultimately, with the exception of one

heritage learner who clearly thought of himself as French, these students did not

adopt their parents‟ French language or their French identity as their own. Lineage

alone did not give students what Gardner and Lambert (1972) called integrative

motivation, or a need to integrate into the target language community. French is a

part of their genealogical pedigree by virtue of ancestry, but this alone did not make

it their dominant identity. It did not even make French a close second. These

students felt they were, for the most part, American, and English was their first

language, with French coming in at a very distant second.

230
 What the Study Did Find

The Link Between Reading and Language Learning

SLA researchers have linked language-learning ability to strong academic

skills (Littlewood, 1984). In other words, a strong student would have a better

chance of being a good language learner. In accordance with this, all successful

learners in this study were also very strong academically. However, many of the

participants in this study were extremely strong students, even if they ultimately

ended up being moderate or weak language learners. In this sense, academic success

was not a strong predictor of achievement in second-language acquisition for the

participants of this study. Some participants were extremely strong academically in

all subjects, despite the fact that they had not achieved the same level of fluency in

French as the successful learners. Others were good but not extraordinary, and one

student was even a relatively weak student, whose one stronger area was language.

Weak students, as well, had varied academic profiles, which ranged from extremely

strong students to very mediocre ones. What the successful language learners had

over their equally academic, but less fluent, peers was that they were strong readers.

There were basically good students in all categories of learners, and general

academic achievement alone did not translate into a superior language-learning

ability; the clearer pattern emerged in terms of which students enjoyed reading.

Excellent students who did not enjoy, or actively engage in, reading never became

extremely successful language learners. The connection between appreciation for

reading and language learning is not something this study actively sought to find,

231
and yet, it made itself apparent. Only the successful learners reported truly enjoying

literature, and only the successful language learners reported actually reading in

French above and beyond what was assigned as class reading. For the most part, all

students who were not as successful did not enjoy reading, even in their first

language. Many did not even bother to struggle through the assigned readings in

French.

The exact connection between an appreciation for reading and language

learning is the topic for another study, however, the question does arise as to whether

good readers may have a special connection to, and appreciation for, a language or

whether it is merely the quantity, variety, and sophistication of the added input that

gives them an advantage.

Family Influence

Researchers have, for a long time, asserted that students, in effect, were

strongly influenced by their parent‟s attitudes towards the community and the

language they were attempting to learn (Fuenstra, 1969; Stern, 1967). Syed stated

that, “Social and familial expectations are an important consideration and that

expectations impacted learner‟s beliefs about themselves” (2001, p. 143). Although

clearly this research does concur with previous findings, what stands out is that it is

more than expectations that count, but rather actual family involvement.

Sociocultural theorists stated that learners‟ histories and environments impacted

them and affected their learning experiences. The Vygotskyan lens does show that,

232
for this group of learners, the home environment and social histories of the learners

were crucial determiners of language success and failure.

Students did better when their parents expected a lot from them, but it is not

the expectation of success alone that bred success in the learners of this study. The

most successful students were those whose parents were active supporters of their

French project. Support was only effective when it was more than just words.

Parents who verbally communicated a desire for their children to speak French,

without actively becoming a part of the project, did not end up having children who

really attached to the new language. In essence, action spoke louder than words.

Action did not necessarily involve having the parents learn the language too, but

rather in their providing extra opportunities for exposure. Parents showed support by

becoming a part of the process, above and beyond schoolwork; those who traveled

with their children, watched French movies with their children, and generally valued

and encouraged the added input that such activities provided, participated in the

success of their children by virtue of their enthusiasm.

Parents who were extremely active in supporting their children, by helping

with homework and having high expectations, were successful in that they were able

to avoid failure for their children. However, unless they took the extra step of being

the travel agent and extra-curricular cheerleader, they did not have the same impact

as the parents of the successful students. Parents who did not participate in their

child‟s schooling, did not have clear or high expectations for their children, and who

did not provide added input, ultimately had children who were weak learners.

