the role of culture: promoting positive...
TRANSCRIPT
Role of Culture: Promoting Positive Attitudes inthe Second- and Foreign-Language Classroom
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Wright, David Allan, 1964-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 15/07/2018 09:33:42
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565577
THE ROLE OF CULTURE:
PROMOTING POSITIVE ATTITUDES IN THE
SECOND- AND FOREIGN-LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
by
David Allan Wright
Copyright © David Allan Wright 1997
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty o f the
GRADUATE INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND TEACHING
In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements
For the Degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 9 7
2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ®GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by David. Allan Wright < , ’ - ;
entitled ________________ The Role of Culture:____________ _________ _
________ ■_________Promoting .Positive Attitudes in the________
_____________Second- and Foreign-Language Classroom__________
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Ph.D.__________________________
. .a ^
Date6 - / f - f V
Date
1Date
Date
Date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
f* - j y - 97Date
3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment o f requirements for an
advanced degree at The University o f Arizona and is deposited in the University Library
to be made available to borrowers under rules o f the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission,
provided that accurate acknowledgment o f source is made. Requests for permission for
extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be
granted by the copyright holder.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONSLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................ABSTRACT............................ .........................
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM........................................ ........................ 101.1 STATEMENTS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY................ 181.2 OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES.............................................................. 19
1.2.1 Instruments.................................................................. 211.2.2 Treatment Group............................................................................221.2.3 Comparison Group................... 231.2.4 Data Analysis.................................................................................. 25
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS..................... ............................ 251.3.1 Feasibility o f the Study.................................. ........................... . . 251.3.2 The Nature o f Attitude Measurement.................... ................... 271.3.3 Comparison o f Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodologies
and Paradigms................................................................................ 281.3.4 Causality.................. 291.3.5 Transfer of Findings to Other Populations,................................ 291.3.6 Effect o f Anonymity....................................... 301.3.7 Demand Characteristics............... 31
1.4 IMPLICATIONS...................................................... .................................. 321.5 PREVIEW OF FOLLOWING CHAPTERS........................................... 33
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON TEACHING CULTURE IN THEFOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM........................ ........................................34
2.1 PAST DEFINITIONS...................................................................................342.2 RATIONALES FOR TEACHING CULTURE........................................422.3 LANGUAGE, CULTURE, AND THE COMMUNICATIVE
CURRICULUM....................................................................... 462.4 THE MEANING OF CULTURE IN TODAY’S FOREIGN-
LANGUAGE CLASSROOM........................ 492.5 SUMMARY.................................. 52
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES.......... ....... ...... ....................... ....... 533.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES................... 533.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............. ........................................................ 553.3 VARIABLES........................................... 563.4 SAMPLE AND SUBJECTS............... 583.5 PEDAGOGICAL ORIENTATION OF COMPARISON AND
TREATMENT GROUPS...............................................................................60
00 ON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.5.1 Detailed Description o f the Comparison Group...................... 623.5.1.1 The Strategy Lessons................................................... 633.5.1.2 The Strategy Portfolio............ .....................................66
3.5.2 Detailed Description o f the Treatment Group...........................683.5.2.1 The Experimental Culture Lessons............................723.5.2.2 The Culture Portfolio................................................... 73
3.6 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH DESIGN...................... 793.6.1 Using Intact Groups........................ .................... ........................ 793.6.2 Characteristics o f the Treatment and Comparison Groups.... 813.6.3 Description of Instruments used for Quantitative Data
Collection..................... .................. ...............................................843.6.3.1 The Personal Data Sheet.... ........................................ 843.6.3.2 The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory............. 873.633 The Attitudes Measurement Test Battery................. 933.6.3.4 The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory... 94
3.6.4 Description o f Qualitative Data Collection Procedures..........963.6.4.1 Feedback from Strategy and Experimental
Culture Lessons.................... ........................................ 973.6.4.2 Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews.... 1013.6.4.3 Student Interviews.................. 102
3.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................... 1033.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY..................... 105
4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................ 1064.1 THE MAIN HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS........... 1064.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES......... .................................................. 1084.3 EXAMINATION OF CCAI DATA.... ...................................................... 112
4.3.1 Examination o f CCAI Validity..................................... ............. 1124.3.2 Comparison of Treatment Group and Comparison Group..... 1154.3.3 Comparison of CCAI Data and Modifier Variables............... 119
4.4 EXAMINATION OF AMTB DATA............. ............... ........................... 1204.4.1 Examination o f AMTB Validity................................................ 1204.4.2 Comparison o f Treatment Group and Comparison Group......1224.4.3 Comparison o f AMTB Data and Modifier Variables............. 126
4.5 EXAMINATION OF BALLI DATA................ 1264.5.1 Examination o f BALLI Validity...................................... 1264.5.2 Comparison ofPre- and Post-test results.................................. 128
4.6 SUMMARY............................... 130
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS............. .............. 1315.1 OBJECTIVES AND SUMMARY OF THE STUDY. .............. 1315.2 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS...........................134
5.2.1 Cross-Cultural Adaptability.............. ......................................... 1345.2.2 Attitudes Towards Language Learning......... ............................ 1405.2.3 Modifier Variables.............................. .................. ....................... 1435.2.4 Beliefs about Language Learning.......... ............... .................... 144
5.2.4.1 The Difficulty o f Language Learning....................... 1455.2.4.2 Foreign Language Aptitude........................................ 1475.2.4.3 The Nature o f Language Learning............................. 1485.2.4.4 Strategies o f Communication and Learning............ 1495.2.4.5 Learner Motivation and Expectations....................... 1505.2.4.6 Summary.................................. 150
5.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS........................... 1515.3.1 The Model........................... ......... ...................... .......................... 1525.3.2 Consciousness Raising and the Negotiation o f Culture........ 1585.3.3 The Application of Post-Communicative Language
Teaching................. ....................... .............................. ....... :....... 1595.3.3.1 Do my Lessons Promote Critical Thinking?............ 1615.3.3.2 Is my Approach to Teaching Student Centered? 1625.3.3.3 What is the Meaning o f “Culture” in my
Classroom?............................ 1625.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH........................... 1645.5 SUMMARY................................... 165
APPENDIX A: Experimental Culture Lessons...................... ...................................... 167APPENDIX B: The Culture Portfolio........................................... ..................................172APPENDIX C: Strategy Lessons.....................................................................................182APPENDIX D: Example Items from the Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory.... 185APPENDIX E: Attitudes Measurement Test Battery................................................... 186APPENDIX F: BALLI Items and Responses (percentages)........................... ........... 188
REFERENCES................ ......................................................... ........ ....... .......... .......... 200
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Research Procedures............................................................................. . 20Table 1.2 Data for Analysis.............. ....................................................................... 21Table 1.3 Goals o f Lessons Related to Project Data.............................................24Table 3.1 Class Assignments by Group.................................................................. 60Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics................................................................................83Table 3.3 Student Reactions to Culture and Strategy Lessons............................ 101Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Results o f Z-tests on CCAI
Subscales and CCAI Total (pre-test).................................................... 116Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Results o f /-tests on CCAI
Subscales and CCAI Total (gain scores)............................................. 117Table 4.3 Comparison o f CCAI Gain Scores and Modifier Variables.............. 120Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Results o f /-tests on AMTB
Subscales and AMTB Total (pre-test)................................................. 123Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics and Results o f /-tests on AMTB
Subscales and AMTB Total (gain scores)............ ........ ...................... 124Table 4.6 Comparison o f AMTB Gain Scores and Modifier Variables............ 126
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration 4.1 Gain o f CCAI Subscales and Total.................................................. . 118Illustration 4.2 Gain o f AMTB Subscales and Total.................................................... 125Illustration 5.1 Prescriptiveness in Teaching......................................... ........................ 156
8
9
ABSTRACT
This dissertation reports the findings of a study on culture teaching and learning in
four beginning German foreign-language classrooms at the University of Arizona. The study
involved eighty-nine students and employed a pre-test/post-format using a treatment and
comparison group (i.e. intact groups). Specifically, the study focused on critical language
and culture pedagogy as a tool to promote positive attitudes towards language learning and
cross-cultural adaptability. Informed by the theory of learning as a process, the study results
in a model for thorough qualitative and quantitative research in culture teaching and learning
in the language classroom, and a working model for implementing critical culture pedagogy
in language courses.
The instruments used in the study included Kelley and Meyer’s Cross-Cultural
Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) (1991), Gardner and Lambert’s Attitude Measurement
Test Battery (AMTB) (1972), and Horwitz’ Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory
(BALLI) (1988).
Quantitative and qualitative results indicated that the experimental culture lessons,
which included a culture portfolio, enhanced student attitudes toward cross-cultural
adaptability and language learning (as measured by the CCAI and AMTB respectively).
Findings also indicated that a learner’s background (i.e. age, sex, previous language-
learning experience, previous time spent abroad, etc.) did not have an affect on gain
scores. In addition to providing significant empirical evidence that students’ cross-
cultural adaptability and culture learning can be positively influenced by transformative,
process-oriented classroom practices, this dissertation presents a post-communicative
model o f language teaching that can be easily implemented in beginning second- and
foreign-language classrooms.
10
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
“Facts can’t be recounted; much less twice over, and far less still by different persons.What happens is that your wretched memory remembers the words
and forgets what’s behind them.” Augusto Roa Bastos,Paraguayan novelist. I the Supreme. 1974
Deeply rooted in the tradition of American foreign language education is the idea
that one cannot learn to speak a foreign language without simultaneously studying its use
in relation to the culture o f the people who speak it. Even the functional approaches to
language learning (supported in the sixties and early seventies) acknowledged, rather than
concealed, that when we teach language without teaching the culture in which it operates,
we end up teaching meaningless symbols or symbols to which students attach the wrong
meaning; without the proper cultural context, students associate American concepts or
objects with the foreign symbols (Politzer 1959, p. 100-1). A review o f the professional
literature on foreign language education since the early 1900s suggests wide-spread and
long-term agreement on this issue. The priority given to this objective may vary from
one period to another, but it has long been present in the thinking o f education in general,
humanities education, and language education. For example,
° Jesperson wrote in 1904 in his book How to Teach a Foreign Language that, “The highest purpose in the teaching o f languages may perhaps be said to be the access to the best thoughts and institutions o f a foreign nation, its literature, culture — in short, the spirit o f the nation in the widest sense o f the word.”
o In 1933, the Secondary Education Board o f Milton, Massachusetts, declared that the primary practical value of language study was “the breaking down of the barriers o f pro vincialism and the building up o f the spirit o f international understanding and friendliness, leading toward world peace.”
11
0 in 1956, the Modem Language Association issued a policy statement titled Foreign Languages and International Understanding which addresses three contributions that learning another language can make to the achievement of international understanding and cooperation: 1) “Direct intercultural communication, 2) Experience of a foreign culture, and 3) Information about a foreign culture,” and adds: “The third contribution o f language learning to international understanding would be ineffective, were it not for the two other contributions which it uniquely makes,”
° Furthermore, the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies in 1979 declared in its report that “an international perspective is indispensable” and that “foreign languages, as a key to unlock the mysteries to other customs and cultures, can no longer be viewed as an educational or civic luxury.”
o Finally, the recently released National Standards for Foreign Languages (1995) also suggests that culture is key: “Communication is at the heart o f the human experience. The United States must educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad.” (Quoted in Rivers 1981, p. 314)
Applied linguistic research has also stressed this need. Savignon’s 1972 definition
of communicative competence, for example, incorporated not only linguistic aspects into
the language learning process, but also socio/cultural:
Communicative competence may be defined as the ability to function in a truly communicative setting - that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, o f one or more interlocutors, (p. 8)
Savignon argued that a “truly communicative setting” is one in which “real” or
“authentic” communication takes place, not one in which the teacher is doing a
question/answer drill based on a story, a dialogue in the book, or on some other ad hoc
data base from which the teacher already knows the answer, thereby rendering the
exchange o f information entirely unrealistic (Higgs & Clifford 1982, p. 58). In terms of
12
the statement that “linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational
input,” she meant that learners should be ready to abandon the linguistic system per se of
the target language and instead seek out other communication strategies for making
themselves understood (Higgs & Clifford 1982, p. 58). Savignon concluded that both
cultural context and linguistic form need to become the focus o f language teaching, and
that the two together should assume importance as a socially shared communicative
resource. Thus, even when language teaching focuses on linguistic skill-acquisition (e.g.
to provide students with an ability to read a foreign language and to analyze and write in
a foreign language), the aims can remain communicative with an emphasis on oral
competence and the ability to communicate for practical purposes (Byram, Esarte-Sarries
and Taylor 1991, p. xiii). These and similar goals are well documented in the literature
by Canale and Swain (1980), Pennycook (1989 & 1990), Legutke and Thomas (1991),
Kramsch (1993), and Stagich (1995). The sum o f this research has been very successful
in bridging the gap between cultural/contextual and linguistic elements o f language
teaching. Kramsch, for example, has shown that the structures which speakers choose to
use and hearers choose to listen and respond to construct the very context o f
communication in which learning takes place. Rather than a dichotomy, then, Kramsch
has shown that learners need to understand that they have multiple options regarding the
way language is used in variable contexts o f use (Kramsch 1993, p. 5). One reason for
this is the unpredictability o f both learner needs and discoursal outcomes . In other words,
learners have both linguistic and cultural/contextual needs. If the teacher fails to address
13
these issues, “it could lead to considerable frustration and demotivation when learners try,
and subsequently fail, to communicate after intensive personal investment and group
activity” (Legutke and Thomas, p. 61). Pennycook has also shown that to develop
language skills within a competency based curriculum, teachers must not only introduce
functional language skills, but must also integrate this with a learner’s need to investigate
his/her knowledge and cultural resources as a way to develop language skills (Pennycook,
p. 311).
This view that linguistic skill-acquisition and cultural/contextual aspects of
language are mutually supportive was taken into consideration in a model o f
communicative competence proposed by Canale and Swain in 1980 and modified by
Canale in 1983. The principle objective o f this model is to move teachers away from
teaching isolated words and sentences, and to channel learners’ energy into performing
communicative acts, which require a very broad view o f language learning. Instead of
focusing solely on the patterns o f a text mid discourse, Canale and Swain stressed that
meaning is derived from context and that language learners need to develop a variety o f
competencies. Their analysis o f communicative competence is also intended to
emphasize discourse and sociolinguistic features without neglecting the formal
(grammatical) aspects o f language (Stem 1992, p. 75):
14
grammatical competence, concerned with the mastery o f grammatically correct language, with language code, etc.;
socio-linguistic competence, concerned with what is socially accepted language, i.e. with decisions about appropriateness o f language in context;
discourse competence, concerned with the ability to decode - negotiation - and encode coherent written and/or spoken text;
strategic competence, concerned with the knowledge and ability o f how to use language to communicate intended meaning and how to repair breakdowns that occur in communication. (Canale 1983, p. 57)
One o f the main points to be taken from this model is that language use is context-
specific, and that the communicatively competent language user will need to know how
to make appropriate choices from the various categories in order to fit the particular
situation in which communication occurs. The difficulty with communicative
approaches, however, has been how to narrow context so as to make it teachable:
We know from Hymes that situational contexts are really a most complex affair: besides medium, topic, tone, register, and genre, they also include the physical setting, the purpose o f the exchange, the relative roles and statuses o f the participants, the socially acceptable norms o f interaction.To this list we have to add the variable perceptions of all these factors by the interlocutors. (Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet 1992, p. 7).
When the emphasis in language teaching shifted from reading and writing to
listening and speaking, teachers not only had to re-assess the semantic and social aspects
o f language, but also the communicative needs o f their learners. The focus became that
which was needed for successful interaction with members o f another society and culture.
The semantic and social analysis of language made teachers more conscious o f the need
to contextualize language by reference to its use in settings learners were most likely to
meet. These various factors encouraged teachers to introduce into their lessons
information about the way of life in the target culture (Byram, Esarte-Sarries and Taylor
1991, p. xiii).
Because o f the difficulty in narrowing cultural context (so as to make it
teachable), teachers often respond to this challenge by arbitrarily organizing situational
contexts and teaching them in the same way points o f grammar had formally been taught
(Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet 1992, p. 8). Learners, for example, learn ten ways to
apologize rather than ten ways to conjugate verbs (Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet 1992,
p. 8). Such strategies not only obscure the socially variable construction o f cultural
context, but they also reduce the notion o f culture into items or “facts” in a textbook, thus
ignoring the creative leeway people have in what they do and say and how they construe
and shape their sociolinguistic options (Kramsch and McConnell-Ginet 1992, p. 8). As a
result, providing learners with the means for communication has become such an
overriding principle that the content o f communication has been relegated to a negligible
status (Kempf 1995, p. 40).
The problem, however, is not a failure within the field to recognize that learning a
language is not enough in itself and that some kind o f cultural context is necessary (even
i f this only operates at the level o f explaining the use o f the formal and informal in a
language). Teachers acknowledge that language learning has a wide range o f aims -
including creating tolerance o f and insight into other cultures - but how these aims are
realized on a daily basis remains unclear (Byram, Esarte-Sarries, Taylor, Allatt 1991, p.
15
16
104). In fact, it may be that the emphasis on the assessment o f the linguistic aim and its
associated objectives leads to little or no attempt to realize human or social aims (Byram,
Esarte-Sarries, Taylor, Allatt 1991, p. 104). One reason for this is that educators who
teach culture have not yet determined how much attention must be paid to students’
cultural patterns or about how much preparation must be done before students can accept
the phenomena o f a different culture (Mantle-Bromley 1994, p. 77). Accordingly,
teachers routinely rely on simplistic approaches to teaching culture, such as
uncomplicated facts, tour-guide details or so-called objective native culture (Kramsch
1993) (please see section 2.1 for a complete discussion of this type o f culture teaching).
Students are, thus, often exposed haphazardly to diverse cultural values and are thus not
shown a systematic way to acquire cultural competence:
Despite the development o f pupil activity in the learning o f the foreign language - under the banner o f ‘communicative language learning’ - the teaching o f culture remains didactic, oriented towards the transmission of information. It is, however, largely unsystematic, [and] guided only by the textbook. (Byram, Esarte-Sarries, Taylor, Allatt 1991, p. 118)
The result has been an on-going discussion among theorists and practitioners regarding
cultural context and the role it plays not only in developing second language competence,
but also self-realization, cross-cultural awareness, and tolerance with respect to foreign
cultures and peoples. The main point o f discussion is whether or not the
contextualization o f language teaching should operate at a deeper level than it does and
whether or not it should contribute more meaningfully tp learners’ understanding and
acceptance o f different cultures.
17
As a result, the possibilities for teaching culture range from supplying students
with clearly identifiable facts about a culture on one side o f the continuum to bringing
about subtle affective changes in their desire or ability to value people who think, dress,
or act differently from themselves on the other side o f the continuum (Lafayette, p. 47).
Many in this field argue that it is exposure to the later end o f the continuum that
differentiates success or failure in becoming a competent speaker, reader, or writer in a
foreign language (Stagich 1995, p. 59). Without cultural context, according to Legutke
and Thomas, language learning becomes entrenched in goals which hinder learner needs:
Without a connection to content areas and representations o f the target culture, the stimulation o f self-discovery and self-disclosure in the language classroom will remain arbitrary and could further aggravate learner alienation, and thus be counterproductive to its initial intent.(Legutke and Thomas 1991, p. 50)
In developing cultural context o f a foreign language, it is easy to limit our objectives to
highlighting certain formal or historical aspects or products o f the target culture.
However, in order to encourage student awareness and appreciation o f things that are
“foreign”, it may be necessary to develop the concept o f culture as something that is
arbitrary. Since language is both a vehicle o f culture and the broadest, most
representative example o f it, it may be that our fullest appreciation o f diversity is best
developed through exposure to language that embraces diversity itself. In other words, it
is perhaps through exposure to the ambiguity o f culture that allows learners to understand
and begin accepting the intangible elements o f peoples or ideas that are different.
Language teachers, through the languages they teach, are in an ideal position to
18
incorporate such an approach to developing cultural context into the foreign language
classroom.
To prepare university students for meaningful culture learning, teachers need to be
aware o f the role o f attitudes, the lengthy process involved of this kind o f learning, and
various learner abilities and characteristics. This present study is a contribution to a more
constructive discourse on teaching culture in the foreign language classroom.