233
 Frank Smith (1994) found that children all learn to speak their first language

because parents are so very positive and excited about their child‟s progress. For

students of this study, this cheerleading enthusiasm, which is almost hardwired into a

parent for their child‟s first-language acquisition, seemed to be as vital to their

child‟s second-language acquisition success as well. Although this study found that

the parental influence was essential to the student‟s language learning, what seems

important to add is that the influence remained extremely strong for the student

beyond childhood and into adolescence. A parent whose interest in the language-

learning project wavered over time seemed to do as much damage to the student‟s

results as the parent who never actively participated in the project at all.

Friends/Community

In a study of immigrant women, Norton (2001) found that the language

learners did not practice and speak due to anxiety, and that this “anxiety is not an

inherent trait of a language learner, but one that is socially constructed within and by

the lived experiences of language learners” (p. 123).

Ultimately, anxiety is both an unacceptable and unavoidable human emotion.

All people will suffer from some degree of anxiety at some point, and this anxiety

will somehow be connected and related to social situations and perceived pressure.

What triggers anxiety is different for different people. As with the Norton study, this

study shows that some learners attach extreme anxiety to speaking French. The

anxiety is linked to a feeling of not being competent in the language. The lack of

ability is further the consequence of not speaking and practicing enough. The cycle

234
is a vicious one, as each problem propagates the other. The successful learners,

seemingly, have been able to avoid attaching a sense of anxiety to speaking in

French. The question becomes how and why? It is not that the strong learners are

particularly confident and outgoing human beings in general. They are not the

leaders of their groups, admitting to actually being shy in class and not participating

actively in discussions. Yet, they report no anxiety connected to speaking French,

nor do they connect anxiety to having contact with the native French community

within the school. Some even go so far as to say that, if anything, they have at one

time or another felt more anxious about their interactions with their co-American

colleagues. If anxiety for these students was linked to peer interaction with members

of their own linguistic group, French became not a source of anxiety, but the

potential tool to avoiding anxiety. Could it be that these successful learners initially

actually used French as a way to escape the anxiety of dealing with their American

peers?

From an activity theory perspective, it is important to understand that there

are many agency relationships involved in a learner‟s existence and that the learner‟s

relationships may create agencies that can be either conflicting in nature or

collaborative. A learner‟s attitudes and motives may evolve and change as the

relationships he develops do. It appears that these students, in essence, have adapted

to their environment, and through the pull and push of conflicting and collaborative

relationships, have found a balance for themselves that involved including French as

a positive goal to strive towards. In the process of seeking to create new social

235
networks with native French students, these students may have made French a

symbol of power for themselves, which in turn has further prompted their desire to

be fluent.

Bourdieu (1977) pointed out that “the most radical, surest, and best hidden

censorships are those which exclude certain individuals from communication” (p.

648). Within the complex social workings of school life, what children fear most is

being shunned or socially ostracized. They fear not fitting in. For the students in

this study, the fact that they are enrolled in a dual immersion program offers an

alternative social network in which the “shunned” child has an opportunity to seek

asylum and bond with a whole community should their initial social network create

in them feelings of inadequacy or anxiety. Not all students chose to blend with the

native French speakers as a means of dealing with difficult social peer group

situations. The successful students did. All the successful learners reported having

connected to native French students, and they had all proactively sought out these

relationships. They had created social networks for themselves that moderate and

weak students did not. But, was the catalyst, in part, a perception that French could

provide an asylum from difficult social interactions with American speakers of their

own group? Weak and moderate students avoided interacting consistently with

native French speakers socially; successful ones sought them out.

An initial assumption was that the successful language learners sought out

French speakers to further their language-learning skills. This may not be the cause

but rather the effect. In other words, the language learning may have been a result of

236
the interaction, and the only intentional element involved may have been social

forces. Students, initially, may have sought out the French to avoid the Americans as

opposed to having a planned language-learning agenda. Were these students strong

learners, and by virtue of that they could integrate into the French group, or did they

become strong learners because they integrated into the French group? The social

forces which may be the catalyst for these language learners are factors to be studied

more in detail.