1.1 STATEMENTS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
The essential purpose o f this study is to investigate the salient issues that concern
U.S. university students during their first semester o f foreign language study and to
provide foreign-language educators with a framework for integrating culture learning into
their classrooms, taking into account both the process that young adult learners go
through in accepting another culture and the potential difficulties that may arise in this
process.
Specifically, this study attempts to investigate the following hypothesis and
research questions:
Main Hypothesis
Beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students o f German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
19
Research Questions
° Are the gain scores o f students in the treatment group (as measured by the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) and the Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)) different from the gain scores o f students in the comparison group?
0 Do variables such as age, sex, year in school, major, previous language study, whether or not subject had spent time abroad, self-rated language- learning ability, interest, motivation (integrative or instrumental) or parental encouragement influence gain-score differences as analyzed in question one above?
° Do students enter German 101 with misconceptions, mistaken beliefs or both (as measured by the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)) that could cause frustration in the language-learning process?
° Do students' attitudes (as measured by the BALLI) change after onesemester o f language learning?
° What information from the qualitative data (e.g. student’s writtenstatements regarding the culture and strategy lessons, and the student and teacher interviews) can be used to better understand the quantitative data analyses?
1.2 OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES
Subjects for this study consisted o f 89 students o f spring-semester German 101
classes at the University o f Arizona. Data were gathered by means o f a pre-test/post-test
format as well as from classroom observations, interviews, and short reaction statements.
In addition to a personal data sheet that was used to gather information about age, major,
gender, etc. (administered once), the following instruments were administered twice
(once during the first week o f spring semester (1996), and once during the last week of
spring semester (1996)):
20
° Kelley & Meyers’ Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (1993)° Horwitz’ Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (1988)° Gardner, Smythe, and Clement’s Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (1974)
Data from these instruments were computer analyzed using an independent groups f-test.
The following table outlines the procedures used in this study:
Table 1.1 Research Procedures
Pre-test Measurement Instruments (four sections of German 101)
1 . Personal data: age, major, gender, language/abroad experience, etc.2. Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, Smythe, Clement, 1974)3. Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAT) (Kelly & Meyers 1993)4. Beliefs about Language Teaming Tnventoty (BAT J J) (Horwitz 1988)
Comparison Gronp (n=42) Two German 101 Classes
Conducted by researcher:1. Five lessons on language learning strategies.2. Four classroom observations (per class)3. One interview with instructor (per class)4. Eight student interviews
Performed by students:1. Complete five lessons on language learning
strategies2. Complete reaction sheet based on content o f the
strategy lessons (one per lesson)
Treatment Gronp (n=47)Two German 101 Classes
Conducted by researcher:1. Five experimental culture lessons2. Four classroom observations (per class)3. One interview with instructor (per class)4. Eight student interviews
Performed by students:1. Participate in five experimental culture lessons2. Complete reaction sheet based on content o f culture
lessons (one per lesson)3. One culture portfolio: topic o f students choice4. One culture presentation: topic same as culture
portfolio
Post-test Measnrement Instraments (fonr sections of German 101)
1. Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, Smythe, Clement, 1974)2. Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAT) (Kelly & Meyers 1993)3. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BAT J J) (Horwitz 1988)
21
Table 1.2 Data for Analysis ____________________________Quantitative:
1. Personal data sheet (administered once)2. Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, Smythe,
Clement, 1974): pre-test/post-test change3. CCAI (Kelly & Meyers 1993): pre-test/post-test change4. BALLI (Horwitz, 1988): pre-test/post-test change5. Unit exam scores, oral exam, final exam score6. Correlation variables (e.g. gain scores with age, major, gender, etc.)
Qualitative:1. Classroom observations2. Interviews (student and teacher)3. Short reaction statements based on the content o f culture and strategy
lessons
1.2.1 Instruments
The pre-test consisted o f a personal data sheet (PBS), the Attitudes and
Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, Smythe, & Clement, 1974), the Beliefs about
Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) (Horwitz, 1988), and the Cross-Cultural
Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) (Kelly & Meyers, 1992). To assess the impact, if any, o f
the experimental culture lessons on students’ affective attitudes, this researcher again
administered the AMTB, the BALLI, and the CCAI at the end o f the sixteen-week
semester (the PDS was administered only at the beginning of the semester). For a
detailed description o f these instruments, please see section 3.6.3 (Description of
Instruments used for Quantitative Data Collection).
22
The treatment group took part in five experimental culture lessons designed to
promote cultural awareness, and compiled one culture portfolio. Each o f the five
experimental lessons took place during normally scheduled class time, were one hour in
length, were taught at three week intervals, and were taught by the researcher. Topics
and activities for the experimental lessons were also generated by the researcher and dealt
with raising cross-cultural awareness. The aim of each experimental lesson was to
provide a learner-centered forum for introspection on topics relating to cultural learning
and as a take-off point for further awareness and skill training. The researcher also
collected short reaction statements from the students after each culture lesson. The
purpose o f collecting this feedback was 1) to encouraged the students to reflect and
summarize their ideas relating to the culture lessons; 2) to give learners an opportunity to
express their observations and frustrations about the experimental culture lessons and the
culture portfolios; and 3) to encourage them to hypothesize explanations for cultural
differences and similarities (in so doing, participants were encouraged to view differences
as perceptions o f reality, rather than so-called objective reality) (Please see section 3.5.2
for a more detailed discussion o f the pedagogy used in each o f the experimental culture
lessons. Please see Appendix A for a copy o f the treatment group’s five lesson plans and
Appendix B for a copy o f the materials relating to the culture portfolio).
1.2.2 Treatment Group
23
The comparison group did not take part in the experimental culture lessons or
create culture portfolios. Instead, this group took part in five strategy lessons designed to
supply a potentially beneficial means for improving target language learning. These
lessons also took place during normally scheduled class time, were one hour in length,
were taught at three week intervals, and were taught by the researcher. During each
strategy lesson, learners were encouraged to raise their level o f awareness towards the
strategies they use or could use in the language learning process. The first lesson covered
a general introduction to the interrelationships between direct and indirect strategies
(Oxford 1990). In each o f the following strategy lessons, the topic o f discussion related
to one o f the four language skills. For example, lesson two promoted speaking strategies,
lesson three promoted reading as an active set o f skills, lesson four promoted writing as a
process, and lesson five promoted strategies for improving one’s level o f attending
(Please see section 3.5.1 for a more detailed discussion o f the pedagogy used in the
strategy lessons. Please see Appendix C for a copy o f the comparison group’s five
lessons).
1.2.3 Comparison Group
24
Table 1.3 Goals o f Lessons Related to Project Data
Treatment Growtp
promote a positive attitude toward the German language and culture (AMTB)
promote a positive attitude toward cross-cultural situations (CCAI)
promote realistic attitudes towards language learning (BALLI)
Actual Treatment
Content o f culture lessons will encourage active learner involvement with complex, possibly even controversial material.
When dealing with complex material, students will be encouraged to reach their own conclusions, rather than be just the passive receivers o f information.
Students will be encouraged to become aware o f their own attitudes toward language and culture, leading, possibly, to positive attitude towards the German language, cross-cultural situations, and language learning in general.
Comparison Group
No explicit training will be conducted in the comparison group that will address the goals o f the culture lessons or culture portfolio. In other words, no explicit effort will be made to promote a positive attitude toward the German language and culture, no explicit effort will be made to promote a positive attitude towards cross- cultural situations, and no effort will be made to promote realistic attitudes towards language learning.
25
The statistical procedure used for this study was the two-sample f-test (also: t for
independent means) which compares measures (scores) o f two independent groups to
determine if there is a significant difference between the samples. The statistic resulting
from the computation is called t. Once its value was calculated, its significance was
determined by consulting a table in any standard educational research or statistics text.
Information collected through the dialogue questionnaires and the experimental culture
lessons were systematically analyzed and used to help explain and interpret findings from
the two-sample f-tests.
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1.3.1 Feasibility o f the Study
Studies involving surveys account for a substantial proportion o f the research
done in the field o f education. For example, Lazarsfeld and Sieber did a content analysis
of educational research appearing in 40 journals in 1964 and found that about a third o f
them involved use o f the survey method (Lazarsfeld and Sieber, p. 21). To conduct
survey research, one must first assume that attitudes and opinions can be measured by
surveys such as the ones used in this project. In addition, because o f the diversity present
among the subjects who participated in this study, it was important to consider the
indeterminate number o f independent variables which could affect a person’s level of
cross-cultural adaptability and attitudes towards language learning. Shaw and Wright
(1967), for example, examined this assumption in regards to the measurement o f attitudes
1.2.4 Data Analysis
26
and the objectives o f a survey. They argued that “attitudes have specific social referents,
or specific classes thereof’ (p. 8). In other words, attitudes are influenced by the social
context in which they are learned. Social referents, according to Shaw and Wright, can
be identified, and evaluated, by using a rigorously constructed scale, an example of which
is the Likert-scale used in the instruments in this study (p. 32).
When a surveys is used to measure attitudes, the researcher must rely on self-
report to assess individual differences in traits, needs, adjustment difficulties, and values.
Although these measures are used frequently in educational research to describe the
personality characteristics o f different groups (Borg and Gall 1989, p. 305), one must
consider whether or not the subjects respond honestly, as response bias may be present
for many o f the subjects. As Borg and Gal report.
One o f the potentially serious disadvantages o f personality inventories stems from the fact that they are based on self-report. Like most self- reporting devices, they are only accurate to the degree that the selfperceptions are accurate and to the degree that the person is willing to express them honestly (Borg and Gall, p. 306).
Subjects may respond in a random fashion or deliberately lie or distort their
answers. As a result, spurious answer sheets need to be detected and omitted from the
data analysis (Borg and Gall, p. 306). Another variable that leads to spurious responses is
called response set, which is the desire to present one’s self in a favorable light. To
encourage subjects to respond honestly, this researcher stressed that the identity of the
subjects will be kept anonymous.
27
It was also important to consider the similarity o f each culture/strategy lesson, and
whether or not there is congruency within the various German 101 sections. Because of
this possible discrepancy, it was decided not to have the actual teachers o f each section o f
German 101 teach the culture/strategy lessons, but rather to have the researcher himself
present material in an attempt to promote consistency within the comparison and
treatment groups.
Although the variables measured in each o f the three pre- and post-test
instruments have been determined to reasonably represent their intended objectives
(please see Chapter Four for a discussion on the reliability and validity o f each instrument
used in this study), it was important to consider that some o f the subjects may have had
previous experiences which contributed to their pre- and post-test responses. To consider
these experiences, the PBS was used to collect information about each o f the subject’s
past experiences in cross-cultural situations (e.g. whether time had been spent
study/living/traveling abroad, etc.).
1.3.2 The Nature o f Attitude Measurement
When questionnaires deal with attitude and opinion, Borg and Gall argue that a
one-item test approach is extremely unreliable (Borg and Gall, p. 432). Thus, a
questionnaire dealing with attitudes must generally be constructed as an attitude scale and
must use a number of items (usually at least ten) in order to obtain a reasonable picture of
the attitude concerned (Borg and Gall, p. 432). Each o f the attitudes scales used in this
study contain at least ten items.
28
1.3.3 Comparison o f Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodologies and Paradigms
The present study asserts that a combination o f quantitative and qualitative
paradigms can produce a more comprehensive view o f the findings, and perhaps even
tease out results unavailable to just one of these methods. This form o f research strategy
is often called “triangulation”, a metaphor taken from navigation and military strategy
(Tick 1979). The idea is to gather data using multiple viewpoints and methods to cross-
validate data. Support for its effectiveness has been attested to by a number o f
researchers. Qualitative analyses produce background information that can be used to
interpret statistical results to see if there is congruence between the two data sets (Nunan
1992, p. 3). Lack o f such congruence can suggest problems which may otherwise remain
hidden, thus allowing a strengthening of the research design. The two approaches also
permit investigation o f different aspects o f the research question. Qualitative strategies
best-address contextual or process variables, while quantitative methods have advantage
when the focus is on outcome variables (Nunan 1992, p. 3). In conjunction, the two can
enhance the validity and reliability o f the study by increasing understanding o f the
phenomena through expanded contextual and procedural frameworks and by helping to
eliminate alternative explanations for findings (Nunan 1992, p. 3). Research which
integrates both methodologies can provide a more balanced perspective. However,
another group o f researchers have argued that because quantitative and qualitative
approaches are products o f two diametrically opposed theoretical paradigms, they can
never be reconciled or combined (Guba & Lincold, 1989). Therefore, they feel that a
29
decision must be made by an investigator to choose one over the other. Certainly, from a
paradigmatic perspective, the two approaches may be irreconcilable, but there is no
necessary or exclusive linkage between paradigm and method. Rather, the choice of data
collection and analysis techniques should be designed to match the research questions.
The combination o f the two methodologies in this present study did, in fact, produce a
richer data set arguing for the utility o f both methods in this context.
1.3.4 Causality
Determining casual patterns with any degree o f certainty is difficult (Borg and
Gall, p. 540). To do so suggests that is it possible to control all competing variables and
manipulate all o f the independent variables. Such constraints are problematic, but they
are no more severe in foreign-language education than in any other field related to
educational research. Through the use o f statistical analysis (please see section 4.2 for a
discussion o f data analysis procedures), we can expand the possible sources o f prediction
and test to see which o f many variables and which combination o f variables allow us to
make the best prediction (Hatch and Lazaraton 1991, p. 467).
1.3.5 Transfer o f Findings to Other Populations
Because the German 101 courses used in this study were not randomly selected,
the findings o f this study may not be applicable to German students and courses outside
of the University o f Arizona. It is possible, however, that the population used in this
study is representative of other universities with similar characteristics. In other words, it
is possible that the findings are roughly representative o f other large state-supported
universities in Arizona and the remainder o f the Southwest.
30
If one assumes that most learners o f foreign languages have some common
characteristics, the findings o f this study at the University o f Arizona may be cautiously
extended to include many other foreign-language learners at the university level, pending
further research.
1.3.6 Effects o f Anonymity
In most educational studies, subjects are asked to identify themselves (Borg and
Gall, p. 433). However, anonymity is sometimes required if data o f a personal nature or
data that may be threatening to the individual are requested (Borg and Gall, p. 433). In
addition, anonymity may be desirable if it would encourage or allow respondents to
express more honest answers. Nevertheless, Borg and Gall point out that anonymity can
interfere with follow-ups and makes it impossible to identify individuals (Borg and Gall,
p. 434). The basic question is, thus, whether anonymity is necessary to insure honest and
accurate answers. It was felt by the researcher that the nature o f the items on the
questionnaire was such that the respondents might be hesitant to answer honestly without
an assurance o f anonymity. This study did require some method o f tracking the same
subject’s scores on pre- and post-tests: For this reason, subjects were identified by the
last four digits o f their social security numbers.
Regulations published by the U S. Department of Health and Human Services [45
CFR Part 46.101(b) (2)] exempt this type o f research from review by the University of
Arizona Human Subjects Committee.
31
1.3.7 Demand Characteristics
Human subjects are apt to try to relate their participation in a research study to
past experiences and the total context o f the experimental situation (Borg and Gall, 1989).
This means that they are likely to be sensitive to all aspects o f the research environment
and to use cues which are present to respond to the test environment. The cues available
to the subjects regarding the nature o f the research have been called demand
characteristics by Ome (1969). These can include rumors about the research, the setting
instructions given to the research subjects, the status and personality o f the experimenter,
subtle clues provided by the experimenter, and the experimental procedure itself.
Rosnow and Davis (1977) conclude that in order for demand characteristics to
affect research findings, two requirements must be met. First, the subject must be aware
of the demand characteristics. Second, the subject must have motivation which
encourages him or her to respond to the demand characteristics. This may include the
tendency to acquiesce to the perceived intentions o f the experiment, or the tendency to be
counter-acquiescent to the perceived intentions o f the experiment. Either reaction may
tend to distort the results o f the research. It is, however, an unavoidable situation because
most respondents will tend to respond in a way which presents their self-image favorably
(Borg and Gall, 1989).
32
1.4 IMPLICATIONS
This research project will provide a valuable framework for helping foreign-
language educators to better understand the process o f culture learning and the various
stages o f cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity. For example, this study will help gain
information about 1) the salient issues that concern students during their first semester of
language study, 2) the types o f knowledge, skills, and behaviors that students associate
with the concept o f cultural competence, and 3) teaching/training techniques that can be
used to address culture learning and promote cross-cultural awareness.
A systematic analysis o f the Personal Data Sheet PDS, the pre-/post test data, the
experimental culture lessons, the evaluations by each student o f the culture lessons, and
the teacher/student interviews will also provide a description o f learner characteristics,
which will help educators: 1) provide learners with highly personalized insight into their
potential for adjustment to a new environment, 2) develop teaching materials to heighten
awareness o f home and target-language cultures such as values, attitudes and practices, 3)
create lesson plans that focus on the importance o f culture learning and adjustment, 4)
inform their students about the aspects o f culture and foreign language learning which the
students in this study found difficult, and 5) better understand the common fears and
expectations students typically have before studying a foreign language.
33
1.5 PREVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS
The remainder o f this study is divided into four parts. Chapter Two examines
relevant research which serves as a basis for the study. Chapter Three describes in detail
the research design and procedures employed in the study. In Chapter Four the data are
presented. Chapter Five interprets the data given in Chapter Four, summarizes the study
and concludes with a discussion o f the implications and recommendations for further
examination and research in this area.
34
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON TEACHING CULTURE IN THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
“The facts are to blame my friend. We are all imprisoned by facts.”Luigi Pirandello, The Rules o f the Game
2.1 PAST DEFINITIONS
A review o f literature on culture teaching in the foreign-language classroom
reveals a substantial body o f research, especially when one considers the relatively short
period o f time that teachers and researchers have been actively studying adaptation from
one culture to another. A milestone in the field was the work o f Oberg (1960), who
introduced the concept o f culture shock, “the psychological reaction individuals
experience when they enter another culture and the conflict that arises between their
identity and the values, perceptions, and social cues o f the other culture” (p. 17). Since
the time of Oberg’s work in the early sixties, the foreign-language teaching profession
has been actively engaged in developing guidelines to determine what kind o f culture to
teach and how best to teach it. Because o f the diversity and complexity o f the research
that has surfaced since Oberg, attitudes regarding what constitutes effective culture
teaching vary widely.
Language teaching curricula often suggest that there is a fairly clear distinction
between linguistic knowledge and cultural knowledge, and that one can indeed acquire
one o f these without the other (Bentahila & Davies 1989, p. 99). This dichotomous view
of language and culture is an entrenched feature o f language teaching around the world
and stems from the linguistic heritage o f the profession (Kramsch 1993, p. 8). From this
35
point o f view, the pronunciation, writing system, vocabulary and syntax o f language
constitute purely linguistic phenomena, which can be contrasted with cultural/contextual
information about the way o f life, social organization, values and traditions o f the
community o f speakers o f the target language. The predominantly positivistic
educational environment in the United States, which often equates the acquisition of
content with the learning o f facts (Fischer 1993, p. 73), tends to reinforce this perspective.
Consequently, effectiveness in foreign language teaching is typically measured according
to practical outcomes (Kramsch 1993, p. 8). To meet the standards supported in this
educational climate, “culture”, as it appears in foreign-language classrooms and
textbooks, is often objectified and depersonalized. Under this system, ideas about culture
are typically reduced to the presentation o f facts and concepts about the target culture that
can be tested “objectively”:
The following examples demonstrate how the objectivization o f culture
communicates that institutions, manners, customs, attitudes, desires, achievements, and
accomplishments can be prescribed as a set o f finite examples and definitions.
At the 1960 Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages, Ira
Wade et al. wrote that although most colleges have no consistent plan for teaching
culture and civilization, it is important that teachers find the time to “explain a custom, or
describe an institution, or define an idea, an attitude, or a point o f view peculiar to the
country” (p. 54). In addition, Wade et al. argued that any attempt to teach culture is
“commendable, but, in general, the focus is, as it should be, on learning the language” (p.
36
54). Similarly, Pfister, suggested that teachers prepare lists o f key facts which point out
the various issues that students need to learn and assist them in developing a sense of
cultural awareness (Pfister 1972, p. 40). Like Wade et al., Pfister also regarded culture
only as background information to the “real business o f language learning”, which is
mastery o f the linguistic code (i.e. the grammatical structures) o f the target language. In
an article published in 1978 for the MFLA Newsletter, Perkins argued that ethnic food
can be the point de depart fox tracing target-culture heritage and for broadening students’
horizons (Perkins 1978, p. 8). From this perspective, learners are told about food,
cooking styles, and living and eating habits. The gastronomic approach does not
reinforce differences found within the target culture, but rather generalizations (e.g when
a meal is eaten, how long the break from school and or work lasts, whether it is a
substantial meal o f hot dishes with several courses, and whether the whole family sits
down to this meal together). In another example, Arsenault, in the preface to the 1976
Northeast Conference Reports, noted that foreign language teachers most often associate
culture not with food, but with the historical and geographic background o f the speakers
of a language (p. 11). In this sense, culture teaching is viewed as a means to an end,
which is to build historical and literary knowledge and vocabulary or information on how
to avoid cultural faux pas.
37
Several techniques have also been developed with the intention o f drawing
learners’ attention to cultural comparisons in compact, interesting, and readily accessible
ways. The “slice o f life” (J.S. Taylor 1970) consists o f a short attention-getting
presentation, for example a recording o f a popular song as the class settles down to a
Spanish lesson or a short tape-recording o f Spanish news items in the last two or three
minutes (p. 224). One o f the most influential devices o f this type is the “culture capsule”,
based on a suggestion by H.D Tylor and Sorensen (1961). This, as the name indicates, is
an isolated item o f information on the target culture. The originators thought of it as a
small self-contained unit with a script prepared by the teacher. The verbal presentation o f
it is to be combined with realia, visuals, and other aids. The substance is to be presented
by the teacher with the help o f a prepared script and various supplementary resources.
The presentation is to be followed by a role-play. The treatment o f a “culture capsule”
was not to take up more than about ten minutes o f a lesson. A weekly “culture capsule”
in a year’s course, as Taylor and Sorensen argued, might amount to as many as thirty-six
culture exposures. They also suggested that the resources for each capsule could be
conveniently stored in a shoe box so as to be readily available when needed (p. 532). In
the “culture cluster” (first proposed by B. Meade and G. Morain 1973), a distinctive
behavior o f a speaker o f the language in a specific situation is analyzed into component
parts about which the students are informed in several “culture capsules”. For example,
students may learn about different types o f shops, about bargaining, and about ways in
which one completes a purchase or declines to buy (i.e. through a series o f “culture
38
capsules”). These isolated pieces o f knowledge are then integrated into the acting out o f
a shopping incident, etc. (p. 532). Although these approaches to integrating culture into
the foreign-language classroom all differ as to the extent to which information is provided
and the importance it is given, each technique regards the learner as someone for whom
selection o f cultural information must be made by the teacher. In this view, culture is an
objective system containing indisputable facts. In other words, culture learning is a
technical process prescribed by experts and implemented by teachers.
Language teaching curricula, however, have also been influenced by numerous
contributions during the last thirty-five years which have stressed not a search for clear
yardsticks o f competence and fact learning, but rather the recognition o f complexity,
tolerance o f ambiguity, and the subjectivity of culture (Kramsch 1993, p. 2). Michael
Byram (1989), for example, maintains that although the “warp o f language can be teased
out from the weft o f culture”, the learner needs to see the tapestry o f language as a whole
(p. 42). As example, Nostrand (1974) developed a scheme referred to as the Emergent
Model which classifies observations under several broad headings. His goal was to
overcome fragmentation resulting from the presentation o f cultural titbits:
1. Culture: value systems, habits o f thought, assumptions about reality, verifiable knowledge, art forms, language, paralanguage and kinesics
2. Society: organized under institutions: familial, religious, economic and occupational, political and judicial, educational, interactional, intellectual, intellectual and aesthetic, and recreational; the mass media; stratification and mobility; social properties (le savoir-vivre); status by group and sex; ethnic, religious and other minorities
3. Conflicts: interpersonal and intergroup conflict, intrapersonal conflict
39
4. Ecology and technology: exploitation o f physical resources, exploitation o f plants and animals, demographic control, health care and accident prevention, settlement and territorial organization, travel and transportation
5. Individual: integration at the organismic level, intrapersonal variability, and interpersonal variation
6. Cross-cultural environment: attitudes toward other cultures and toward international and supranational organizations
The headings are an attempt to help learners to place their observations in a context.
Norstrand argues that it is through evolving a few major themes that we come to
understand a culture (According to Norstrand, this model for culture teaching is based on
the combination o f a comprehensive model for the study o f society, proposed by a
Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons and a “themal” description o f societies, developed by
a Cornell anthropologist, Morris Opler). To promote problem solving, a technique
known as the “Culture Assimilator” or “Minidrama” was developed systematically for
use as a self-instructional program by Fiedler, Mitchell and Triandis (1971). Here, a
confusing or frustrating situation in the target culture or one that contrasts the target
culture with the students’ own culture, is described in narrative form, the narrative
coming to an end before the problem is resolved. Students then act out the situation,
resolving it as they think it would be resolved in the target culture. Various groups may
present dramatizations o f different solutions, and these versions will then be discussed in
the light o f what is known about the culture. The purpose o f this is to encourage students
to think about the implications of cultural attitudes and values (A complete “Culture
Assimilator” consists o f a large number of such items; through them, students build up an
40
understanding o f behavior within the culture (Fiedler, Mitchell and Triandis 1971, p.
98)). In another attempt to move culture teaching away from the idea o f culture as “fact
learning”, Shane (1977) suggested a shift from a reliance on rote learning to a focus on
problem solving (p. 15). Cultural information in his sense is to be developed for use and
adaptation rather than for mere possession. In further opposition to the teaching of
language merely as form, Gerhard Fischer (1996) used the metaphors “tourist” and
“explorer” to illuminate the distinction between acquiring linguistic forms and cultural
facts on the one hand and using a second language to construct an understanding of
another social reality (Fischer, p. 73). An important aspect o f Fischer’s stance is that he
does not suggest avoiding the use o f lecture, drills, vocabulary tests or other routine
things, but rather that if we want our students to explore and reflect or to find things out
on their own, we will have to add learning experiences to our repertoire that require
students to ask questions rather than accept cultural information at face value (p. 80).
There is no doubt that culture, whether orientated towards “facts and figures” or a
learner- and process-oriented approach, forms part o f most language curriculums.
However, the policy is likely to vary depending on circumstances, types o f students, and
goals. In Britain, for example, culture teaching is referred to as “background studies”,
which immediately defines its position as subordinate to language (It is listed under this
heading in the abstracting journal Language Teaching). In France it is often referred to as
“civilization” (Mounin 1984). In Germany, where the concept probably originated (Stem
1992), it is not uncommon to describe culture teaching as Landeskunde or Kulturkunde.
41
Wherever it is called, there has been a continuing history o f this aspect o f language
teaching dating back at least to the early 1950s and even further to the beginning of the
century (an historical development o f culture in language teaching since the beginning o f
the twentieth century is described in Stem 1983, p. 246-56). An early expression of a
broader perspective was a seminal British report Modern Studies (1918), which
emphasized the need for a better knowledge o f a country and its people as part o f foreign
language education. According to Stem 1992, the concept o f “modem studies” was
intended to convey this wider perspective more adequately than the traditional term
“modem languages” (p. 205).
The above views on culture teaching in the foreign language classroom did not
develop sequentially, but rather simultaneously. Even today, one can find wide-spread
support for most o f the approaches mentioned above. As a result, the discussion over
what kind o f culture to teach and how best to teach it continues, but, o f course, in greatly
expanded form (Grittner, p. 18). Language teaching in the 1990s is still explored via
literature, grammar, and cultural facts, but it is also explored via business, tourism,
heritage languages, and technology. Some o f the approaches are more student-centered
than others, with techniques involving a variety o f activities such as small-group work,
student input and discovery. Other approaches stress the direct teaching o f civilization
(i.e. geography, history, artistic and literary achievements, etc.) and background
information as subject matter that can be tested as “right” or “wrong”. Such diverse
attitudes towards language and culture are analogous to today’s language classrooms in
42
that teaching involves a variety o f activities that depend on the content, context, and goals
of the particular lesson. In the next section, cross-cultural awareness will be examined
not only as a desired outcome o f language and culture learning, but also as a means for
enabling language proficiency.
2.2 RATIONALES FOR TEACHING CULTURE
Regardless o f the relation of language and culture in language teaching, most
constructs for teaching culture in the last three decades have stressed that culture learning
is, at least, educational and that it offers individuals an opportunity to develop new
perceptions and insights into foreign and native cultures alike. In other words, although
there tends to be friction regarding the best approach to culture teaching, it is possible to
find agreement regarding why culture learning is important. For example, G. Reginald
Bishop wrote in the forward to the 1960 Northeast Conference Reports that although it is
somewhat unclear how to handle this very important dimension o f our discipline,
neglecting culture impairs much o f our language instruction, while including it in the
language program increases the interest and the value o f a program (G. Reginald Bishop,
p. 12). By doing so, language teaching contributes “more effectively toward producing
people who are distinguished for their enlightenment and intellectual discipline” (G.
Reginald Bishop, p. 12). Thirty-five years later, our motivations and justifications for
teaching culture in the foreign-language classroom are not much different than Bishop’s.
Current literature regarding overall goals also suggests that culture teaching in the foreign
language classroom fosters:
43
a. open-mindedness to new ideas and experiencesb. inter-cultural empathyc. accurate perception o f similarities and differences between culturescl. astute, noncritical observation o f one’s own and others’ behaviore. an ability to establish meaningful relationships with host-culture persons
(Dinges, p. 184)f. and motivation by arousing students’ curiosity about the foreign culture
(Webber, p. 255)
Even the philosophy statement o f the newly released National Standards for
Foreign Languages (1995) suggests that some unity exists, at least with regard to the
general purpose o f culture teaching in the foreign language classroom:
Communication is at the heart o f the human experience. The United States must educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad. (Standards)
The essential point here is that language learning can be a beneficial experience because
of its positive influence on a person’s personal and social development. A similar
rationale for learning foreign languages also arises from the widely held assumptions,
among teachers and the general public, that language learning does and should include
some, generally unspecified, cultural learning because it can result in favorable learner
attitudes towards foreign peoples and customs (Byram, Esarte-Sarries and Taylor, p. xii).
Consensus, regarding rationales for teaching culture in the FL classroom,
however, breaks down as soon as one begins to look beyond the mere “broadening o f
one’s horizons” as an outcome or purpose. This is because rationales for culture teaching
are independent o f the approach and intensity to which culture is taught. On one hand,
teaching guides often stress that language learning consists o f teaching the four skills
44
(reading, writing, speaking, listening) plus culture. From this point o f view, culture is
seen as mere information conveyed by the language, not as a feature o f language itself.
In other words, cultural knowledge is an educational goal in and o f itself, separate from
language (Kramsch 1993, p. 8). On the other hand, many researchers have challenged
this separatist view by claiming that “culture learning is actually a key factor in being
able to use and master a foreign linguistic system” and not just a “rather arbitrary claim
that culture learning is a part o f language teaching” (Grindhammer 1978, p. 64). Stagich
(1995), too, argues that teaching culture is necessary not only as a means for “broadening
one’s horizons”, but also as a foundation and framework for developing competence in a
foreign language (p. 59). As a result, cultural context is an instrument for providing
meaningful learning experiences that can improve language competence (p. 59). As an
example, Stagich found that Japanese students who spend years studying English
grammar in school, often have great difficulty speaking, reading, and writing:
For most o f these students exposure to cultural context is the difference between remaining in a fossilized state and becoming competent speakers, readers, and writers o f English, (p. 59)
From Stagich’s position, the acquisition o f new forms o f discourse alone is not enough.
Learners also have to recognize to what extent their discourse is that o f their surrounding
environment (Kramsch 1993, p. 4). Similar findings by Schuman (1978) also propose
that early second-language acquisition is analogous to pidginization and that learners who
are deprived o f meaningful learning situations through cultural context, will remain
fossilized in a pidginized stage (p. 115). Only when students learn how to use their new
45
structures to convey ideas in a cultural context - in an essay or a speaking situation - have
they really understood and acquired the forms (Stagich 1995, p. 60).
Politzer, too, argued that unless teachers relate language to culture, students will attach
the wrong meanings to the language they learn:
As language teachers we must be interested in the study o f culture (in the social scientist’s sense o f the word) not because we necessarily want to teach the culture o f the other country but because we have to teach it. If we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it operates, we are teaching meaningless symbols or symbols to which the student attaches the wrong meaning; for unless he is warned, unless he receives cultural instruction, he will associate American concepts or objects with the foreign symbols. (Politzer 1959, p. 100-1)
In this sense, cultural context offers learners not only an opportunity to better
understand the socio-cultural nature of society but also a means for improving their
success in language learning. One o f the most important researchers to have furthered
such thinking about language and culture in language teaching is Halliday (1990), who’s
systemic linguistics offers a unified theoretical framework within which to view the
relation o f language and cultural context. By calling grammar “a theory o f human
experience” and text “the linguistic form of social interaction”, “Halliday anchors culture
in the very grammar we use, the very vocabulary we choose, the very metaphors we live
by”(quoted in Kramsch 1993, p. 8). Candlin (1992) also approaches this problem from a
pragmatic angle and shows how second and foreign language teaching can be integrated
not only with the target culture, but also the learners’ cultures (p. 3). In the next section,
this researcher will discuss culture learning in the context o f the communicative language
classroom.
46
2.3 LANGUAGE, CULTURE, AND THE COMMUNICATIVE CURRICULUM
Communicative-language teaching suggests a need for greater interdependence
and a greater flexibility on the parts o f teachers and students to allow the syllabus and its
content to develop in ways that position both teachers and students as learners. As Breen
and Candlin argue:
In a communicative methodology, content ceases to become some external control over learning-teaching procedures. Choosing directions becomes a part o f the curriculum itself, and involves negotiation between learners and learners, learners and teachers, and learners and text. (Breen and Candlin, p. 90)
Communicative methodologies accomplish this through a concern for the degree to which
language use has the qualities o f natural or authentic speech or writing. The pedagogical
objective is to give learners the opportunity for (and the means of) properly
authenticating the target language. At first this may seem impractical, but as Widdowson
argues, “authenticity has to do with appropriate response” (Widdowson, p. 166). For
example, a German menu is an authentic piece o f cultural realia; thus, our obj ective
becomes to use it in a way the restaurant management had intended (Kramsch 1993, p.
178). Authenticity in the communicative-language sense, however, would be disregarded
if the menu were to be used to practice endings o f adjectives (Kramsch 1993, p. 178).
The reason why such an approach would not be considered “authentic” is because the
restaurant never intended the menu to be used in such a way. By stressing the use of
authentic language as the material from which students learn, communicative language
teaching provides an experience o f language produced by native speakers, even though in
47
the initial stages materials may have to be carefully selected if they are to remain
accessible (Byram, p. 139).
Because o f the emphasis on shared meaning, communicative methodologies are
somewhat lenient when it comes to requiring foreign-language learners to conform to
certain phonological and grammatical rules o f the target language. Conversely,
authenticity is not usually taken to such an extreme that learners are expected to conform
to norms o f dress, diet or other clearly non-linguistic aspects o f the culture o f target-
language native speakers. Where communicative methodologies do take a stand is in the
areas in which these two extremes can be said to be intertwined. Provided that the
various emphases in language teaching do not become too one sided, communicative
approaches try to embody a more accurate understanding o f the nature o f language as a
social means o f communication. Of course, this poses a problem in foreign language
teaching because such understandings imply a notion o f communication that goes beyond
simply sharing or negotiating meaning. Communicative-language teaching also implies
the need to uncover and display a practical balance between linguistic and social
structures. Communicative approaches are able to accomplish this in that they provide
learners with immediate experience of the target language both in those activities which
emphasize rehearsal and practice o f linguistic skills and in those which, by dramatizing
language use in role-play and simulations, introduce learners to language as social action
(Byram, p. 140).
48
Teaching the interaction o f linguistic and social structures, however, is very
difficult because language as grammar and language as a representation o f social reality
do not have the same limits, boundaries or scope. Researchers work to describe these
variations in language and give examples of the dynamics o f context, but such
descriptions are still no blueprint for the language teacher on how to teach the interaction
of linguistic forms and social meanings (Kramsch 1993, p. 11). To compensate,
communicative methodology tries to assist teachers in focusing on the importance of
language functions, and encourage students to create knowledge by sharing personal
information and perspectives. Yet, in spite o f authentic material use and opportunities for
negotiated meaning, communicative-language teaching is very often limited to a focus on
the forms o f language rather than on the content o f interaction, which, as (Wallerstein
1987) argues, serves only to continue the divorce o f language from thought, and language
learning from creative expression (p. 97). One reason for this is a failure to examine the
way in which communicative language materials mediate meanings between students and
society. In addition, many o f the premises o f behaviorist psychology continue to
influence our attitudes about how second languages are learned (Ellis 1990, p. 30). The
result has been that communicative methodologies still find a role for controlled practice
- presumably as a way o f enabling learners to acquire and use linguistic features which
are not yet part o f their repertoire (Ellis 1990, p. 30). Communicative approaches to
language teaching are susceptible to the teaching o f forms because the acquisition of
content is often equated with the learning o f facts (Fischer 1996, p. 1). As a result, it is
49
often the case that communicative teaching leaves little room for students to generate
their own meanings and develop critical thinking (Auerbach and Burgess 1987, p. 151).
2.4 THE MEANING OF CULTURE IN TODAY’S FOREIGN-LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
Culture is an important part o f studying a second language. Like language,
culture can be learned, it can be shared, and it can evolve and change over time. As a
result, culture can be analyzed from many different points o f view. For instance, on a
physical level, it consists o f material objects and artifacts made by humans like dress,
types o f housing, tools for working, architecture, and food. From a psychological or
cognitive point o f view, it is a form o f expression or way o f thinking. From an
anthropological point o f view, it is the way in which a cultural group perceives and
responds to its social environment (Trandis 1972, p. 4). Regardless o f how it is defined,
it is culture on a physical level where most foreign language teaching draws its
information (Pennycook 1990, p. 309).
From the perspective of communicative methodologies, however, foreign
language learning is more than just the accumulation o f language forms and knowledge
of cultural artifacts. It is thus not sufficient for students simply to acquire a reasonable
accent, an extensive vocabulary, and a sense o f correct inflection and grammatical forms.
Students also need to be exposed to the intricacies and ambiguities o f expression, and the
relationships o f expression to people with differing world views and cultural perspectives.
One of the greatest challenges teachers face is overcoming the belief that students will
only be motivated if culture is presented in clear and precise terms. If the target language
50
is not typically spoken at home or in the school’s community, the link between the
foreign language and the target culture is an arbitrary one (Kramsch 1993, p. 92). As a
result, teachers often take on the role o f “target-culture expert”. Most teachers understand
the importance o f italicizing the arbitrariness o f culture and presenting it in a critical
fashion, but at the same time there is often a very strong desire to make culture explicit
and easy for students to understand (Kramsch 1993, p. 92). One reason for this is the
support that this approach has received in the literature on culture teaching. For example,
Wade et al. wrote:
It should be added nonetheless that the student’s motivation will be much increased if from the onset he can be made to feel that the language is spoken by a large number o f people who are living with a definite set of attitudes and desires, and a definite set of achievements and accomplishments. (Wade et al. 1960, p. 54) (Italics show my emphasis.)
It is ironic, though, that in the same paragraph, Wade et al. also wrote that the difficulty
o f culture teaching lies in the modest number o f these very definite things which can be
discussed (Wade et al. 1960, p. 54). The end effect o f their argument is, thus, that in spite
o f the modest number o f cultural certainties, teachers still need to teach as though there
are such things as people with “a definite set o f attitudes and desires, and a definite set o f
achievements and accomplishments” (Wade et al. 1960, p. 54). As argued above
(Pennycook 1990), it is on this level that most culture teaching takes place in the foreign-
language classroom. Doyle (1993) also argues that language education today “continues
to offer students a world that is taken as being one o f ready made customs, traditions, and
order” (p. 15). Even if culture is not represented in an elitist “high culture” form such as
51
the arts, music, literature and so on, it is typically reduced to a fixed body o f artifacts and
behaviors that are transmitted only as an adjunct to the language syllabus (Pennycook, p.