The absence of a proactive strategy for learning implies that learners are

actually responding to their environment, and in the case of the successful learners,

this reaction has the fortuitous consequence of leading to fluency. Had these learners

been happily embraced by their co-American peers, they may have never attained the

level they are at now. At the very least, the circularity of motivation stands out for

these learners. Learners are motivated to progress because they are successful and

have developed a social network with members of the target language community.

At the same time, they become successful because they are motivated to learn and

want to develop relationships. The question of what comes first, motivation or

success, and the complex dynamic between these two key elements in a learner‟s

life, can, and should, be the focus of more research.

Identity Formation

How much a language becomes a part of a person‟s identity has an effect on

how well that person will learn their second language (Schumann, 1978; Gardner and

Lambert, 1972). Several times in this study, it was stated that an enormous

237
distinction between successful learners and all others in the group is, indeed, the fact

that the French language had become, for the successful learners, a part of their

identity. For the successful learners, French was who they were. For the others,

French was a skill they had acquired; it was something they could do.

Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) take a sociocultural perspective and feel that

there is an important element of choice in this reality that cannot be negated.

They argue that:

The ultimate attainment in second-language learning relies on one‟s

agency. While the first language and subjectivities are an indisputable
given, the new ones are arrived at by choice… Those who do not
become members of another culture, never set out to translate
themselves in the first place, never intended to fit into the new social
networks, to negotiate new subjectivities of gender, adulthood,
parenthood, etc. of the host culture. (p. 169-170).

This finding was specifically made about adults entering a new country and

who are somewhat placed in a position where they must make a choice whether or

not they want to belong to a new culture. This finding applies to the adult immigrant

in the Pavlenko and Lantolf context but seems to be reflected as well in the

observations made related to this group of adolescent learners in a dual immersion

program. Their agency related to the process of language learning is clear. The link

between making room for the new culture within their identity and success is

something that was made apparent. What is less clear, is how much room might

exist for intervention, which could encourage an individual who is not initially

predisposed to accepting a new language as part of his or her identity to alter this

frame of mind. Norton (2000) asserts that identity is subject to change over time, it

238
is not fixed or immutable. Thus, the key is understanding how to change what

Lantolf and Pavlenko describe as the individual‟s agency in the language-learning

process. For as Lantolf and Pavlenko reason, “the individual may feel comfortable

being who he or she is and may not wish to „become‟ a native of another language

and culture” (p. 120). How does one instill a desire to change without dislodging the

sense of security in oneself? If identity is always subject to change over time, even

for adults, this would be even more true for children. A child is clearly in a state of

constant flux as he or she is in the process of identity formation, and thus the

question becomes, how can the immersion program find its place in this identity

formation to help ensure success for all learners? How, or even, is it possible to

jumpstart the learner‟s agency in the process of language learning?

To better understand this would require further research that could track

learners and programs that might attempt to alter the learners‟ propensity to accept a

new language. This study is essentially a snapshot in time. The study documented

the impressions of learners close to the end of their dual immersion program. Were

there moments along the way during which the language-learning course for these

students could have been shifted to, in certain cases, salvage the situation? Were

there moments that could have been prevented, ones where something did shift for

some of these learners, which led to the rejection of the target language and culture?

Could something have been done to change the ultimate outcome for any of these

students?

239
 To better understand the ability to alter the course of things for language

learning, it would be fruitful to undertake a longitudinal study of several learners in

this type of language program.

Classroom Experiences

Gillette declared (1994, p. 200) that “a learner‟s goal to acquire a specific

language is shown to outweigh one disappointing learning experience.” This study

did indeed show that for a successful learner, one “bad” teacher was not enough to

discourage them from their pursuit of learning French. A “bad” teacher was a source

of frustration, but not a reason for failure. The other groups seemed to assign an

extreme importance to bad experiences. Perceived slights of teachers, especially for

moderate learners, had apparently left lasting impressions and done much to

undermine the learner‟s self confidence. How strong the effect such negative

experiences had on the global language-learning process is not clear. What is clear

from this study is that the language-learning classroom is but a small piece in a very

complex language-learning process. This may be all the more true because these

students were enrolled in an immersion program where the French class was not the

only moment they had access to the target language. For the successful learner, the

teacher in and of himself does not make or break the language-learning experience,