309). In a study on how culture is typically transmitted, Ramirez (1995) examined the
cultural perspectives presented to high school students in various Spanish textbooks
presently in use. In most cases, culture was presented as nothing more than a shopping
list o f artifacts consumed by the upper class:
People in photographs were generally well dressed, appearing to come from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. In addition, the social places most frequently highlighted were those attended most often by the small segment o f the population who are considered highly educated and/or wealthy: museums, ultramodern shops, sports resorts, and universities. Few explicit references were given to the notion o f social class (3%). In fact, only two books referred to a social class other than those o f the middle to upper classes within any o f the Spanish speaking countries or groups. (Ramirez 1995, p. 62)
Ramirez also found that in the actual lessons, students typically read and answered
questions about “Mona” and “Paco’s” discussion at an outdoor cafe in Spain. They also
learned about the food typically served in Spanish cafes. Yet no attempt was made to
develop a theme o f food, ordering a meal, or social functions o f a cafe. Playing tennis
and celebrating a fifteenth birthday in Mexico were treated primarily as reading
comprehension activities instead o f as sociocultural contexts (Ramirez, p. 63). From the
perspective o f communicative methodologies, what is lacking from this approach to
teaching culture is a point o f interaction, negotiation or dialogue between the individual
learners’ culture and the notion o f “culture” that the teacher is presenting.
52
2.5 SUMMARY
The list o f techniques for culture teaching is at first sight large and impressive. In
some ways, however, the vast array is misleading and it was argued in this chapter that
there is little evidence o f regular use o f these techniques in the actual practice o f language
teaching and that little is known about their comparative effectiveness (Stem 1992, 235).
It was also argued that the term culture carries many different meanings, which can be
used to refer to such aspects as material objects, patterns o f behavior, beliefs, and rules
for acting. It was also shown in this chapter that language and culture are closely linked
with each other, and that language is one o f the principal means by which various cultures
express and interpret their ways o f life (Ramirez 1995, p. 79). Finally, it was argued that
there is little congruence between language and culture and the communicative-language
curriculum. In the next chapter, the details, procedures, and research design employed in
this comparative study are presented.
53
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
I’m not afraid o f facts, I welcome facts but a congeries o f facts is not equivalent to an idea.This is the essential fallacy of the so-called “scientific” mind. People who mistake
facts for ideas are incomplete thinkers; they are gossips. Cynthia Ozick, “We Are the Crazy Lady and Other Feisty Feminist
Fables.” Published in the first Ms. Reader, 1972
This chapter is divided into the following sections: (1) a complete statement o f the
problem and hypotheses o f the study; (2) the research questions; (3) a discussion of the
relevant variables; (4) a description o f the sample and subjects involved in the
experiment; (5) a description o f the pedagogical orientation o f both the comparison group
and the treatment group; (6) a detailed description o f the experimental culture lessons and
the culture portfolio; (7) a detailed description o f the strategy lessons and the strategy
portfolio; (8) a detailed explanation of the research design and instruments employed in
the study; (9) a brief statement o f how the data were analyzed; and (10) a summary o f the
chapter.
3.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES
The purpose o f this study is to determine whether a process- and learner-centered
approach to teaching culture in the foreign-language classroom has a greater effect on
improving cross-cultural adaptability and attitudes towards language and culture learning
than an information-acquisition approach to culture teaching in the foreign-language
classroom. The central hypothesis for this study stems from a large body research which
supports the view that motivation and positive attitudes play a very important role in
achieving greater numbers o f proficient speakers o f second languages. According to
Mantle-Bromley, students' attitudes and motivations have a great effect on classroom
54
achievement (Mantle-Bromley 1995, p. 373). Similarly, O'Malley and Chamot contend
that “motivation is probably the most important characteristic that students bring to a
learning task” (1990, p. 160). Gardner et al. (1959; 1993) also found that motivation is a
direct determinant o f language acquisition. In Lalonde and Gardner’s 1983 study, results
demonstrated that the three attitudinal/motivational composites (motivation,
integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation) are relatively consistent predictors
of indices o f proficiency in a second language (p. 441). Of their three composites,
motivation was found to be the best predictor with 91% of the coefficients being
significant (p. 441). In addition, several studies have shown different ways o f assessing
attitudinal and motivational variables in various contexts and languages to determine the
role o f motivation in learning a second language. Key factors like active participation in
class (Gardner, Smythe, Clement, Smythe, & Gliksman, 1976) and persistence in
language study (Bartley, 1969; Clement, Smythe, & Gardner, 1978; Ramage, 1990) have
all been linked to positive attitudes and a high level o f motivation in the foreign-language
classroom.
Based on this body o f research and the claims made in it, this researcher submits
the following hypothesis:
Beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students o f German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
55
This hypothesis concerns a change in attitude (i.e. positive or negative). It is
possible, and perhaps even probable, that subjects entered German 101 with different
levels o f attitudes towards culture and language learning; thus, it was necessary to attempt
to account for some o f these differences by gathering data on several variables related to
variations among language-learners (see Table 3.2 below). The specific areas of
investigation involved in this study are stated as research questions and involve
examining correlations o f the dependent variables with a number o f independent
variables.
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As stated in section 2.1, this study was designed to answer the following
hypothesis and five research questions:
Main Hypothesis
Beginning students of German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students of German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
Research Questions
° Are the gain scores o f students in the treatment group (as measured by theCross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) and the Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)) different from the gain scores of students in the comparison group?
° Do variables such as age, sex, year in school, major, previous language study, whether or not subject had spent time abroad, self-rated language-learning ability, interest, motivation (integrative or instrumental) or parental encouragement influence gain-score differences as analyzed in question one above?
56
° Do students enter German 101 with misconceptions, mistaken beliefs or both (as measured by the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)) that could cause frustration in the language-learning process?
0 Do students' attitudes (as measured by the BALLI) change after one semester of language learning?
° What information from the qualitative data (e.g. student’s written statements regarding the culture and strategy lessons, and the student and teacher interviews) can be used to better understand the quantitative data analyses?
3.3 VARIABLES
The variables examined in this study are as follows: the dependent variables
consist o f (1) gain scores on a pre-test/post-test measure o f cross-cultural adaptability (as
measured by the CCAI) and (2) gain scores on a pre-test/post-test measure o f attitudes
towards foreign languages, foreign-language learning, and speakers o f other languages
(as measured by the AMTB). The Independent variable is treatment.
Other variables which were o f interest in the analysis o f this study included age,
sex, year in school, major, previous language study, whether or not subject had spent time
abroad, self-rated language-learning ability, interest, motivation (integrative or
instrumental), and parental encouragement (please see Table 3.2 below).
Several confounding variables in the study (e.g. teacher style, age, previous
language-learning experience, etc.) may have affected the results o f this study. It is
possible that initial differences among the treatment group and the comparison group
existed and that they would have had an affect on the outcome. An analysis o f the pretest
scores showed that there were no significant differences between the treatment group and
the comparison group.
57
One reason for considering possible group differences is that many subjects may
have previously studied a foreign language (although they were all first-semester German
101 students). It is conceivable that the experience o f having studied other languages
could have had an effect on gain scores. Under ideal conditions, it would have been
preferable to use subjects with no previous foreign-language experience, but this was not
possible because many o f the subjects had aheady been exposed to foreign-language
study in high school. Nevertheless, tests for homogeneity o f variance (see section 3.2)
did not uncover any significant differences between the two groups’ pre-test scores.
Similarly, classroom teachers may also have affected changes in attitude, either
through conscious or subconscious actions. Other than for observations, this researcher
was only present in each classroom (in both treatment and comparison groups) five times;
thus, it was not possible to control for any teacher support or opposition to the five
experimental cultural or strategy lessons conducted in the treatment and comparison
groups respectively.
Another possible extraneous variable relevant to this study consists o f testing
effects (Borg and Gall, 1989). Whenever a pretest and posttest are administered, subjects
may be influenced by the initial answers they gave and have a tendency to try to repeat
these answers (p, 644).
Finally, one possible non-experimental variable, known as “experimental
treatment diffusion”, needs to be recognized i f subjects perceived one treatment as
preferable to the other (Borg and Gall 1989, p. 647). This would be particularly
58
problematic if members o f the two groups interact extensively with each other. This
could lead members o f one treatment group to seek exposure to the other, especially if
members o f one group discuss the treatment in detail with members o f the other group.
This was not perceived by either the researcher or cooperating teachers as a
particular problem for the current study. Subjects were never informed that they were
receiving One particular treatment and not another and it was not felt by this researcher
that the differences between the comparison group and the treatment group were extreme
enough for subjects to suspect that other sections o f German 101 were receiving different
instruction.
3.4 SAMPLE AND SUBJECTS
This study involved a population sample o f 89 students in four sections of
German 101 at the University o f Arizona during the spring semester, 1996. Two of the
four courses were used as a treatment group (47 subjects) and the remaining two courses
were used as a comparison group (42 subjects).
As with many educational studies which use quasi-experimental designs, it was
necessary in this study to use intact groups. In order to achieve a balance among the
experimental group and the comparison group, two sections o f German 101 were
assigned to one group and two were assigned the other. The syllabus for both groups was
identical in terms o f exams, chapters and content o f chapters covered in the Sprechen Wir
Deutsch textbook (Jurasek, Jurasek and Corl 1992), and the overall distribution of points.
Students in the treatment group were assigned one culture portfolio and received five
59
experimental culture lessons during the course o f the semester. In place o f the culture
portfolio, students in the comparison group were assigned a learning log in which they
kept a record o f the strategies they used during the semester. In place o f the experimental
culture lessons, students in the comparison group received explicit instruction on the
application o f language-learning strategies and their use with regards to the four skills
(i.e. listening, reading, writing, and speaking).
Although the comparison group was assigned a learning-strategy portfolio instead
of a culture portfolio and receive five strategy lessons instead o f five experimental culture
lessons, the comparison group was not excluded from other class-related learning on the
various aspects o f cultures in German speaking countries. This would have been
impossible to control for because the Sprechen WirDeutsch textbook contains various
information about German-speaking cultures in each chapter. Nevertheless, it was
possible to control for the way in which students were exposed to cultural information.
For example, the comparison group received cultural instruction that was based on an
information-acquisition approach to learning. In other words, the cultural information
from the Sprechen Wir Deutsch textbook was presented as is and was not oriented
towards a process- and learner-centered approach to learning. The treatment group also
received cultural information from the Sprechen Wir Deutsch textbook about daily life in
German-speaking cultures, but the opportunity to learn about culture was expanded upon
through a culture portfolio assignment and five experimental culture lessons. Thus, the
comparison group in this study should be viewed as a group in which the treatment is
absent, which is often the nature o f “control” groups in quasi-experimental research.
60
3.5 PEDAGOGICAL ORIENTATION OF COMPARISON AND TREATMENT GROUPS
The teachers in both the comparison and treatment groups were trained to plan
instruction on the basis o f a thematic, situational, grammatical, and functional syllabus.
At the University o f Arizona, this has resulted in a communicative and language-centered
approach, reflected in the teaching o f certain communicative and linguistic functions and
the exclusive use o f German for instructional procedures and activities. As stated above,
the syllabus for both groups was identical in terms o f exams, chapters and content of
chapters covered in the Sprechen Wir Deutsch textbook, and the overall distribution of
points. The treatment group, however, was assigned a culture portfolio in place o f a
strategy portfolio, and also received five experimental culture lessons in place o f five
learning-strategy lessons (please see the highlighted section in the chart below). Due to
the research design employed in this study, namely, the quasi-experimental intact group
design discussed above, there was one treatment group and one comparison group.
Table 3.1 Class Assignments by GroupComparison Group (n=42): Treatment Group: (n=47)Assignment Points Assignment PointsExams 450 (3 + final) Exams 450 (3 + final)Homework 150 Homework 150Participation 50 Participation 50Speakeasy 100 Speakeasy 100Video 100 Video 100Strategy Portfolio 100 Culture Portfolio . 100Strategy Lessons 50 (taught in English) Culture Lessons 50 (taught in
English)Total.......................... ..1000 Total......................... ...1000
61
Because the Sprechen Wir Deutsch textbook that was used in both groups
included cultural information at the end o f each chapter, it was impossible to eliminate
culture teaching completely from the comparison group. However, the teaching of
culture that occurred in the comparison group was regarded as not extraordinary for
language instruction at the University of Arizona. In other words, although it was
impossible and even undesirable to eliminate cultural instruction from the comparison
group, one can clearly differentiate the types o f cultural instruction used in the
comparison and treatment groups. In the comparison group, for example, cultural
information was limited to culture as factual knowledge and referred only to the
information or facts that were presented in the Sprechen Wir Deutsch textbook. This
perspective gave the comparison-group teachers a very definite concentration and
direction for culture teaching. Traditionally, such an approach serves, in many ways, to
make “culture” an easy-to-manage component in the foreign-language classroom. Based
on the hypothesis o f this study, the weakness in a fact-finding and evaluative treatment of
culture is that different perspectives under which it can be studied are not clearly
distinguished. Culture teaching, as situated in the treatment group, was process- and
skill-oriented and drew attention to the different ways in which learners come to terms
with new cultural information and how their approach to it changes over time. In the
following two subsections, a detailed description is given of the pedagogy used in the
comparison and treatment groups.
62
3.5.1 Detailed Description o f the Comparison Group
Skinner (1971), recognized as the father o f behaviorism, advocated a stimulus-
response methodology for learning a carefully analyzed sequence o f knowledge (p. 94).
Learning in this sense is measured by a change in observable behavior. For educational
purposes, behaviorism has found a framework in what is known as “information
acquisition”, which requires:
1. the setting o f specific objectives2. the determination o f activities to enable learners to attain the objectives3. the construction o f measurement devices to determine if and how well
learners have met the objectives (Crawford-Lange, p. 86).
The pedagogical philosophy that evolved out o f these objectives stressed
incremental learning and mastery learning (Crawford-Lange 1982, p. 87). In relation to
culture learning, such an approach would begin by analyzing aspects o f the target culture
into discrete learning units. For example, the first eleven culture units o f the Sprechen
Wir Deutsch textbook are divided up based on this approach:
1. Deutsche Sprache2. Bin Portrat Deutschland3. Bin Portrat: Die Schweiz4. Deutsche in Amerika5. Urlaub: Wohin die Deutschen fahren6. Deutsche Stadte7. Einkaufen8. Burgen und Schlosser9. Femsehen in Deutschland10. Das Lokal um die Ecke11. Das Schulsystem Deutschlands
This ordering o f cultural knowledge ensures that certain subjects are learned before others
and that culture learning in general is sequential in nature. It is assumed that, given
63
appropriate learning activities, all students can achieve mastery if they have enough time.
The acceptable level o f performance is usually stated in terms o f a percent o f correctly
answered items on a discrete-point test. This representation of culture can be observed in
terms o f learning goals such as the following, by which students learn to:
1. Recognize/explain major geographical monuments2. Recognize/explain major historical events3. Recognize/explain major institutions (administrative, political, religious,
educational, etc.)4. Recognize/explain “active” everyday cultural patterns (eating, shopping,
greeting people, etc.)6. Recognize/explain “passive” everyday cultural patterns (social stratification,
marriage, work, etc.)7. Act appropriately in common everyday situations8. Use common gestures appropriately (Lafayette 1988, p. 49)
The information-acquisition design is often applied to learning the morphology and
syntax o f a language, but it is also commonly extended as a theoretical basis into the area
of culture teaching (Ramirez 1995, p. 66). In terms o f the comparison group, the
information-acquisition design was used to teach not only the linguistic aspects o f
German, but also the cultural patterns, activities, events, and everyday situations of
German speakers.
3.5.1.1 The Strategy Lessons
Over the sixteen-week semester in which the data for this study was collected, this
researcher taught five strategy lessons to the comparison group and five experimental
culture lessons to the treatment group. Each o f the five, fifty-minute strategy-lesson units
were taught in English, and focused on helping students (1) become more self-directed
and autonomous language learners and (2) increase their repertoire o f language-specific
learning strategies.
64
Prior to the early eighties, research mentioning the learning o f a target language
tended to emphasize general areas o f good study habits, rather than a specific focus on
that which makes the learning o f language skills different from the learning o f other kinds
of skills. As an example, Yorkey (1970) wrote a book called Study Skills for Students of
English as a Second Language, and Martin, McChesney, Whalley & Devlin (1977) wrote
a book called Guide to Language and Study Skills for College Students o f English as a
Second Language. Although these books covered certain language-specific learning
skills (e.g. the development o f vocabulary skills through preparing vocabulary cards), the
major focus o f these books was on study skills for college in general (e.g. note-taking,
test taking, library skills, and the wiring o f term papers). The research on learning
strategies used in developing the five learning-strategy units for this study, however,
came from a body o f more recent literature designed specifically for use in the foreign-
language classroom. For example, the content o f the five strategy lessons was based on
research and teaching materials developed by Cohen (1990), Oxford (1990), Rubin
(1982), and Wenden (1991). The following is a brief description o f the strategy lessons
(for a complete description o f each individual strategy lessons, see Appemdix C).
The first strategy lesson introduced the concept o f language-learning strategies
. and outlined the importance o f understanding one’s personal learning style. This
researcher stressed that learners differ in their learning styles and that a greater awareness
of learning styles and preferences would help students become more efficient language
learners. For example, the first lesson provided information on (1) the rationale for
promoting learner autonomy, (2) learning processes, and (3) ways o f analyzing learning
65
style. The second lesson focused on speaking to communicate. For example, the second
lesson incorporated information on (1) the demands made upon beginning language
learners to produce spoken utterances, (2) communication strategies which previous
learners have found useful in getting their messages across, (3) strategies for correcting
oral errors, and (4) the importance o f learning how to manipulate set phrases involving
apologies, greetings, giving directions, etc. The third lesson focused on reading for
comprehension. This lesson incorporated information on (1) what reading processes
consist of, (2) why learners are being asked to learn and practice reading skills, and (3)
the extent to which strategies can be utilized to implement reading skills more effectively.
The main discussion o f this third lesson stressed the key strategies that can aid the
foreign-language reader in handling different types o f reading tasks (i.e. skimming,
scanning, inferring, etc.). The fourth lesson focused on writing as “process” and
“product”. The main technique that was discussed during this hour was a strategy called
“reformulation”. The key here was the emphasis on writing as a process whereby the
finished product emerges after a series o f drafts (i.e. an incubation period in which the
written piece takes shape). The final strategy lesson discussed techniques for paying
attention more effectively, primarily in classroom settings. Specifically, the focus was on
the communicative classroom, since this seems to typify the way German is taught at the
University o f Arizona.
66
As a whole, the five strategy lessons were each intended as an exercise in
consciousness-raising, as a way o f helping learners become more conscious o f their
usually automatic learning patterns, and as a means for learners to be able to expand their
previously habitual learning processes to include more varied approaches.
3.5.1.2 The Strategy Portfolio
The strategy portfolio involved the students in taking note o f their use o f
strategies. During the first strategy lesson, students were given categories and listings o f
various types o f strategies. For example, students were shown the difference between
direct strategies (cognitive, compensation, and memory) and indirect strategies (social,
affective, and metacognitive) (terms taken from Oxford, 1990) (please see Oxford 1990,
p. 15 for a copy o f this handout). To complete the strategy portfolio, students were asked
to write fifteen entries (one per week) into their class notebook. Each entry into their
notebook involved three introspective steps. The first step consisted o f taking notes on a
specific learning task and one problem that occurred while trying to complete that task.
The second step involved introspecting on the actual strategy that the student
implemented in order to solve the problem that arose during the specific task. The
students were also asked to categorize this strategy based on the categories and listings o f
strategies they received during the first strategy lesson. The third final step of each
portfolio entry was to comment on other possible strategies that could have been used to
solve the problem mentioned in step one.
67
The note-taking scheme involved in the strategy portfolio was imposed as a way
of promoting structure to help students to keep track o f their strategy use, and to
encourage them to broaden their repertoire of strategy usage. Although the students’
entries were subjective, tree-form, and without constraints on style or content, they were
useful in promoting discussions in the actual strategy lessons.
The main objective in designing the strategy lessons and the strategy portfolio
was to provide meaningful instruction to the subjects in the comparison group as a
replacement for the experimental culture lessons and culture portfolio that they did not
receive. In other words, to create congruency between the comparison group and the
treatment group, the comparison group needed to participate in a purposeful activity
structurally equivalent to the treatment without actually being the same as the treatment.
Because the focus o f this present study was not to analyze students’ strategy
development, this researcher choose to use the low-structured note-taking scheme
described above. As expected, this approach did not provide much organization for the
students or the researcher in terms o f responses elicited. One result o f this was that the
data from the strategy portfolio entries were difficult to summarize and generalize across
students. Nevertheless, because the strategy portfolio consisted o f open-ended questions
designed to get the learners to describe their language learning strategies freely and
openly, what information was gathered was very interesting. More structured surveys use
standardized categories for all respondents and, thus, typically make it easier to
summarize results for a group and objectively diagnose problems and describe
68
characteristics o f groups o f students. However, such surveys also tend to miss the
richness and spontaneity that was obtained using the less-structured format o f the strategy
portfolio.
3.5.2 Detailed Description o f the Treatment Group
While the grammar o f a language is easily incrementalized, certain aspects o f
culture are inherently less suited to identification o f discrete and ordered units.
In contrast to an information-acquisition approach, a process- and learner-centered
approach has its roots in the humanities, as evidenced in an instructional and evaluative
methodology derived from existentialist and phenomenological philosophy (Denton, p.
23). One o f the major proponents o f this approach to education was Brazilian-bom
educator Paulo Freire, who coined the term “Problem-Posing Education” (Freire).
Freire’s educational position has received wide support from a group o f curriculum
theorists known as reconceptualists, among whom stand Michael W. Apple (1990),
Maxine Greene (1995), Madeleine R. Grumet (1988), Dwayne E. Huebner (1964), Colin
J. Marsh (1995), and William Pinar (1975 & 1992). As an example o f their approach to
learning, William Pinar (1975) characterizes reconceptualist methodology as,
(a) regressive, because it involves description and analysis o f one’s intellectual biography or, i f you prefer, educational past; (b) progressive, because it involves a description o f one’s imagined future; (c) analytic, because it calls for a psychoanalysis o f one’s phenomenologically described educational present, past, and future; and (d) synthetic, because it totalizes the fragments o f educational experience (that is to say the response and context o f the subject) and places this integrated understanding o f individual experience into the larger political and cultural web, explaining the dialectical relation between the two. (p. 424)
69
Among the curriculum theorists who have worked directly with Freire’s
educational position and second-language education stand Elsa Auerbach, Claire
Kramsch, Peter L. McLaren, Alastair Pennycook, Christine E. Sleeter, Ira Shor, and Nina
Wallerstein. The literature demonstrates concern for application o f concepts included in
reconceptualist methodology and problem-posing education to foreign-language curricula
(Kramsch, Pennycook, and Wallerstein call attention specifically to the work of Paulo
Freire).
A process- and learner-centered approach to culture in the foreign-language
classroom extracts a concern for the real-life situation o f the learners as well as a
perception o f the student as decision-maker. In addition, learners’ perceptions o f their
own culture and surroundings become the main source o f content. After a cultural aspect
of the target-culture is identified, learners view it not in terms o f cultural facts, but by
synthetically relating it to various facets o f their lives. For example, in one o f the
experimental culture lessons, a discussion o f the German educational system led to
consideration o f the students’ perceptions o f their own educational system. The key to
achieving this was to focus on the learners’ cultures as a means o f providing a basis for
comparison with the target culture. Learners were consulted not only to indicate their
attitudes and understandings towards the topic o f discussion, but were also given the
opportunity to offer hypotheses regarding the cultural significance o f the topic. Such an
approach puts the students’ culture in the central position and understands the target-
language as a communicative tool to express that culture. In this respect, the classroom
70
orientation o f the teacher as “dispenser o f knowledge” is shifted to teachers and students
as mutually reflecting on a cultural theme with both contributing valid insights (Freire
1970). This design is oriented significantly towards popular culture, with “culture”
considered in terms o f how people live, work, and communicate.
The goal in using such an approach was to emphasize the ambiguity o f culture and
the lengthy process involved in learning about culture. At no time was an emphasis given
to the acquisition o f a set body o f cultural knowledge (i.e. facts, figures, etc) nor was
cultural knowledge imparted to the learners through such activities as explanation or
lecture. The assumptions which underlie the experimental culture lessons are as follows:
1. Culture learning consists o f acquiring organizing principles through encountering experience.
2. The teacher is an equal learner in the culture-learning process3. Cultural information is to be found everywhere - amongst the students, in
the local community, and in the media as well as in the textbooks.4. It is the role o f the teacher to assist learners to become self-directed culture
learners by providing encouragement through such activities as active listening and questioning.
5. Culture learning consists o f forming hypotheses about the target-culture and culture in general, these hypotheses being constantly modified based on student- and teacher-generated input. (Adapted from Crawford-Lange 1982, p. 87)
In the case o f the experimental culture lessons, the goal was to focus on
techniques o f enquiry and on the process o f learning about culture rather than facts about
the target culture. The paucity o f reliable cultural data often requires that students
approach a culture not as a “given” to be acquired from books but rather as a topic for
exploration (Stem 1995, p. 228). This is important because research indicates that
students’ interest in the target culture and society is not primarily abstract, theoretical,
71
and scientific (Stem, p. 228). Nostrand (1974), Seelye (1984), and Robinson (1987) have
also recognized this same point and emphasize the importance o f culture-teaching
techniques which enable students to find out for themselves, and to approach the target
society with an open mind. In addition, Ijaz (1984) has noted that experiential programs
which focus on a process approach to learning have been found to be successful in the
promotion o f positive interethnic attitudes:
A truly successful educational program for altitudinal change has tocombine a variety o f approaches, intellectual and factual, emotional andaffective, techniques involving perceptual differentiation, (p. 135)
Thus, the five experimental culture lessons used in this study focused on a
“generative process” o f learning rather than on the type o f learning often characterized as
“information acquisition”. In theory and in practice, an information-acquisition approach
and a learner-centered approach complement one another, with each design offering
alternatives for the deficiencies o f the other. Because o f variations among learners, these
two systems should be viewed as compatible. A process- and learner-centered approach
to culture stresses that:
1. the student must be actively involved in defining the content o f culture learning
2. language cannot be learned apart from the learner’s culture3. culture learning does not have to follow a prespecified sequence4. evaluation o f culture learning does not have to proceed through discrete
units5. the development o f critical thinking is one o f the primary purposes of
educational activity (Adapted from Crawford-Lange 1982, p. 87)
72
An information-acquisition approach, on the other hand, stresses:
1. the content for the learner2. that language can be taught apart from its culture3. specific objectives, and, generally their sequence4. discrete item mastery and evaluation5. that the acquisition o f knowledge is one o f the primary purposes o f
educational activity (Adapted from Crawford-Lange 1982, p. 87)
Which o f the two designs a teacher employs depends partially on the teacher’s
personal beliefs about education, the expectations o f students, and the goal o f the specific
educational activity.
3.5.2.1 The Experimental Culture Lessons
The overall goal in designing the experimental lessons was to actively involve■4
learners by assisting them in analyzing, discriminating, and responding to multiple
stimuli. The goal o f each individual culture lesson was to blend structure and spontaneity
into a meaningful learning experience. Whenever possible, the learning process was
negotiated. In other words, this researcher made adjustments in the content o f each
lesson based on mutual teacher-student preferences and input. The underlying structure
for each experimental culture lesson incorporated:
1. the introduction o f a conflict/issue/problem2. opportunities for self-expression regarding the topic (e.g. in small-groups
or pairs)3. a class discussion about the topic4. an opportunity to find resolution in the topic5. an opportunity to find connections between the ideas presented in the
discussion and the goals o f culture/language learning.
73
Other goals incorporated into the culture lessons included:
1. enhancing student abilities and competence in critical thinking2. creating an interdisciplinary context for each topic3. maintaining a global perspective throughout each lesson.
3.5.2.2 The Culture Portfolio
The term portfolio has become a popular buzzword. Unfortunately, it is not
always clear exactly what is meant or implied by the term, especially when used in the
context o f foreign-language culture learning. The use o f portfolios in the Department o f
German Studies at the University o f Arizona came about as a result o f dissatisfaction on
the part o f teaching assistants and the problems they were having with the use of
multiple-choice and other structured format tests for assessing culture. Three decades o f
research have also called for further strategies and innovations for evaluating students’
cultural skills (Brooks (1969); Lafayette and Schulz (1975); Seelye (1984 & 1991);
Valette in Valdes (1986); and Moore (1993 & 1994)); however, the development o f valid
and reliable tests for assessing cultural skills in the language classroom still remains
elusive and difficult (Moore 1994, p. 164). The problem, it seems, is that the ensemble of
theories and strategies aimed at teaching culture are not always accompanied with
creative approaches towards assessment:
In fact, there are very few documented studies on the topic o f testing culture learning. For example, Morain (1983) listed over twenty-five articles on the subject o f teaching culture, and only three works on the testing or evaluation o f culture, that o f the Nostrands (1970), that o f Lafayette and Schulz (1975) and that o f Bom (1975). (Moore 1994, p.164)
74
When the only options for testing culture focus on measuring the knowledge of
bits and pieces o f information, rather than on critical thinking or insights made about the
essence o f a culture or society, the mode for teaching cultural knowledge tends to
highlight a facts and figures approach. Seeley (1991) goes as far as to urge teachers to
avoid such approaches to culture because they create and perpetuate stereotypes and over
generalizations. Seelye recognized the problems inherent in testing culture using a facts
and figures format, but he offered no substantial guidance for the construction or scoring
of alternative forms o f assessment.
Seeley created his tests using native informants and, in spite o f his own criticism
of such approaches, used a traditional testing format:
1. When a Guatemalan gets up from the table after eating, hea. says thank you, or some other pleasantryb. just smilesc. says nothingd. says nothing, but taps his chest lightly The correct answer is “a ”
2. Sometimes a store displays a red flag (about 1; scare) outside its door. This indicates
a. the employees are strikingb. the store is closed for repairs or inventoryc. they are selling fresh meatd. none o f the above
The correct answer is “c ”
3. Which o f the following times would a Guatemalan traditionally eat tamales?a. Sunday noonb. Saturday eveningc. For breakfastd. There is no preferable custom
The correct answer is “b ”
75
While it is true that tests like Seelye’s above can test geographical and historical
facts, tests like this reduce cultural, historical and geographical studies to the learning of
fragmented, incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information, promoting the teacher of
culture to over-generalize and make stereotypes (Arizpe and Aquirre, 1987). In addition,
the above test by Seelye does not encourage students to demonstrate understandings o f
the complexities or variations within the Guatemalan culture.
In a recent survey by Moore (1993), foreign language teachers indicated that they
consider multiple-choice questions and true/false statements as the most frequently used
format for testing culture. In addition, many educators expressed gloomy pessimism in
the area o f testing culture, and suggested that because o f the absence o f “a well-defined
assessment model for culture”, teachers should concentrate their attention on developing
and organizing cultural activities based on clear instructional goal statements (Omagio,
1993). Such an approach, however, only serves to perpetuate this vicious cycle (i.e.
because the only way to test culture is through multiple-choice and discrete point tests,
then our only option is to teach culture via a facts and figures approach). In recognizing
this cycle, this researcher reexamined the apparent contradiction between pedagogical
perceptions and popular approaches to foreign language instruction and assessment. On
the one hand, he found that German teachers at the University o f Arizona were concerned
with developing communicative competence, linguistic proficiency and cultural literacy,
but on the other hand, they also suffered the restrictions o f a narrowly goal-driven
curriculum with regards to culture, one based on setting convergent instructional goals
and testing the attainment o f these goals.
76
In an attempt to steer away from the facts and figures approach to teaching
culture, this researcher reviewed several approaches that focused on the integration of
language and culture. Such approaches included (1) the culture capsule (Tylor and
Sorenson, 1961), (2) culture clusters (Meade and Morain, 1973), (3) culture assimilators
(Fiedler et ah, 1971), (4) mini-dramas (Gorden, 1968), (5) the micrologue (Mydlarski,
1979), and (6) the cultoon (Morain, 1979). Unfortunately, this researcher found that
although these approaches offer teachers alternatives to a facts and figures approach to
teaching culture, they still do not lend themselves to alternative formats o f assessment.
Research conducted by Moore (1993 & 1994), however, does offer several
alternatives in support o f a learner-centered and process approach to teaching and testing
culture. Her research focused on the use o f portfolios, which involve a variety o f
information sources that teachers and students use to monitor the growth o f the student’s
knowledge o f content, their use o f strategies, and their attitudes toward the
accomplishment o f goals in an organized and systematic way (Moore 1994,170). Moore
also suggests that the use o f portfolios differs from a facts and figures approach in that
they (1) are goal based, (2) show reflection between what a student wants to accomplish
and what is being accomplished, (3) contain samplings o f students’ work, projects,
anecdotal comments and tests, (4) contain evidence o f students’ growth, (5) span a period
of instruction, (6) allow for reflection, feedback and improvement, and (7) are flexible
and versatile. Several other researchers (e.g. French, 1991; Jongsma, 1989; McLean,
1990; Mills, 1989; Myers, 1987; Stiggins, 1991; Valencia, 1990; and Wolf, 1988) argue
77
similarly that portfolio assessment accomplishes a variety of objectives. For example, the
use o f portfolios:
1. Capture a richer array o f what students know and can do than is possible with multiple-choice tests.
2. Portray the processes by which students learn and produce work.
3. Align assignments with what are considered important outcomes for students, which communicates the right message to students and others about the importance o f a process approach to learning. For example, when we emphasize higher order thinking in instruction, but only test factual knowledge (perhaps because testing thinking is difficult), students quickly learn that only facts and figures are o f value.
4. Provide realistic contexts for the production o f work, so that teachers can examine what students know and can do in real-life situations.
5. Provide continuous and ongoing information on how students are doing in order to chronicle development, give effective feedback to students, and encourage students to observe their own growth.
Moore’s 1994 article goes on to offer detailed steps regarding the implementation
of a culture portfolio into the foreign language classroom. The portfolio used for this
study was developed out o f her recommendations and involves the four steps outlined
below (a complete copy o f the culture portfolio and its components is provided in
STEP I. The PLAN/OUTLINE: This step involves selecting a topic, creating anoutline o f the portfolio content, a listing o f sources that the students will use, and a brief analysis o f why culture learning is important.
STEP II. The DRAFT; In this step, students expand on the sub-topics that theywrote about in the PLAN/OUTLINE. This is their chance to be creative and engage in the critical-thinking process! Students are encouraged to choose a variety of materials that are useful in describing their topic. For example, their sources may come from articles in newspapers or
78
magazines, poetry, art, collages, short stories, photocopies, postcards, posters, videos, music, etc. Students know that they are free to use any number o f sources as long as they are able to demonstrate why it is relevant to their topic. In other words, students must demonstrate that they have studied and described their sources thoroughly.
STEP III. REVISION of the DRAFT! In addition to addressing the teacherscomments from the DRAFT, students must show in this step that they have thought critically about their topic and that they have been able to make connections between their overall topic, their various sub-topics, and their sources. Students are also asked to readdress the comments they made in the PLAN/OUTLINE regarding the importance o f studying culture.
STEP IV. The PRESENTATION; This is the final step in the portfolio process.Here students synthesize the most important and interesting aspects of their topic and present this information to the class. Students have between ten and fifteen minutes for the presentation.
The Department of German Studies at the University o f Arizona has been using
such a culture portfolio for the past six semesters. Although the implementation of the
culture portfolio for the purposes o f teaching and testing culture received a variety of
criticisms (namely that the grading process is time consuming), it is believed among most
of the teachers in this department that such an evaluation procedures avoids regurgitation
of facts, minimizes the memorization o f totally unrelated bits and pieces o f information,
and encourages more realistic achievement o f educational goals and objectives.
As stated above, the comparison group did not participate in the culture portfolio
process, and thus, was not exposed to a process approach to culture learning. In terms of
the culture portfolio as a form o f treatment, both it and the experimental culture lessons
are believed to be complementary in nature. For example, both the culture portfolio and
the experimental culture lessons encourages students to perform in ways that demand
79
more than just learning bits and pieces o f cultural information. In addition, both
approaches provide opportunities for students to learn about their own culture and the
cultures o f other peoples in “more varied and reasoned ways” (Longer, 1987). The use o f
portfolios is also based on the same pedagogical principles that were used in designing
the experimental culture lessons: involving students in decision-making about what they
learn and how they learn it. The use o f a culture portfolio also upholds the principles
developed by Freire and the reconceptualists in that it promotes self-directed learning,
encourages consciousness-raising and critical thinking, and promotes the understanding
that culture is not static (Moore 1994, p. 178). Moore also argues that because culture is
learned, negative values and attitudes can also be unlearned, and positive attitudes can be
inculcated (178).
3.6 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH DESIGN
3.6.1 Using Intact Groups
In implementing this study, the ideal situation would have been the ability to
select subjects randomly for a population and to then assign them randomly to either the
treatment or comparison group. Nonetheless, the logistical, practical, and institution-
related problems associated with such a selection would have resulted in a virtually
unmanageable experimental situation. According to Nunan (1992), it is not always
feasible to rearrange students into different groups or classes at will:
80
There are times when, i f we are to carry out an experiment at all, it will have to be with intact groups o f subjects, that is, subjects who have been grouped together for reasons other than the carrying out o f an experiment.In these situations, while the internal validity o f the experiment is weakened, it may still be thought desirable to proceed with the study. In instances such as this, researchers speak o f quasi- or pre-experiments rather than true experiments, (p. 27)
Similarly, Hatch and Farhady (1982) argue that although constructing a true experimental
design may be difficult, if not impossible, it does not mean that we should abandon
research or that our studies need be invalid (p. 23).
The use o f intact groups in research usually involves a number o f variables which
may make it difficult to attribute attitudinal changes to the treatment alone. To
accommodate this problem, researchers can design studies that approximate the
conditions o f a “true” experiment. Quasi-experimental research tries to accomplish this
through designs which have both pre- and posttests and experimental and control groups,
but no random assignment o f subjects (Nunan 1992, p. 41). In this way, quasi-
experimental design allows one to control as many variables as possible, to limit the
kinds o f interpretations that can be made about cause-effect relationships, and to “hedge”
the power o f generalization statements (Hatch and Farhady, 1982).
As in many educational studies which use quasi-experimental designs, it was
necessary in this study to use intact groups. As Borg and Gall (1989) state, “an intact
group” is a set o f individuals who must be treated as members o f an administratively
defined group rather than as individual persons” (p. 668).
81
While such a situation may appear initially to pose a threat to internal validity,
Borg and Gall (1989) suggest that this can be avoided if classrooms are randomly
assigned to experimental groups, appropriate statistical procedures are used, and
randomization problems, such as faulty assignment to treatment groups or too small
sample size, are avoided (p. 668).
Borg and Gall (1989) list two conditions necessary to further classify the intact
group design as a nonequivalent control-group design. The first o f these is that subjects
are not randomly assigned to groups. The second is that a pre- and posttest are
administered (690). Both o f these conditions were met in this study.
In a nonequivalent control-group design, the lack o f random assignment
necessitates a thorough description o f the initial characteristics o f the groups (see TABLE
3.2 below). This allows the researcher to decide whether observed group differences on
the post-test were caused by the treatment or by pre-existing group differences on one or
more variables.
The design employed here, then, was a nonequivalent control group (quasi-
experimental) design utilizing intact groups.
3.6.2 Characteristics o f the Treatment and Comparison Groups
Table 3.2 below shows that students were fairly evenly distributed. When reading
this table, it is important to note that percentage totals may not add up to 100% (e.g. they
may add up to 99% or 101%) due to rounding error.
Subjects were distributed almost perfectly between the two sexes within each o f
the two groups. In terms o f age, one subject was 45, one was 55.7 and the rest were
under 31. Freshmen composed the single largest group, as could perhaps be expected in a
first-semester language course; there were also large numbers o f sophomores and juniors
and somewhat fewer seniors and graduate students. Students’ major was broken down
into four categories: business and economics, science, humanities, and language. O f the
89 subjects, 82 were bom in the United States and learned English as their first language.
Students in the comparison group tended to have spent more time abroad than did
students in the treatment group; however, this difference was not statistically significant
(chi-square p-value = 0.45). As a whole, 49% of the subj ects had never left the United
States. In terms o f language-learning ability 48% of the subjects rated themselves in the
category “low”. On the other hand, 73 % o f the subj ects rated themselves as having
“high” interest.
Students were dropped from the study (fourteen in total) only if they did not
complete the treatment or because they did not finish the course. In other words, students
were dropped at random and there was no predictive reason for excluding a student from
the study (i.e students were not dropped because o f age, sex, low scores, etc.).