good or bad. The teacher and the classroom are facilitators in that they provide an

environment in which to learn. However, for the students in this study, the

classroom and the teacher were not sufficient to make a student fluent. It is almost

what happened above and beyond the classroom experience that became the element

240
that generated success and failure. This is not to say that the educational setting has

no effect, and clearly the relationships that are created between teacher and student

are extremely important. If the teacher and classroom setting do not in and of

themselves have the power to dampen the successful learner‟s drive, could they

conversely have the power to create a desire to learn for the moderate and weak

learners? How much would the teacher have to take into account, or bring in, the

learner‟s external world in the language classroom? Studies often point out that

teachers must know their students, but the practical application of this knowledge is

not readily available. How can the language teacher counter the external forces that

may be hindering the success of so many language learners?

Interconnection of Forces

By using a sociocultural lens and focusing on the learner‟s broad experiences,

and not on isolated traits, this study was able to demonstrate just how interconnected

the many forces in an individual‟s life are in terms of determining success or failure.

Not one individual strength or quality guarantees an individual‟s ability to

successfully learn a language, but rather it is a variety of forces working together that

breed a positive language-learning experience. A language learner is not the sole

player in the language-learning process, for he carries with him social networks,

histories, and interests that will all work with, or against, any efforts made towards

learning the new language. Parents are crucial, but they are one element. Teachers

are important but, again, not in isolation. Friendships are both a result of and a cause

for success, but here again, do not suffice to predict success. The ultimate success

241
tends to come about when an individual accepts a new language as being an integral

part of his or her identity. To help facilitate this process, it is important to have a

clear understanding that the network of opportunity that leads to success is vast, and

that strategies must be adopted that will ensure that all students benefit from more

than just time in a classroom.

The question becomes, if and how immersion programs, such as this one, can

implement dynamics which would help foster opportunities that would give students

a desire to make room for French in their identity make-up? Should admission

interviews center as much on parental involvement as they do on student aptitude?

Can schools set in place programs that could “force” positive parental involvement?

Although the school cannot be a substitute for parents, can it fill some voids that less

proactive parents leave, such as trips to France, mandatory exchange programs? Can

the schools and teachers better manage programs and academic times in ways that

would force more interaction between native French speakers and American

students, through team building exercises and extra-curricular programs, for

example?

Focus has always been on immersion programs, on classroom practices and

pedagogical programs, but there appears to be a need for a better understanding of

the forces outside of the classroom, if there is a chance at ever leveling the playing

field. Children walk into the classroom with different histories, and living different

realities. Adopting pedagogical practices that take these truths into account can help

reduce failure in the school setting, in terms of language learning. These practices

242
appear to be more than just having teachers change textbooks or pedagogical

practices. Focus must be placed on bringing an understanding of the learner‟s world

into the classroom, as well as on extending learning beyond the classroom doors,

thereby bringing language learning into the learner‟s world.

Suggestions for Further Research

This study presented a snapshot in time, a glimpse at a group of language

learners towards the end of their course of study within a dual immersion language

school program. The students were responsive to questions and very forthcoming

about their experiences within the program. Their answers provided much

information about the complex nature of the language-learning process. Adopting a

sociocultural lens allowed this researcher to get a very strong appreciation of the

importance of the learner‟s history in the language-learning process. Although focus

in SLA has generally been geared at isolating traits or qualities that could predict

success in SLA, very little time has been spent focusing on how the various

influences in a learner‟s world work together to influence a learner in their success,

or lead a learner toward failure. More could be learned by longitudinal studies of

learners in immersion programs that might track attitudes through time to better

understand how constant a learner‟s impressions are, and if there are moments during

which the learners‟ attitudes and life shift in such a way that they lose, or find, their

way on their road to fluency. Understanding learners‟ experiences over time would

allow for a better understanding of the language-learning process, and potentially

provide more insight, which, in turn, could allow immersion schools to productively

243
implement programs that could counter the inequalities of opportunity that various

learners experience.

244
 REFERENCES

Abraham, R.G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: a case
study. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language
learning (pp. 85-102). London: Prentice Hall.