82
Table 3.2 Descriptive StatisticsCx Tx Total
Total: 42 (47%) 47 (53%) 89 (100%)
Sex F 22 (52%) 23 (49%) 45 (51%)M 20 (48%) 24 (51%) 44 (49%)
Age Mean 21.7 21.6 21.7 (median = 20.3)Min, Max 18.2,45.1 17.0,55.7 17.0, 55.7
Class Fres/Soph 25 (28%) 30 (34%) 55 (62%)Rank Jr/Sr/Grad 17 (19%) 17 (19%) 34 (38%)
Major Bus/Sci 26(29%) 23 (26%) 49 (55%)Humanities 16(18%) 24 (27%) 40 (45%)
Previous No 8 (19%) 1 (2 %) 9 (10%)Language Yes 34 (81%) 46 (98%) 80 (90%)Study
USA No 1 (2%) 6 (13%) 7 (8%)Yes 41 (98%) 41 (87%) 82 (92%)
Ll=Eng No 1(2%) 6 (13%) 7 (8%)Yes 41 (98%) 41 (87%) 82 (92%)
Exp. No 19 (45%) 25 (53%) 44 (49%)Abroad Yes 23 (55%) 22 (47%) 45 (51%)
Ability Low 20 (48%) 23 (49%) 43 (48%)High 22 (52%) 24 (51%) 46 (52%)
Interest Low 13(31%) 11(23%) 24 (27%)High 29 (69%) 36 (77%) 65 (73%)
Mot ENT 35 (83%) 40 (85%) 75 (84%)INST 7(17) 7 (15%) 14 (16%)
Percentages reflect group totals. Example: 22/44 (52%) of comparison group is female.
84
3.6.3 Description o f Instruments used for Quantitative Data Collection
3.6.3.1 The Personal Data Sheet
Since personal background is very much bound to the attitudes one holds, it was
important in this study to consider several learner variables. The first instrument used
was the Personal Data Sheet (PDS), which was designed to gather information about each
subject’s personal background. The items on this instrument were chosen based on
factors that offer potential explanations for variations among learner attitudes. According
to Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), such factors include (among others) age,
motivation, and prior experience ( p. 153). Based oh their research, and on experiential
evidence about which variables could be relevant, the PDS was designed to gather
information about age, sex, year in college, major, country o f birth, prior language
learning experience, time spent abroad, and German language learning motivation.
Although much o f the research on learner variables among second language
learners is inconclusive or contradictory, there are obvious implications that can be made
to justify their analysis in this study. Bransh (1986), for example, showed in a study on
the racial attitudes o f children (four through seven) that age is a significant factor (p.
719). Sludermann et al. (1986) showed in an investigation o f sociocultural changes on
adolescents that age is a powerful factor in one’s attitude towards self and others (p. 129).
This researcher found no studies which investigated correlations o f age (or sex) to
attitudes in the same way the present study does; however, one study by Gardner (1990)
85
on the multidimensional nature o f language preference, did investigate age (among other
variables) in relation to various attitudes and stereotypes among a sample o f Polish
immigrants in Canada. Gardner’s analysis indicated that both acculturation and second
language acquisition o f immigrants were dependent on age (p. 3).
In terms o f motivation, previous research showed that this item may correlate
differently depending on the type motivation. Gardner & Lambert (1972), for example,
distinguish two types o f motivation:
instrumental motivation: wanting to learn a language because it will be useful for certain “instrumental” goals, such as getting a job, reading a foreign newspaper, passing an examination.
integrative motivation: wanting to learn a language in order to communicate with people o f another culture who speak it (p. 17).
According to Gardner, integratively oriented individuals may tend to be more
highly motivated than individuals with other orientations; however, he maintains that this
association is not guaranteed a priori (Gardner, p. 54). Oiler, Hudson and Lie (1977)
argued that Gardner and Lambert’s classification is ambiguous because some researchers
have classified ‘to travel abroad’ as instrumental, whereas others have classified it as
integrative. Clement and Kruidenier (1983), however, found that such labels for
motivation are relatively stable. In their study, they found that four orientations were
common to all o f their eight samples: instrumental, friendship, travel and knowledge
orientations. As a result, the social psychological constructs postulated by Gardner and
Lambert were used in this study. The PDS contained two items related to motivation.
The first used a Likert-type scale: How important is it for you to learn a foreign
86
language? The second was open ended: Why or why not is it important for you to study a
foreign language. Please explain your reasoning in as much detail as possible. Answers
to the second item were classified as integratively oriented if they emphasized meeting
and conversing with people or a desire to better understand German speaking people and
their way o f life. Such responses were classified as integrative because they appeared to
stress interaction with members o f a German speaking community for social purposes. In
other words, the underlying aim for learning German appeared to involve interaction with
a German speaking person or community. Students were classified as instrumentally
oriented if they emphasized that they were learning German because it would be useful in
obtaining a job or if it made them better educated. The focus in these instances appeared
to be away from any social contact with a German speaking community, emphasizing
instead pragmatic reasons for learning German. The final decision for determining either
integrative or instrumental orientation resulted in what appeared to be the ultimate goal o f
the individual.
In terms o f sex, there are studies that systematically investigated foreign language
learning in females versus males; several studies indicate that females enjoy a rate
advantage in terms o f first language acquisition. A study conducted by Cross (1983)
evaluated the commonly held idea that girls are better second language learners than
boys. His results indicated that boys were not weaker in any o f the language skill areas
tested (Cross, p. 159). In another study, Tran (1988) examined sex differences in English
language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese refugees using data
87
from a national sample. Tran found that females had more language problems than
males, and that males were more likely than females to use various learning strategies to
improve their language skills (Tran, p. 748). Farhady (1982), however, found that female
subjects significantly outperformed male subjects on a listening comprehension test in a
study o f 800 foreign language placement exams (taken from Larsen-Freeman & Long
1992, p. 204). These varying conclusions indicate that sex differences depend on the
group and context under which the group is learning a second language.
Finally, the PDS considered prior experience. In determining the item format for
gathering data on prior knowledge, this researcher considered a study by Nation and
McLaughlin (1986) who argued that knowledge o f a second language is likely to
accelerate the learning process o f additional languages (Nation and McLaughlin).
3.6.3.2 The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI)
The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) was developed as a
training instrument to provide individuals with personalized insights into their potential
for adjustment to a new environment. The basis for the instrument comes from an in-
depth review o f research on the different types o f cross-cultural adaptability. For
example, Kelley and Meyers’ review began with research from Oberg’s work (I960),
who introduced the concept o f culture shock (the psychological reaction that individuals
experience when they enter another culture and the conflict that arises between their
identity and the values, perceptions, and social cues o f the other culture). From there,
they looked at research which attempted to find predictors o f cross-cultural success and
88
various topologies o f intercultural situations. Their analysis included a review of studies
on cross-cultural adaptability relating to business (Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams,
1960), personnel technical assistance (Hawes & Kealey, 1981); (Ruben and Kealey,
1979), the military (Gudykunst, Hammer, and Wiseman, 1977) and the Peace Corps
(Harris, 1972). Despite the diversity o f the these research projects, Kelley and Meyers
found a consensus regarding what constituted intercultural effectiveness: open-
mindedness to new ideas and experiences, intercultural empathy, accurate perception of
similarities and differences between cultures, nonjudgementalness, astute, noncritical
observation of one’s own and others' behavior, the ability to establish meaningful
relationships with host-culture persons, and minimal ethnocentrism.
In other research influential in the construction o f the CCAI, Kelley and Meyers
looked at work done by Cui and Van Den Berg (1991) who studied the construct of
intercultural effectiveness and found that it was possible to reduce the large number of
factors associated with it. Their research defined it as “the ability to communicate
effectively across cultures” (p. 229). Cui and Van Den Berg (1991) used a cognitive-
affective-behavioral framework and cited three factors - communication competence,
cultural empathy, and communication behavior - as determinants o f intercultural
effectiveness. They also found a fourth factor, patience and flexibility, “to be consistently
influential” (p.231). Cultural fit (i.e., similarity between two cultures), ability to speak
the native language, awareness that one will be treated as an outsider, and previous
experience abroad were among other elements cited as being helpful towards cross-
89
cultural adaptability. Except the data published in the manual, no literature has been
published on the CCAI. Kelley and Meyers based the following four components of the
CCAI on a thorough literature review and on expert opinion:
Emotional Resilience (EM): Many researchers have cited the negative emotional reactions experienced by individuals in new cultures as a result of the lack o f familiar, culture-specific cues (Oberg, 1960); (Searle &Ward, 1990); (Ward and Searle, 1991) and the importance o f dealing with stress as a component o f intercultural effectiveness (Abe & Wiseman,1983); (Church, 1982). Cleveland et al. (1960), as cited in Hannigan (1990), describe the person who is successful in another culture as “resourceful and buoyant” and able to “snap back rapidly from discouragement and frustration” (p. 98). Guthrie (1975) observed that an effective cross-cultural experience requires “some humility about one’s own social competence and enough self-confidence to keep on trying” (p.99). Culture shock, often considered to be inherent in the cross-cultural experience, generally includes some negative affect. An individual’s capacity to modulate and deal effectively with this reaction is very important. (Kelley and Meyers, p. 9)
The ER scale is the largest o f the four CCAI scales, with eighteen items. This category is
grouped according to subscales comprising six items on Coping, especially with stress
and ambiguity (1, 4, 34, 36, 39, 48), four on Accepting and rebounding from
imperfections and mistakes (7, 10,26, 31,45), three on Trying new things and
experiences (13,18, 23, 29), and three on Interacting with people in new or unfamiliar
situations (16, 21, 42).
Flexibility and Openness (FO): A nonjudgmental attitude and flexible role behavior are cited often in the literature as major components o f cross-cultural effectiveness (Gullahaom & Gullahom, 1963; Hannigan,1990); (Hanvey, 1976); (Hawes & Kealey, 1981); (Ruben & Kealey,1979). Cognitive flexibility - the ability to be broad-minded - is listed as an important dimension by Detweiler (1978). Hawes and Kealey (1981) describe an “interpersonal orientation” that embodies “curiosity and natural respect toward others” (p. 253). Individuals with these
90
characteristics are ready to listen to others, become acquainted with them, and seek to understand their world view. This is similar to the nonjudgmental attitude o f the “third culture perspective” described by Hammer et al. (1978).(Kelley and Meyers, p. 9)
The FO scale has fifteen items, which are grouped according to subscales comprising
eight items on Liking for, openness toward, interest in, and desire to learn from
unfamiliar people and ideas (5, 8, 11, 22, 40, 43, 46,49), four on Tolerance,
nonjudgmentalness, and understanding toward others who are different from oneself {19,
27, 32, 37), and three on Flexibility with regard to experiences (2 ,14, 30).
Perceptual Acuity: Cleveland et al. (1960) were among the earliest researchers to identify cultural empathy as a key component o f success in effective cross-cultural performance. They cite Binges’s (1983) description o f cultural empathy” [it] is highly cognitive in emphasis, requiring the skill to understand the logic and coherence o f other cultures and the restraint to avoid negative attributions based on perceived differences between one’s own and others’ behavior. Both perceptiveness and receptiveness are essential elements o f this process, as well as the capacity for action derived from understanding” (p. 179). According to Bennett (1986), the most common form o f adaptation is empathy; she describes an intentional shift in frame o f reference. In an intercultural experience, empathy can involve a shift in cultural world view. The importance o f communication competence is underscored by many other researchers. This includes not only language proficiency but also the ability to comprehend verbal and nonverbal cues within the context o f a social relationship (Hammer et al., 1978; Kim, 1986) arid to communicate effectively across cultures (Cui & Van Den Berg, 1991). (Kelley and Meyers, p. 10)
The PAC scale focuses on communication cues and skills and accurate interpretation of
those cues across cultures. The PA subscale is comprised of ten items (3, 9 ,15 ,20 , 24,
28, 33, 38, 44, 50).
91
Personal Autonomy: Hawes and Kealey (1981) cite a sense o f identity as one o f three global characteristics that are necessary for confident interaction with a host culture. “The person can remain open to experiencing local people and culture without feeling threatened by the differences, nor desiring to abandon his own identity in favor o f theirs: (p.253). The relationship o f the self to the new culture is at the crux o f all cross-cultural interaction. Whether referred to as self-esteem, self concept, or identity, the idea that an individual’s sense o f self is thrown into conflict when he or she encounters cultural differences is a basic assumption inherent in culture shock (Hoffman, 1990). “Self is seen as an arena for cross-cultural conflict, with cultural adaptation defined primarily in terms o f how well one can manage cultural conflicts successfully so as to preserve self-concept and a sense o f high self-esteem” (p. 276). In addition, respect for the host culture is often cited as a major component of cross-cultural effectiveness (Gallahom & Cllahom, 1963); Hannigan,1990; Hanvey, 1976; Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ruben & Kealey, 1979).(Kelley and Meyers p. 10)
The PA items deal with personal identity, values, beliefs, and empowerment in the
context o f unfamiliar environments and different values. The PA scale is comprised o f
seven items (6 ,12 ,17 , 25, 35, 41, 47).
The CCAI was not designed to be used in a pre-test/post test format (i.e. it was
developed as a training tool to be used in group or individual counseling sessions with
individuals who have moved or are preparing to move to another culture). However, in
the case o f this study, the treatment group received structured feedback about how to
interpret the CCAI (i.e. each individual in the treatment group received personalized
insights/feedback into their potential for adjustment to a new environment based on
his/her CCAI scores); the comparison group did not. Because positive expectations are
associated with cross-cultural effectiveness, Kelley and Meyers argue that the CCAI,
along with the proper feedback, helps individuals form positive and realistic expectations
92
about cross-cultural situations (p. 2-3). Thus, the two groups may show varying gain
scores as a result o f the treatment group not receiving feedback on their scores.
This researcher choose the CCAJ for use in this study because its four components
(from above) were all applicable to the goals of the experimental culture lessons. Two
other instruments considered in place o f the CCAI were R.W. Norton’s Measurement of
Ambiguity Tolerance (1975) and W.J. Reddin’s Culture Shock Inventory. The former
was not chosen because o f its narrow focus on just the ambiguity tolerance construct (the
CCAI includes ambiguity tolerance among its four components; thus, Norton’s
measurement would have overlapped with the CCAI). The later was not chosen because
no where in the manual does Reddin provide a theoretical justification for his
conceptualization o f culture shock. Although the components o f the CSI have reasonable
face validity, no references are given to previous theory or research. The CSI manual
also provides very few details about the interpretation o f subject’s results. The CCAI’s
manual provides very detailed information about how to interpret scores, which formed
the basis o f the feedback provided to the treatment group. In addition, the idea o f
“Cultural Knowledge” seemed to be a questionable dimension on the CSI. It is clear that
some knowledge o f the target culture is useful as “conversational currency” (Benson
1990, p. 209) while overseas, but sampling specific information from varied cultures
seems o f questionable value as a predictor o f culture shock in a specific country (Benson
1990, p. 209).
93
3.6.3.3 The Attitudes Measurement Test Battery
The Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, Smthe, & Clement,
1974) has been used extensively to measure language learners’ attitudes and motivations.
This instrument was validated and standardized on students in grades 7 to 11 (on
Anglophone Canadian students), and more recently on college students (Gardner and
MacIntyre). For the purposes o f this study, the AMTB was modified slightly to address
attitudes toward German speakers. The subscales consisted o f statements that students
responded to on a six-item Likert scale ranging from definitely not true (1) to definitely
true (6). These subscales comprised ten items on Attitudes toward German Speakers
(ATGS, 1-10), ten on Interest in Foreign Languages (INFL, 11-20), four on Integrative
Orientation (IGO, 21-24), four on Instrumental Orientation (ISO, 25-28), three on
German Class Anxiety (GCA, 29-31), and three on Parental Encouragement (PE, 32-34).
A composite score was computed by adding each o f the six subscale totals to obtain the
Attitudes, Interest, and Orientation Index (AIOI). Each subscale within the original
AMTB has recently been shown to have strong construct validity (Gardner and MacIntyre
1993). In a study that used the AMTB, Lambert et al. found that fiancophilia was
positively related to achievement for adults registered in elementary sections of summer
French Programs, but negatively related for those in advanced sections (Lambert 1963).
Other research, however, has been more consistent. Mueller and Miller (1970) found that
attitudes toward French people correlated significantly with student grades (p. 297). This
finding was replicated in another study conducted by Mueller in 1971 (p. 290). Jacobsen
94
and Imhoff (1974) also demonstrated the importance o f attitudes toward the target
culture. In a study o f 600 Protestant missionaries living in Japan who had studied at least
two years o f Japanese, Jacobsen and Imhoff found that japanophilia was among the three
best predictors o f speaking proficiency for both men and women (Jacobsen and Imhoff).
In a recent study, Mantle-Bromely (1995) attempted to maintain and/or improve students’
attitudes toward French and Spanish speakers (replicating an earlier study (Mantle-
Bromley and Miller, 1991)). The results o f her study also suggested a relationship
between target-culture attitude and language learning success.
The relationship between students’ attitudes and cultural beliefs and their eventual
second language proficiency has been studied for over 20 years (Gardner 1985). Over the
years, researchers have found that students’ attitudes are not only related to their
participation in class (Gardner et al 1990), but to their willingness to work on language
skills outside o f class (Gardner and Smythe 1975). Their attitudes and beliefs also
ultimately affect the foreign language proficiency level achieved - students with more
positive attitudes are more successful in class and, naturally, more likely to continue their
study for longer periods of time (Bartley, 1969); (Clement, Smythe & Gardner, 1978).
3.6.3.4 The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory
The Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) was developed to
assess student opinions on a variety o f issues and controversies related to language
learning (Horwitz 1988, p. 284). The BALLI contains thirty-four items and assesses
student beliefs in five major areas: 1) difficulty o f language learning; 2) foreign language
95
aptitude: 3) the nature o f language learning; 4) learning and communication strategies;
and 5) motivations and expectations. Ninety students o f German were asked to read each
item on the BALLI and then to indicate a response ranging from definitely true to
definitely not true. BALLI items were derived from frequently occurring comments
taken from an extensive collection o f interviews with language learners and teachers
(Horwitz 1988), thereby contributing to the validity o f the instrument. Several composite
scores (four total) are derived from the BALLI. Each subscale consisted o f statements
that students responded on a six-item Likert scale ranging from definitely not true (1) to
definitely true (6). These subscales comprised six items on The Difficulty of Language
Learning (DLL, 3, 4, 6, 14, 24, 28), nine onForeign Language Aptitude (FLA, 1, 2, 10,
15, 22,29, 32, 33, 34), The Nature of Language Learning (NLL, 8, 11, 16, 20, 25,26),
and Learning and Communication Strategies (LCS, 17 ,21 ,7 ,9 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 8 ,1 9 ) . The
subsection Motivations and Expectations (four items) was eliminated because o f its
overlap with the AMTB. It is important to note that the BALLI was used here not only to
gather descriptive information (i.e. to see whether or not German 101 students begin their
language study with beliefs and expectations that might be inaccurate or unrealistic), but
also as a means o f comparing two groups. This is important because previous studies
have used the BALLI for descriptive purposes (see Mantle-Bromley 1995) and have
shown that students often begin their studies with inaccurate beliefs about language
learning. Through the pre/post-test format, this study will also analyze whether strategy
training is a possible avenue for helping students better understand whether their
preconceived notions about language learning interfere with their language studies.
96
3.6.4 Description o f Qualitative Data Collection Procedures
In an attempt to present a more comprehensive and valid explanation o f the
information gathered from the instruments discussed below (see section 3.6.4), this study
also included qualitative methodologies, which were all aimed at gathering information
on subjects’ attitudes towards the various treatments. The quantitative instruments used
in this study stress control and lend themselves to manipulation and linear analysis. The
long standing acceptance o f this type o f research methodology often precludes any need
to justify quantitative methodologies as they are taken for granted by the discipline.
Many researchers are committed to logical positivism to the exclusion o f other
philosophies o f science (Hatch & Lazaration, 1991), but even the contemporary version
of positivism, logical empiricism, is only one view o f science - one which is relatively
recent. Qualitative analysis o f attitudes and individual difference has been proposed by a
number o f researchers as a separate but necessary adjunct to experimental research.
Wundt, for example, advocated a Votkerpsychologie based on historical, ethnographic,
and comparative analysis o f human cultural products, especially language, myth, and
custom in order to obtain a complete picture o f the human mind (Danziger 1990, p. 57).