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second

language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language
Journal, 78, 465-483.

Bailey, K.M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning:
looking at and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds.),
Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67-103).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering the learners‟ perceptions of ESL classroom

teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32
(1), 85-108.

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive
factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong
(Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp.
161-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.

Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very

advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition
and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 133-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture.

London/Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Breen, M. (2001) Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in

research. Singapore: Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern language aptitude test – form A. New
York: The Psychological Corporation.

245
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-
58.

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St.
Martin‟s Press.

Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A.

Groot, & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
perspectives (pp. 279-299). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1998). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA
task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.).
Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 173-193).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language

minority students. In C. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority
students: Theoretical framework: Second edition (pp. 3- 46). Los Angeles:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child.”

New York: Academic Press.

Curtiss, S. (1989). The case of Chelsea: A new test case of the critical period for
language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Donato, R. (1998). Collective scaffolding in second language acquisition. In J.

Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language
Research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language

acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 245-258.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning and
teaching. In M. Burt, and H. Dulay (Eds.), (pp. 21-32). New directions in
second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education. Washington,
DC: TESOL.

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1982). Language Two, New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

246
Ellis, R. (2001). The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. In M.
Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in
research (pp. 65-85). Singapore: Pearson Education Limited.

Engerstrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and the individual and social transformation.
In Y. Engerstrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eubank, L. & Gregg, K. (1999). Critical periods and (second) language acquisition:
Divide et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the
critical period hypothesis (pp. 65-99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Ferreira Barcelos, A.M. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In
P. Kalaja, A.M. Ferreira Barcelos (Eds). Beliefs about SLA: new research
approaches. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)

fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 82 (1),
91-94.

Flege, J. (1999). Age of learning and second language speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.),
Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 101-
131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fuenstra, H. (1969). Parent and Teacher Attitudes: Their Role in Second-Language

Acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 26, 5-13.

Gaies, S. (1983). The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL

Quarterly, 17, 205-217.

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language

learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies.
Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198-217.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: an introductory

course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

247
Genesee, F. (1988). Neuropsychology and second language acquisition. In L. Beebe
(Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: multiple perspectives (pp. 81-
112). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. Lantolf and G.

Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp.
195-212). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Groot, A., & Kroll, J. (1997). Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic

perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hansen, D. (1995). A study of the effect of the acculturation model on second

language acquisition. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R.
Rutkowski Weber (Eds.). Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy
(pp. 305-316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Harley, B., & Wang, W. (1997). The critical period hypothesis: Where are we now?
In A. Groot, & J. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
perspectives (pp. 19-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hosenfeld, C. (2003). Evidence of emergent beliefs of a second language learner: a

diary study. In P. Kalaja and A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
Research Approaches (pp. 37-54). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation: a reexamination of the oral

proficiency interview. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical Period Effects in Second Language
Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of ESL.
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Klima, E., & Bellugi, V. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J.
Lyons, and R. Wales (Eds.), (pp. 183-219). Psycholinguistic papers.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment in
second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573-582.

248
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.ions

Lambert, W. (1990). Persistent issues in bilingualism. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J.

Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language
proficiency (pp. 201-218). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory:

understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.),
Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in research (pp.
141-158). Singapore: Pearson Education Limited.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and

differential success in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (Ed.),
Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in research (pp.
12-24). Singapore: Pearson Education Limited.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language

Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc.

Leopold, W.F. (1970). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist’s record.

(Vols. 1-4). New York: AMS Press.

Lightbrown, P.M. (1984). The relationship between theory and method in second
language acquisition research. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.),
Interlanguage (pp. 241-253). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning. Language-

acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Bath, England:
Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition.

In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: a response to Firth and

Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 318-323.

Marinova-Todd, S., Marshall, D.B., & Snow, C. (2000). Three misconceptions about
age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9-34.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publishers Ltd.

249
McCombs, B. and Whistler, J.S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of second language learning. London: Edward

Arnold.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). The relationship between first and second languages:

language proficiency and language aptitude. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J.
Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.). The development of second language
proficiency. (pp. 158-174). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age,

motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81-
108.

Moyer, A. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition.

Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Neufeld, G. (1979). Towards a theory of language learning ability. Language

Learning, 29 (2), 227-41.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language

classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.). Learner contributions to language learning:
New directions in research. (pp. 159-171). Singapore: Pearson Education
Limited.

Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29/1, 9-31.

Norton Pierce, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: gender, ethnicity and
educational change. London: Longman.

Obler, L. (1989). Exceptional second language learners. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D.

Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.). Variation in second language acquisition (Vol.
II): psycholinguistic issues. (pp. 169-189). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (2001) „The bleached bones of a story‟: learners‟ constructions of

language teachers. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language
learning: new directions in research (pp. 44-64). Singapore: Pearson
Education Limited.

250
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native phonological
system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261-285.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the
(re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pimsleur, P. (1966). Language aptitude battery. New York: Harcourt Brace &
World.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Classics.

Preston, D. (1991). Language teaching and learning: folk linguistic perspectives. In

J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics, 1991, 583-603.

Pulvermuller, F., & Schumann, J.H. (1994). Neurobiological mechanisms of

language acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 334-342.

Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: aspects of counseling for self-access. In
P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language
learning (pp. 114-131). New York: Longman.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Schacter, J. (1993). Second language acquisition: perceptions and possibilities.

Second Language Research, 9 (2), 173-187.

Schinke-Llano, L. (1998). Linguistic accommodation with LEP and LD children. In

J. Lantoff and G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language
Research (pp. 57-68). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.

Gringas (Ed.). Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching
(pp. 27-50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 20, 213-223.

Seliger, H. (1983). The language learner as linguist: of metaphors and realities.

Applied Linguistics, 4, 189-191.

Seliger, H., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, Inc.

251
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991, February-March). Plenary given at the Second
Language Research Forum, University of California, Los Angeles.

Shekan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London:

Edward Arnold.

Skinner, B. F., (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Slavoff, G., & Johnson, J. (1995). The effects of age on the rate of learning a second
language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17, 1-16.

Slobin, D. (1970). Universals of grammatical development of grammar. In C.

Ferguson, and D. Slobin (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing.

Smith, F. (1994). Understanding Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Snow, C. (1987). Relevance of the notion of a critical period to language acquisition.

In M. Bernstein (Ed.), Sensitive periods in development: an interdisciplinary
perspective (pp. 183-209). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Stern, H. (1967). Foreign Languages in Primary Education: The Teaching of Foreign

or Second Languages to Younger Children. London: Oxford University
Press.

Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in

a Vietnamese classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second
language learning. (pp. 115-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Syed, Z. (2001). Notions of Self in Foreign Language Learning: A Qualitative

Analysis. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second
Language Acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 127-148). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii‟s, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Columbia Teachers

College.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological

processes. Ed. And Trans. By M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

252
Watson, J. (1919). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philidelphia:
Lippincott.

Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. (1999). Functional neural subsystems are differentially
affected by delays in second language immersion: ERP and behavioral
evidence in bilinguals. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition
and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 23-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Wenden, A. (1986). What do second-language learners know about their language

learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7 (2),
186-205.

Wenden, A. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: the neglected variable. In M.

Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in
research (pp. 44-64). Singapore: Pearson Education Limited.

Wertsch, J. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In

L. Mall (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and
applications of sociocultural psychology (pp. 111-126). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yule, G. (1996). The study of language: Second edition. Great Britain: Cambridge
University Press.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: two
parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 35-57.

253
 APPENDIX A

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

At the kindergarten level, most of the day is spent in French - all but one

period of an English language course geared to teaching the children how to read.

All other subjects are taught in French so even the Americans are immersed in the

French language because French is at a disadvantage in the country and, therefore,

there is a need to have this language be the language of focus, especially early on.

After kindergarten, the percentage of the day spent in an English language class

slowly increases until the fifth grade, where the children spend half the day working

in French and half the day in English.

The school does not offer French as a Second Language (FSL) courses or

English as a Second Language courses to students in grades K through first. It is felt

that at that age, instruction in itself is somewhat sheltered and the students pick up

the language without needing additional support. After first grade, students with no

prior knowledge of French will be placed in a FSL class while the more proficient

students have their regular language arts class.