Despite the importance o f all the components that go into human interaction, thus
affecting social behavior, the use o f only quantitative research would miss these
influences through its attempts at controlled manipulation.
97
Qualitative or new paradigm research strives to put the humanness back into the
science o f human behavior. It draws on traditional social anthropological methods such
as participant observation, informal interviewing and analysis of documents (Danziger
1990, p. 61). Unlike traditional experimental research, qualitative research does not view
individual differences as nuisance to be dismissed as error (Haase and Myers). In
addition, qualitative methods may help to gather information that is impossible to obtain
using quantitative methods (Haase and Myers 1982).
Despite large differences in the paradigmatic assumptions underlying the various
views on how research should be conducted, these views need not remain antithetical to
one another. Many researchers argue that both are necessary to obtain a comprehensive
understanding o f a topic: qualitative to get at individual interpretation o f experience and
quantitative to explain beyond the individual (Guba and Lincoln 1989, p. 72) (for a more
detailed discussion on this subject, see Guba & Lincoln 1989).
In light o f these arguments, this study attempted to capitalize on the strengths o f
both approaches through the use o f solid data collecting techniques and instruments, and
empirical analyses. The following qualitative methodology was employed to examine the
subjective experience o f the participants in this study.
3.6.4.1 Feedback from Strategy and Experimental Culture Lessons
At the end o f each strategy and culture lesson, participants were asked to write
brief comments regarding (1) their immediate reaction to the lesson (i.e. positive or
negative and a short reason why), and (2) suggestions on how to make the lessons more
98
useful or suggestions for future topics o f discussion. In general, the students’ comments
were positive (see chart below) and were between four and seven sentences long. The
following examples come from students participating in the culture lessons:
1. Positive (CL #3): The culture lesson was good this time because it was something more concrete than past classes. I could really relate to the friimdlfreund discussion and could see differences between German people and American people.
2. Positive (CL #3): I really liked today’s class. I have a theory myself and that is American culture is more relaxed.
3. Positive (CL #3): I found this lesson interesting because the way certain words are used in different languages reveals a lot about the culture.These things are important to know when learning a language or preparing to go abroad.
4. Neutral (CL #1): Today wasn’t really positive or negative. I think that the test is a little bland, hence the discussions about it likewise, but I always appreciate an open forum for discussion. I thought we would discuss the German culture. I’d be more interested in learning about that than something so vague.
5. Negative (CL #1): A waste o f time because that is how I feel.
The first comment and the fourth comment above are typical o f many students’
responses in that they indicate a desire for concrete examples o f “culture”. The third and
fourth sentences in #4 above, for example, indicate that the student expected to be given
concrete examples regarding the target culture. In comment #1 the student reacts
positively because she/he finally feels as though the information provided is concrete.
Because o f the responses from culture lessons one and two, lesson three was designed to
be less vague in its content. Comment #2 is interesting because it indicates that this
student involved herself in self-reflective thinking about her own culture. In comment
99
#3, the student has clearly made a connection between “culture learning” and a positive
experience abroad. The final comment from above is somewhat defensive in nature.
Perhaps the student felt that his/her scores on the CCAI were low or different from other
students and that this was negative. One o f the points that this researcher tried to clarify
in introducing the CCAI was that there are no right or wrong answers. Nevertheless,
several students did indicate that they were unhappy about their CCAI results.
The following examples come from students participating in the strategy lessons:
1. Positive (SL #3: This was pretty helpful not only with German but even for understanding the things I do in English.
2. Negative (SL #4): I don’t think today’s exercise was all that useful, at least for me because I am pretty set in my manner o f reading, in English and in German.
3. Neutral (SL #2): It was a little useful, but the writing strategies are self- explanatory. I have trouble memorizing all the different conjugations for accusative and dative... maybe your could cover something like that in the next lesson.
4. Positive (SL #1): Today was interesting. I think everyone benefits especially from hearing about other people’s strategies for learning. Most people find learning a new language as foreign and difficult, but when students share I think it helps.
5. Positive (SL #4): This lesson was helpful for me in the sense that it made me understand why it is harder for me as an adult to pick up a second language. It helped me understand how I can change my thoughts to get new insights on learning a second language.
Comment #1 is typical o f many of the students’ responses in that the student has
applied what she/he has learned to both German and English. Many o f the students’
comments revealed that the strategy lessons were useful in helping to understand the
100
English language as well as the German language. Many o f the o f negative reactions (as
in #2 above) revealed that students feel pretty set in their ways and that even the most
aggressive strategy training would not help. In a similar tone, many students revealed
that they already have a high level o f awareness regarding strategies and that strategy
training was a waste o f time. Comment #3 can also be generalized in that many students
did not feel as though their specific needs were being met. This researcher attempted to
create strategy lessons that would appeal to a wide variety o f learners, but several
students felt that this approach was too general to meet their needs. Comment #4 is also
indicative o f many o f the positive reactions. Many o f the positive reactions involved
statements about how good it felt to know that other students were experiencing the same
types o f language-learning problems. As with the reactions to the culture lessons, several
comments from the students in the strategy lessons (e.g. #5 above) indicated that they
preferred an explicit approach to teaching. The percentages below designate general
student reactions towards the culture and strategy lessons.
101
Table 3.3 Student Reactions to Culture and Strategy Lessons
Culture Lessons Strategy Lessons
Positive Negative Neutral Positive Negative Neutral
Lesson # 1 77% n% n% 72% 9% 19%
Lesson # 2 74% 15% n% 67% 16% 17%
Lesson # 3 100% 0% 0% 58% 25% 17%
Lesson # 4 92% 0% 8% 100% 0% 0%
Lesson $ 5 76% 12% 12% 68% 17% 15%
Total 83% 8 % 9% 72% 13% 15%
3.6.4.2 Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews
Each o f the four teachers participating in this study were interviewed and
observed once. The purpose o f the interview and the observation was to gain insights on
teacher attitudes towards culture teaching, which aided this researcher in making the
treatment and control group assignments. In this sense, the teachers were type-cast as a
way o f creating greater congruency between the teacher’s culture-teaching philosophy
and his/her assigned group. Specifically, the two teachers who were most interested in
teaching culture via a process- and learner-centered approach were assigned to the
treatment group, and the two teachers who favored teaching culture via an information-
acquisition approach were assigned to the comparison group.
The teacher interview and classroom observations revealed that the teachers in
this study have definite preferences on how culture should be taught. The two teachers
who were assigned to the treatment group clearly liked the idea o f using a culture
102
portfolio. The two teachers who were assigned to the control group were somewhat
negative towards the culture portfolio in that they felt that it required too much work on
the part o f the teacher. One o f the control-group teachers also indicated that one reason
for his negative sentiment towards the portfolio was that he did not understand the
purpose o f the culture portfolio and therefore didn’t feel he could help the students in this
area. Helping teaching assistants to understand the purpose o f the culture portfolio and
how best to follow through with its objectives has been an on-going challenge for TA
professional development and was not a unique issue that evolved solely from this
interview.
3.6.4.3 Student Interviews
Seven students were interviewed from both the comparison group and the
treatment group and took place in the last week o f the semester in which the study took
place. Students in both groups were asked the following questions:
1. What is the purpose o f foreign language learning?2. What does it mean to learn something about another culture?3. Is it important to learn about culture while studying a foreign language?
Why?4. Did your teacher stress the learning o f culture?5. Did your attitudes towards culture change over the course o f this
semester? Why or why not?
It would be invalid to make generalizations from the students’ responses to these
questions. However, one common trait was revealed in the interviews, namely, that the
students in the treatment group were more likely to mention the word “culture” in their
answers than were the students in the comparison group. For example, in response to
103
question #1 above, five o f the seven students interviewed from the treatment group said
that the purpose o f learning a foreign language was to “learn to communicate with people
in another culture”. Three o f the students interviewed from the comparison, however,
responded to question #1 by saying that there was no purpose (i.e. it was just a general
education requirement). Another student in the comparison group answered that the
purpose was to help people better understand their own language. Two o f the students
interviewed in the comparison group mentioned that the world was becoming more
integrated and that foreign-language learning was therefore important.
In this same sense, a general analysis o f student responses revealed that students
in the treatment group were more likely to relate their answers to a cross-cultural
perspective than were students in the comparison group. Each o f the interview questions
will be discussed in detail in chapter four.
3.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA
This section will briefly describe the statistical analyses used as a means o f testing
the initial hypothesis:
Beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students o f German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
One appropriate statistical technique for examining the main hypothesis is a two-
sample f-test (also: two groups Mest). In this study there are two dependent variables
(gain scores from the pre-test/post-test measure o f cross-cultural adaptability (CCAI) and
104
gain scores from the pre-test/post-test measure o f attitudes towards foreign languages,
foreign-language learning, and speakers o f other languages (AMTB)) and one
independent variable (treatment). Because o f the pre-test/post-test format, there were a
number o f options for statistical analysis. With Comparison Group Pre-test/Post-test
design, researchers can match individual students in the treatment and comparison groups
on the basis o f their pretest scores, and compare their performance o f these matched
groups. However, this approach only works when both groups’ n is equal. This
researcher, thus, chose to subtract pre-test scores from the post-test scores and compare
the gains (rather than the final test scores) o f the subjects in each group. To adjust for
possible group differences in pre-test scores, this researcher considered the option o f
using an ANCOVA instead o f a two-sample f-test. Such a computation allows the
researcher to control for group differences in pre-test scores. However, as argued in
section 5.2, a test for homogeneity o f variance uncovered no significant difference
between the two groups’ pre-test scores.
The statistical program MINITAB (Release 11.12) was used to calculate all two-
sample f-tests in this study, and were all examined with the commonly accepted
significance level o f 0.05. If a two-sample Mest is, indeed, significant at this level, one
can be 95% certain that the observed change had occurred due to the treatment and not
due to chance or unknown factors.
105
3.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This research study sought to examine the hypothesis that a process- and learner-
centered approach to culture teaching in the foreign-language classroom has a greater
effect on improving cross-cultural adaptability and attitudes towards language and culture
learning than an information-acquisition approach. Specific variables were also measured
in relation to subjects’ gain scores on two instruments. The subjects involved were first-
semester German 101 students at the University o f Arizona. Data were also gathered (see
3.6.3.1: The Personal Data Sheet) as an aid in examining which o f the modeled variables
showed a significant correlation to one’s level of cross-cultural adaptability (as measured
by the CCAI) or attitude toward language and culture learning (as measured by the
AMTB).
The subjects were assigned to a treatment group or to a comparison group. For
administrative reasons, intact groups (classes) were used.
The statistical analysis used was the two-sample f-test (also: two-groups Nest),
which allowed for a comparison o f the gain scores and the various variables. There was
also a fairly large number o f variables which needed to be considered in assessing
subjects’ gain scores. Some o f these could be examined using statistical analysis; others
were studied based on the qualitative data that was also collected during this study.
Confounding variables, while recognized as such, were not analyzed further. In the
following chapter, an exact description o f the data will be presented along with an
interpretation and analysis o f the data.
106
4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Oh, don’t tell me o f facts — I never believe facts: you know Canning said nothing was so fallacious as facts, except figures.
This chapter discusses the various analyses performed on the data gathered from
the sample population. Section 5.2 provides a description o f the statistical procedures
used to analyze the data. The results obtained on each measure are discussed in the order
in which they are displayed in the tables below. Some o f the implications o f these
analyses are dealt with in each section, however, a more complete assessment will be
presented in Chapter Six. The next section provides a brief review o f this study’s main
purpose.
4.1 THE MAIN HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As stated in Chapter One, the essential purpose o f this study is to investigate
salient issues about culture learning that concern U.S. university students during their
first semester o f foreign language study and to provide foreign-language educators with a
framework for integrating culture learning into their classrooms, taking into account both
the process that young adult learners go through in accepting another culture and the
potential difficulties that may arise in this process. Specifically, the analyses address the
research questions and the hypothesis stated in chapters two and four. The hypothesis
and the four research questions are restated below:
Hypothesis:
Beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students o f German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
107
This hypothesis concerns a change in attitude (i.e. positive or negative). Because
it was possible, and perhaps even probable, that subjects entered German 101 with
different attitudes towards culture and language learning, it was necessary to attempt to
account for some o f these differences by gathering data on several variables related to
variations among language-learners (e.g age, sex, time abroad, major, interest,
motivation, anxiety towards language learning etc. (see Table 3.2 in Chapter Three for a
complete listing o f the posited modifier variables)).
Once the hypothesis was formed, it became possible to narrow the focus o f the
study and its objectives. Specific areas o f investigation were than stated using the
following research questions:
Research Questions:
° Are the gain scores o f students in the treatment group (as measured by the Cross- Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) and the Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)) different from the gain scores o f students in the comparison group?
° Do variables such as age, sex, year in school, major, previous language study,whether or not subject had spent time abroad, self-rated language-learning ability, interest, motivation (integrative or instrumental) or parental encouragement influence gain-score differences as analyzed in question one above?
° Do students enter German 101 with misconceptions, mistaken beliefs or both (as measured by the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)) that could cause frustration in the language-learning process?
° Do students' attitudes (as measured by the BALLI) change after one semester o f language learning?
o What information from the qualitative data (e.g. student’s written statementsregarding the culture and strategy lessons, and the student and teacher interviews) can be used to better understand the quantitative data analyses?
108
The first two research questions involve quantitative analyses o f the differences
between the treatment-group and comparison-group gain-score means (obtained from the
pre- and post-test scores o f the Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) and the
Attitudes Measurement Test Battery (AMTB)). The remaining questions involve an
analysis o f qualitative data, which will be used to shed light on the quantitative analyses
and the study as a whole.
It is important to note here that the BALLI was used to gather descriptive
information only. To answer questions three and four, the application o f the BALLI in
this setting was to gather pre- and post-test scores and to look at gain scores on individual
questions in an exploratory fashion to better understand whether German 101 students at
the University o f Arizona begin their language study with beliefs and expectations that
might be inaccurate or unrealistic. This information, combined with research done by
Horwitz (1988), Mantle-Bromley (1994 & 1995) and Kern (1995) will assist in
understanding whether or not teachers can help students “rid themselves o f preconceived
notions and prejudices which would likely interfere with their language learning”
(Horwitz, 1988, p. 283-284).
4.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The gain scores used in the quantitative analyses o f the CCAI were obtained by
subtracting pre-test scores from post-test scores. This procedure was used to obtain gain
scores for each o f the CCAI subcategories and a CCAI composite score (i.e. a score
representing the total o f all four subcategories added together). The following
abbreviations were used to describe data from the Cross-Cultural Awareness Inventory:
ER (Emotional Resilience), FO (Flexibility and Openness), PAC (Perceptual Acuity), PA
(Personal Autonomy), and CCAI (CCAI Composite Score).
Of the five AMTB subcategories tested for on the pre-test, all but one, PE
(Parental Encouragement), was retested on the post-test. This scale was dropped from the
post-test as it was not expected to change over the duration o f the study. The following
abbreviations were used to describe data from the Attitudes Measurement Test Battery:
ATG (Attitudes towards Germans), IFL (Interest in Foreign Languages), INST
(Instrumental Motivation), INT (Integrative Motivation), ANX (Anxiety), PE (Parental
Encouragement), and AMTB (AMTB Composite Score).
As stated in Chapter Three, a student’s score was only used if he/she was able to
participate in the entire study. Students were dropped from the study (fourteen in total) if
they did not complete the treatment, if they did not finish the course or i f they asked that
their scores not be included in the study. In Other words, students self-selected out and
there was no predictive reason for excluding a student from the study (i.e students were
not dropped because o f age, sex, low scores, etc ). This criterion was applied to all data
for the CCAI, AMTB and BALLI.
Because this study involves two independent populations, the analyses performed
required the use o f a Two-sample £-test for comparing means. In general, f-test
procedures test the difference between two averages. Thus, a two sample /-test is a
hypothesis test for answering questions about the mean where the data are collected from
109
110
two intact or random samples o f independent observations. According to Hatch and
Lazaraton 1991, the following guidelines for appropriateness o f data need to be
considered before applying the two-sample t-test: 1) The data are independent, 2) Each S
(or observation) is assigned to one and only one group, 3) The data are truly continuous
(interval or strongly continuous ordinal scores), 4) The mean and standard deviation are
the most appropriate measures to describe the data, and 5) Homogeneity o f variances (i.e.
the distribution in the respective populations from which the samples were drawn is
normal, and variances are equivalent (263-264)).
The data used in this study are appropriate for the two-sample f-test. In the case
of the first guideline, this study used treatment as the only independent variable. The
second guideline is met in that each individual analysis involved only two means, each of
which came from two independent samples. In terms o f guideline three, one must
understand the difference between nominal variables that yield frequency data and ordinal
and interval variables that yield score data. The data collected from the CCAI and the
AMTB were scored along an ordinal scale and show how much o f each variable is
present in the data; thus, the data are continuous. Guideline four is met in that the
distribution o f the CCAI and AMTB data is not skewed. Had the data, however, been
skewed, then the median (i.e. not the mean and standard deviation) would have been a
more appropriate measure o f central tendency. Ip terms o f the final assumption, Hatch
and Lazaraton state that to carry out a two sample f-test, one must assume that the
variances for the two populations are equal. In other words, one has to confirm that the
I l l
two samples have both been drawn from the same population. To test the validity o f this
assumption, one typically performs either Levene’s or Bartlett’s test for homogeneity o f
variance. Bartlett’s test is used when data come from normal distributions, as this test is
not robust to departures from normality. Levene’s test is used when the data come from
continuous, but not necessarily normal distributions. Neither test showed a statistical
difference between the two samples used in this study when performed for CCAI-pre
(p=0.3) or AMTB-pre (p=0.9).
Because this study used intact groups (i.e. groups that were assigned to already
formed classes o f students), this researcher had originally considered using an ANCOVA
(analysis o f covariance) procedure for analysis. The ANCOVA, however, is only used if
a statistical difference exists between two groups’ pre-test mean scores. As a result of the
critical values obtained from the tests for homogeneity o f variance and the critical values
obtained from the two-sample f-tests performed on the pre-tests (see sections 4.3.2 and
4.4.2), this researcher was able to determine that there was no statistical difference
between the comparison and treatment groups’ pre-test scores. Thus, the appropriate
statistical procedure for comparing the sample means in this study is the two-sample t-
test. As an additional verification of the results o f the homogeneity o f variance tests and
the two-sample f-tests performed on CCAI-pre and AMTB-pre, this researcher performed
additional tests on the sample means using the ANCOVA; however, as predicted by the
tests for homogeneity o f variance, only negligibly different p-values resulted when
compared to the p-values obtained from the two-sample f-tests.
112
In the following section, data analyses are described regarding the CCAI variables
in and o f themselves, and the CCAI variables in comparison to the various modifier
variables.
4.3 EXAMINATION OF CCAI DATA
4.3.1 Examination o f CCAI Validity
Kelley and Meyers (1990) computed coefficient alphas to determine internal
consistency and reliability on the four CCAI subscales and the total o f these. According
to their report, overall reliability (standardized alpha) for the instrument was computed on
the basis o f the original 49 items found within the CCAI (for a detailed description of the
CCAI subcategories, please see section 3.6.3.2). Listed below are the individual scale
reliability estimates that Kelley and Meyers provide in their CCAI manual:
o Total Score 49 items .900 Emotional Resilience (ER) 18 items .820 Flexibility/Openness (FO) 15 items .80o Perceptual Acuity (PAC) 10 items .78o Personal Autonomy (PA) 7 items .68 (p. 30)
These estimates, especially for the overall inventory, indicate that people who
score high on one item within a scale tend to score high on other items within the scale.
People who score low on an item within a scale would tend to score other items within
that scale low. According to Kelley and Meyers (1990), the individual scale reliability
estimates indicate that the items within each scale are strongly related to one another (i.e.
the scales show high internal consistency) (p. 30).
113
Validity refers to the usefulness o f an instrument for a particular purpose with a
particular group o f people. It deals with the question, “Does the instrument measure or
do what it is supposed to?” That is, is the instrument related in some way to something
beyond the items? And if so, how do we know it is related to the purpose for which it
was constructed? Because there are numerous uses for instruments, there are also a
number o f types o f validity. The question, “Is it valid?” regarding an assessment tool is
equivalent to asking, “Is it useful?” The type o f validity must be specified, and it must be
a type o f validity which is in keeping with the purposes o f the instrument. According to
Kelley and Meyers, the CCAI was designed to be used in cross-cultural training to help
people to:
1. better understand what we know is important in effectively living and working among people o f other cultures (based on the research literature)
2. help people to learn useful information about themselves that can guide them in the development o f cross-cultural abilities and skills. (1990, p.31)
Kelley and Meyers examined several aspects o f validity in relation to the CCAI.