Once students leave elementary school, methods have to be adapted as

students no longer have the ability to pick up language at the same speed as they did

when they were in kindergarten. At the junior high level, all but complete beginners

in French still spend 50% of their day with English and 50% with French. French

students coming in have minimal ESL support. English or other language students

with no prior French are placed into an FSL class and given additional support after

254
school to help them follow subjects taught in French. In general, the FSL class is

thought of as a survival guide to the rest of the program which is taught in French.

By the time students enter 10th grade, program content is such that merely

sheltered instruction is not enough. The school is forced to divide the students into

two tracks. The French track has all but English language arts and US history

courses taught in French and the program leads to a French baccalaureat at the end

of twelfth grade.

Students in the international track have varying language abilities, which

range from no French at all to native fluency in French. Beginners and low

proficiency French speakers follow FSL classes, and the more advanced students

follow regular French language arts classes. The students will follow social sciences

and sciences in English if their level of French is not sufficient, otherwise, they

return with the French section students in their classes. The international track leads

to an International Baccalaureate diploma program.

255
 APPENDIX B
GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW

As learners are products of their previous history, socio-economic

background, and cultural context, what is the background of the language
learners in this study? What are the learner’s views of his/her own
scholastic accomplishments both with regards to learning French and as a
student in general?

Questions related to background will actually be more structured as researcher is

seeking specific answers to questions. The answers to questions will not in and of
themselves answer the research question but will help to place subjects in categories
and responses to subsequent questions will be tracked based on categories that
subjects fall into. Researcher will record for each interviewee:

 What is your name?

 (note but don‟t ask gender)
 What language(s) do you speak?
 Which do you consider your native language?
 What is your parents‟ level of education?
 What do they do for a living?
 Parents are divorced or together? If divorced, how old was the child? Which
parent does the child live with?
 What languages did you grow up with?
 Why these languages, please explain?
 Other languages known and at what age they were exposed to them.
 How well do you think you speak these languages?
 When did you start LILA? Years within the program – grade entered?
 Reason for choosing a dual immersion bilingual French/English program?
 Educational goals: University in US? in France? elsewhere?
 Intended major: more specifically, scientific or literary major?

What are the learner’s views of his/her own scholastic accomplishments

both with regards to learning French and as a student in general?

 Do you consider yourself as being a good student? Grades?

 What are your strengths as a student?
 Do you enjoy school? How important is the teacher?
 Did you enjoy French class? Why or why not?
 How good are you about doing homework for French class? Explain (read
novels, learn lessons, turn in everything etc…)
 Did you enjoy English class? Why or why not?
256
 What makes for a good teacher in your mind?
 What do you think is important to get you to learn a language? (experiences
you consider important for learning a language)
 What do you feel makes for a good language learner? Make them
successful?
 What are your strengths and weaknesses as a language learner?
 How would you rate yourself as a speaker of French? Native? Fluent?
 How comfortable would you be doing this interview in French?
 How satisfied are you with your level of French?
 What French related exams have you taken? AP? BREVET? How did you
do?

A learner’s relationship may create agencies that can be either conflicting or

collaborative. Agencies work off each other which ultimately has direct
consequences on the outcomes of learning and even on the learner’s notion
of self. Family and more specifically parents as key agents in a young
learner’s life may potentially influence the language learning process. In
what ways do parents/family play a role in the language learning process?

 Do your parents place an important role on your doing well in your French
classes? How do they react to a bad grade?
 How much do they let you get away with saying you can‟t do something
because you “don‟t understand” the French?
 Do your parents brag about your skill?
 Did parents send you to France (did they go with you)? (if yes: what did you
see, what did you like, dislike. What do you remember? Did you feel
successful in “fitting in” while speaking French?) Fitting is it language or
cultural?
 Were there any incentives to learn French? (allowance for example)
 Did parents take you to see French films?
 Did they buy you books? Cable TV?
 Did your parents help with French homework?
 Did/do your parents offer to get tutors for you outside of school?
 How important is it for your parents that you stay in a French school?
o Or alternatively based on responses before:
 How enthusiastic do you think your parents are about your learning French?
Do you think they are more or less excited about the project than they were at
the beginning?
 What did other family members say/think about the school project?

257
Other key agency relationships revolve around the learning environment.
What relationships has the learner formed within the school community?
How well has the learner integrated with the school community? How much
have the French language and its culture become an active part in the
learner’s existence?

 Did kids intentionally speak French around you?

 How did French people treat you (in or out of school)? More specifically, did
you feel like an outsider?
 How did you feel when people corrected your French?
 Did people make fun of your French at any time?
 When you think of France or French what comes to mind? Is it a positive
association or a negative one?
 What are your primary contacts to native speakers of French?
 What would you say is the amount of time you spend speaking French (hrs
per week)?
 What would you say is the amount of time you spend writing or reading in
French (hrs per week)?
 How hard do you try to integrate? Do you seek out opportunities to hear and
use French?
 Do you listen to French music? What do you like, why or why not?
 Have you ever dated a French person? (what language did you speak
together)
 Do you have friends that are French? How about outside of LILA? (what
language do you speak together?)
 With whom do you speak French? Or under what non-classroom situations
did you use your French?
 Do you read in French? In English? For pleasure?
 What have you read in French?
 Would you feel comfortable writing an e-mail or a letter in French?
 Do your non-French friends know you speak French? Do you show off?
 Do you help friends or other students with their French homework?
 Do you ever use your French? Have you ever felt your knowledge of French
has helped you in a “real life” situation?
 Do you feel comfortable speaking in French? To adults? To friends?
 Do you intend to take French in college? Why or why not?

Activity theory forces us to take into account an individual’s motives and

goals for undertaking any activity as these motives influence the learning or
progress that may or may not take place. Therefore, a key question relates
to the learner’s motivation. What are a learner’s motivation for succeeding

258
and remaining in the school? How much is motivation linked to success with
regards to the French language vs. success within the school?

 Why French? Why did you stick with it all those years?
 Do you feel you are as motivated now as you were in the beginning? How
has your motivation changed?
 Would you do it again?
 Would you enroll your child in such a program? Why or why not?
 What do you want to get out of the program?
 What do you expect you will get from having been here?
 Why do you think you stayed so long in the program?
 On a scale of one to ten (ten being strongest) what would you state your
intensity of motivation to learn French is?
 Did you feel/do you feel it might be useful for something?
 What has French brought you?
 Do you feel it might be useful later in life? For work?
 Was having French friends (boyfriend/girlfriend) a motivating factor?
 How strong is your desire to improve your French? Why or why not?
 How important is it for you to sound like a native French speaker?

As different individuals respond differently to teaching methods which

directly affects results, what teaching methods have the learners been
confronted with? What experiences have been positive or negative? How
much do relationships with individual teachers affect the learner’s desire to
succeed?

 What different language classes have you taken –FSL/French

Intermediate/French?
 What were the instructional methods used for the different classes? What
were the teacher‟s ways of teaching?
 Of these techniques, which did you feel were most useful? Did enjoyable
correlate with useful?
 What activities did/do you prefer in French class?
 What activities do you like the least?
 Describe a/or several teachers (teachers that taught in French) twho was
particularly helpful
 Describe a/or several teachers (teachers that taught in French) who was
particularly unhelpful
 Outside of the French language class, how did you deal with the fact that
everything was being taught in a language you did not know well? What
strategies did you use to process the information coming in?

259
 Were you ever scared to participate orally? What scared you, teacher or
other students or both, why? Did you get over the fear? If yes, how? If no
what did you try that did not work?
 How much formal feedback on language did you get? How much was geared
at pronunciation?
 Did teachers merely correct pronunciation or did they offer strategies for
improving pronunciation
 Do you continue to have phonological problems?
 What about presentations (projects for example) how did you feel about those
if you had any? How did you do?
 Did you spend more or less time on French homework than for other
subjects?
 Did you feel you spent more or less time than your friends on homework?
For what subjects? Was this a language issue do you think?
 Do you feel that spending more time for French subjects paid off in grades?

260