In terms o f the four most relevant validity constructs (face, content, and construct
validity), Kelley and Meyers offer the following explanations:
Face validity involves the question, Is it apparent to any reader o f the instrument what the instrument is useful for? The CCAI has been found to have face validity, that is, it is obvious to people who read and/or respond to the instrument that it examines aspects o f adapting to other cultures, (p.31)
Content Validity relates to the question, Does this instrument cover the subject comprehensively and efficiently? The CCAI is based on a thorough study o f research and expert opinion. It was designed to explore
114
those dimensions which are not easily measured. (This excludes such easily measured areas as knowledge o f the language, previous experience with the culture, and knowledge o f the culture). It may be said that the CCAI is a useful survey o f what is known so far, within these parameters.Of course, there is still much research potential in the field, (p. 31)
Construct validity concerns several questions: What does the instrument measure? Does the instrument measure what it is supposed to measure?What is it about people that causes them to respond variably to this instrument? What construct accounts for the variability to this instrument?An interesting property o f construct validity is that one can never really say that an instrument has it. No one can make direct claims that an instrument measures what it claims to measure. However, indirect claims can be made. The strongest evidence for construct validity for the CCAI is that attempts have been made to cover all the relevant content. At the same time, all items which are not directly conceptually linked to cross- cultural adaptability have been kept out. For example, no general personality items are included. Had such items been included, it might be said that the CCAI measured only correlates o f cross-cultural adaptability, rather than core aspects o f adaptability itself. The procedure used in developing the CCAI, based on a review o f research results and systematic polling o f experts, contributes to the likelihood o f construct validity. Data from 653 persons were subjected to principal components and generalized least-squares factor analyses and other statistical analyses. After study o f what emerged, commonalities were determined and given labels.Although this is a somewhat subjective process, it is based on data and not just opinion, (p. 31-32)
Predictive validity involves the question: Do the scores from the instrument significantly correlate with meaningful external criteria?Could we, for example, select people for cross-cultural assignments or explain why some people are more successful than others in another culture on the basis o f the instrument? Because o f the methods used in its construction, it is reasonable to expect that the CCAI would have some predictive validity, (p. 32)
In sum, Kelley and Meyers’ analysis o f that CCAI indicate that it has considerable
face, content, construct, and predictive validity and that it is overall reliable.
115
4.3 .2 Comparison o f Treatment Group and Comparison Group
To investigate the hypothesis (i.e. that a difference in gain-score means would
exist between the two groups) the independent Mest was used, which provides
information on means, standard deviations, and critical values.
It should be recalled that the CCAI consisted o f fifty items, each o f which had a
possible scoring range o f 6 (DEFINITELY TRUE) to 1 (DEFINITELY NOT TRUE).
Thus, total scores on the fifty item scale had potential values from fifty to three hundred.
Lower scores indicate that the respondent exhibited less cross-cultural adaptability than
respondents with higher scores. The pre-test measure o f cross-cultural adaptability is
represented by the variable CCAI-pre; CCAI-post represents the post-test.
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Results of f-tests on CCAI snbscales and CCAI total (pre-test).
Scale Group Mean (StDev) Min, Max p-value
ER-pre Comparison 84(9) 68,98 >
Treatment 83(7) 60, 101 .77
Total 83 (8) 60, 101
FO-pre Comparison 68 (8) 51,81
Treatment 66(6) 45,85 .25
Total 67(7) 45,85
PAC-pre Comparison 45 (6) 35, 56
Treatment 47(5) 34, 58 .17
Total 46(5) 34,58
PA-pre Comparison 35(3) 30, 41
Treatment 35(3) 25,41 .49
Total 35(3) 25,41
CCAI-pre Comparison 232(22) 192,258
Treatment 231 (16) 164, 283 .76
Total 231 (19) 164, 283
To assess possible treatment-group affects, it was necessary to compare the
changes in the mean scores on each o f the CCAI subscales and the CCAI composite
score. The results o f these analyses are given in table 4.2.
117
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Results of /-tests on CCAI Subscales and CCAI Total (gain scores)
Scale ________Group_________ Mean (StBev) Min, Max p-value
ER-gain Comparison -0.5 (7) -17,13Treatment 1.8(6) -15,12 0.10Total 0.7 (6) -17, 13
FOG-gain . Comparison -1.2(5) -13,9Treatment 14(6 ) -26,10 0.004Total 0.7 (6)
PAC-gain Comparison 0.7(5) -10,9Treatment 1.7 (5) -10, 13 0.36Total 1.2(5) -10, 13
PA-gain Comparison -0.36 (3) -8,5Treatment 1.1 (3) -8, 10 0.04Total 0.4(3) -8, 10
CCAI-gain Comparison -1,29(14) -39,28Treatment 7(16) -34, 34 0.01Total 3.1 (16) -39,34
In order to determine whether changes in cross-cultural adaptability as measured
by ER, FO, PAC, PA and the composite score (CCAI) are significant between groups, it
was necessary to preform five two-way f-tests as discussed in section 4.2 above. The
gain-score means in each instance (see Table 4.2 above) were found to be particularly
relevant in that they are all in the anticipated direction. In other words, treatment group
gain scores are consistently higher than those from the comparison group’s (please see
Illustration 4.1 below).
118
Illustration 4.1
Gain of CCAI Subscales and Total
ER-Qaln FO-Oeln >0.001 PAC-Oeln PA-Oaln CCAI-Oaln
□ Comparison ^ Treatment
However, because mean scores alone do not indicate whether or not these differences are
statistically significant, one test the difference and evaluate the obtained test statistic
against a critical value (Nunan 1992, 34). With a confidence level set at 95%, one can be
reasonably confident that samples have been drawn from different populations. It must
be kept in mind, however, that even with an alpha o f 0.05 (i.e. a confidence level of
95%), there is still a 5% chance in the case o f both the experimental and the comparison
groups that the true population mean will lie outside the range established (Nunan 1992,
34). In the case o f this study, the exact probability o f the obtained test statistics on FO-
gain, PA-gain, and CCAI-gain were less than 0.05, which indicates that we can reject the
null hypothesis (i.e. these data were drawn from different populations). The p-values
computed for ER and PAC are not significant and indicate that although treatment means
119
are higher, they cannot be attributed to the treatment itself. The p-values obtained from
FOG, PAG, and the CCAIG composite score strongly support the hypothesis that
beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered
approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-
cultural adaptability as measured by the CCAI.
4.3.3 Comparison o f CCAI Data and Modifier Variables
For the purposes o f this study, the means and standard deviations relating to the
gain scores o f the comparison and treatment groups are o f more interest than those for the
population as a whole. However, to assess possible influences on gain-score differences,
it was also o f interest to consider the two groups together. In the following tables,
computations from i-tests on the 89 subjects are displayed. Each table provides
information on one o f the posited modifier variables in comparison to the CCAI gain
scores. Although grade is the only posited modifier variable to indicate a significant
affect on gain score, the critical value for sex does suggest that females may have a slight
advantage over men in adapting cross-culturally. Similarly, gain-score averages for Class
Rank (and possibly for age) also suggest that upper division students have a slight
advantage over freshmen and sophomores towards cross-cultural adaptability. Students
considered to have instrumental motivation also increased their scores four to one over
the students who were considered to have integrative motivation.
120
Table 4.3 Comparison o f CCAI Gain Scores and Modifier Variables (two-sample (-test)
Variable______ Category (n) ______ Mean (StDev) p-value
Sex Female (45) 5.8 (15) 0.09Male (44) 0.3 (15)
Age 18-21(59) 2.6(17) 0.1422-56(30) 4.3 (12)
Class Rank Fresh/Soph (55) 0.9(16) 0.09Jr/Sr/Grad (34) 6.5 (14)
Major Bus/Sci (49) 1(17) 0.17Humanities (40) 6(13)
Time Abroad Yes (45) 4(16) 0.67No (44) 2(15)
Ability High (46) 3(15) 0.42Low (43) 3(16)
Interest High (65) 3 (16) 0.14Low (24) 3 (12)
Motivation Integrative (75) 2(16) 0.14Instrumental (14) 8(12)
Grade . A-B (60) 6(14) 0.02C-E (29) -3(17)
4.4 EXAMINATION OF AMTB DATA
4.4.1 Examination o f AMTB Validity
Lalonde and Gardner (1983) and Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) examined the
AMTB concerning several aspects o f validity. The 1985 study (Lalonde & Gardner)
focused on data collected in six regions o f Canada (both bilingual and unilingual) from
five different grade levels (7-11) for two consecutive years and was concerned with the
relative predictability o f three different criteria by three different composite measures: 1)
Motivation, which refers to the individual’s total drive to learn the second language and
reflects a combination o f effort, desire, and effective reactions toward learning the target
language (p. 404), 2) Integrativeness, which involves a positive and accepting
121
orientation towards the specific target language group and other groups in general (p.
404), and 3) Attitudes Toward the Leamimg Sitiaatiom, which is the sum o f the
individual’s evaluation o f both the teacher and the course (p. 404). These three
composites are o f particular importance to Gardner’s (1979) socio-educational model o f
second language acquisition. According to this model, “Motivation has a direct influence
on second language achievement, whereas the two attitudinal measures have a direct
influence on Motivation which mediates their relationship with second language
achievement” (p. 404-405). Lalonde and Gardner’s findings demonstrated that the three
attitudinal/motivational composites are relatively consistent predictors o f indices of
proficiency in a second language and that, o f the three. Motivation is the best predictor
with 91% o f the coefficients being significant (411).
The 1995 study (Gardner and MacIntyre) focused on four issues concerning
aspects o f validity o f the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery. The first issue dealt with
whether the various subtests assess the attributes they are presumed to measure. A
multitrait/multimethod analysis o f three methods indicate that they do (p. 157). The
second issue focused on the relationship o f the subtests to higher order constructs. A
factor analysis provided empirical support for the higher order constructs o f
Integrativeness, Attitudes Toward the Learning Situation, Language Anxiety, and
Motivation (p. 157). The third issue was concerned with whether the strategy used to
measure effectiveness variables influences their correlations with measures o f
achievement. Their correlations suggested that they did (p. 157). Specifically, their
study directed attention to the following question relating to the validity o f the AMTB:
122
Do the various subscales o f the AMTB measure what they are presumed to measure? (160-162)
With regards to this question, Gardner et al. reported that the subscales measure
what they are intended to measure (construct validity) and they correlate meaningfully
with measures o f second language achievement (predictive validity) (188). In sum,
Lalonde and Gardner (1983) and Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) argue that the AMTB has
considerable construct validity and that it is overall reliable.
4.4.2 Comparison o f Treatment Group and Comparison Group
The f-test analyses computed pre-test scores for each o f the AMTB subscales and
the AMTB composite score showed no significant differences between the two groups. It
should be recalled that the AMTB consists o f thirty-four items, each o f which had a
possible scoring range o f 6 (DEFINITELY TRUE) to 1 (DEFINITELY NOT TRUE).
Thus, total scores on the thirty-four item scale had potential values from thirty-four to
two hundred four. Lower scores indicate that the respondent exhibited less positive
attitudes towards each o f the AMTB subcategories than respondents with higher scores.
The pre-test measure o f the AMTB is represented by the variable AMTB-pre; AMTB-
post represents the post-test. The findings below indicate no significant differences
between the comparison group and the treatment group.
123
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Results of Mests on AMTB Subscales and AMTB Total (pre-test)
Scale Group Mean Min, Max StBev p-value
ATG1 (pre) Comparison 41 26, 50 5 0.42Treatment 42 27,56 7Total 42 26,56 6
IFL1 (pre) Comparison 47 32, 58 6 0.44Treatment 48 35,60 7Total 48 32, 60 7
INTI (pre) Comparison 19 10, 24 3 0.80Treatment 19 12,24 3Total 19 10,24 3
INST1 (pre) Comparison 17 11,24 3 0.93Treatment 17 12, 24 3Total 17 11,24 3
ANX1 (pre) Comparison 11 5,17 3 0.31Treatment 11 5,16 3Total 11 5,17 3
PEI (pre) Comparison 9 3,18 4 0.34Treatment 9 3,17 4Total 9 3,18 4
AMTBl (pre) Comparison 136 94,164 15 0.57Treatment 138 106,168 14Total 137 . 96,168 14
To assess possible treatment-group affects, it was necessary to compare the
changes in the mean scores on each o f the AMTB subscales and the AMTB composite
score. The results o f these analyses are given in table 4.5.
124
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics and Results of /-tests on AMTB Subscales and AMTB Total (gain scores)
Group Mean Min, Max StBev two-sample t p-value
ATGG (gain) Comparison 1 -9, 12 5Treatment 3 -12,20 7 0.16
Total 2 -12, 20 6
IFLG (gain) Comparison -2 -14, 9 6Treatment 2 -10, 15 6 0.005
Total .14 -14, 15 6
ANXG (gain) Comparison -0.17 -5,9 3 0.0002Treatment 3 -6,9 4
Total 2 -6,9 4
INTG (gain) Comparison -2 -12,10 5 0.04Treatment 0.1 -10, 12 4
Total -0.8 -12, 12 4
INSTG (gain) Comparison -1 -12,6 4 0.09Treatment .07 -9,12 4
Total -0.01 -12, 12 4
AMTBG (gain) Comparison -3 -45,26 15 0.001Treatment 8 -23,51 16
Total 3 -45,51 17
In order to determine whether changes in attitude as measured by ATG, EFL,
ANX, INT, INST and the composite score (AMTB) are significant between groups, it
was necessary to preform six two-way f-tests as discussed in section 4.2 above. The gain-
score means in each instance (see Table 4.5 above) were found to be particularly relevant
in that they are all in the anticipated direction. Similar to the means calculated for the
CCAI, treatment group gain scores are consistently higher than those from the
comparison group’s (please see Illustration 4.1 below).
125
Illustration 4.2
Gain of AMTB Subscales and Total
S | Comparison 0 Treatment
As discussed above, mean scores alone do not indicate whether or not these differences
are statistically significant. As a result, one must consider a significance or cut-off level,
which is determined based on a critical value (p-value) o f 0.05 (Nunan 1992, 34). In the
case of this study, p-values indicate that one can be reasonably confident that the mean
scores on IFLG, ANXG, INTG, and AMTBG were drawn from different populations.
The p-values computed for ATGG and INSTG are not significant and indicate that
although treatment means are higher, they cannot be attributed to the treatment itself.
The p-values obtained from IFLG, ANXG, INTG, and the AMTB composite score
strongly support the hypothesis that beginning students o f German who learn about
culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and
statistically significant change in attitude towards language learning as measured by the
AMTB.
126
4.4.3 Comparison o f AMTB Data and Modifier Variables
In the following tables, computations from f-tests on the 89 subjects are displayed.
Each table provides information on one o f the posited modifier variables in comparison to
the AMTB gain scores. None o f the Nests found any statistical difference among the
posited modifier variables.
Table 4.6 Comparison of AMTB Gain Scores and Modifier Variables______________ ______
Category (n) Mean StBev p-value
Sex Female (45) 3 17 0.97Male (44) 3 17
Age 18-24(79) 4 17 0.4325-26 (10) -2 19
Class Rank Fresh/Soph (55) 5 18 0.23Jr/Sr/Grad (34) 0.4 14
Major Bus/Sci (49) 1 16 0.29Humanities (40) 5 17
Time Abroad Yes (45) 3 17 0.98No (44) 3 16
Ability High (46) 1 15 0.28Low (43) 5 19
Interest High (65) 3 18 0.75Low (24) 4 14
Motivation Integrative (75) 3 16 0.82Instrumental (14) 4 20
Grade A-B (60) 3 16 0.99C-D (29) 3 19
4.5 EXAMINATION OF BALLI DATA
4.5.1 Examination o f BALLI Validity
The development of the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory came as a
direct response to needs expressed by teachers and researchers for a well-constructed,
easily obtainable instrument on students’ understandings o f the language learning
127
process. It is the result o f a thorough survey o f previous research on investigating the
relationship between student attitudes and second language achievement (Horwitz 1985).
BALLI items were derived from frequently occurring comments drawn from an extensive
collection o f interviews with language learners and teachers (Horwitz 1985), thereby
contributing to the validity o f the instrument (Kern 1995, p. 74). Christison and Krahnke
(1986) have pointed out methodological problems o f objectivity, sampling, and validity
inherent in all questionnaires used to examine learner beliefs and attitudes, including the
B ALLI. They claim that open-ended interviews with a structured set o f topics yield more
valid findings, particularly when examining multi-cultural students’ perceptions of
language study (p. 62). However, without the BALLI, neither this present study nor
studies by Mantle-Bromley (1995) or Kern (1995) could have compared findings with
those o f Horwitz (1988). In addition, the comparison o f teachers’ and students’ beliefs in
any o f the studies using the BALLI would be rendered unsystematic without a common
list o f statements to which each group responded (Kern 1995, 82).
Christison and Krahnke’s claims relate to a problem confronting many researchers
who wish to guard against threats to external and internal validity simultaneously. The
conflict occurs because the two types o f validity can be mutually exclusive in that
measures to strengthen internal validity often weaken external validity and vice versa
(Nunan 1992, p. 15). Beretta, for example, argues that,
128
Internal validity has to do with factors which may directly affect outcomes, while external validity is concerned with generalisability. If all variables, such as treatments and samplings o f subjects, are controlled, then we might say that laboratory conditions pertain and that the experiment is more likely to be internally valid. However, what occurs under such conditions may not occur in typical circumstances, and the question arises as to how far we may generalize from the results. Beretta (1986,297)
Kern (1995) also points out that the large size o f a student population preculdes the
possibility o f interviewing individual subjects (p. 82-82). Because the results from the
BALLI in this present study can be compared with Horwitz (1988), Kern (1995), and
Mantle-Bromley (1995), whatever sacrifice in validity might exist is considered an
acceptable trade-off for the ability to address certain research questions more effectively.
4.5.2 Comparison ofPre- and Post-test Results
Unlike data from the CCAI and the AMTB, the BALLI data was not scored but
rather tallied to give frequencies. This is because the data obtained from the BALLI
show how often each variable is present in the data, not how much. Due to space
limitations, students’ and instructors’ responses to the BALLI items are presented in
Appendix F. This section will summarize highlights o f the data rather than treat
exhaustively each BALLI item.
As stated above, the BALLI contains 34 items and is designed to survey student
beliefs in five areas: 1) the difficulty of language learning (items 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 24, 28); 2)
foreign language aptitude (items 1, 2 ,1 0 ,1 5 , 22, 29, 32, 33, 34); 3) the nature of
language learning (items 8 ,1 1 ,1 6 ,2 0 ,2 5 ,2 6 ); 4) strategies of communication and
learning (items 7, 9 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 7 ,1 8 ,1 9 , 21); and 5) learner motivations and expectations
(items 23,27, 30,31).
129
Concerning the first category {the difficulty of language learning), several
interesting results were found. Pre-test results from the BALLI showed that 85% of all
subjects believed that German was a fairly difficult language to learn (item 4). At the
time of the post-test, 41% of all subjects had changed their opinion in favor o f the belief
that German was a fairly easy language to learn (item 4). Over half o f all subjects
believed that German is structured in the same way as English (item 5). This belief
remained the same in post test results. In terms o f their general performance, students
were very optimistic in both the pre- and post-test results. For example, 85% of the
subjects believed that they would ultimately leam to speak German very well (item 6).
Post-test results also indicated that 85% of the subjects believed that they would
ultimately leam to speak German very well. In the same subgroup, 81% believed that if
one studied one hour a day it would take five years or less to become fluent (item 14).
This same optimism appeared in the next section (foreign language aptitude).
For example, in item 15 (I have foreign language aptitude), 65% at least tended to agree
with this statement. In addition, 99% of the subjects believed that “everyone can leam to
speak a foreign language” (item 34). However, only 33% felt that Americans were good
at learning foreign languages.
In the next section (the nature of language learning), over half o f the subjects
indicated that “it is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to speak a foreign
language (item 8). In item 24, over half indicated that learning a foreign language is
different from learning other school subjects.
130
In the final section {learner motivations and expectations), 92% o f the subjects
indicated that learning German would help them get a good job (item 27); in comparison,
only 66% indicated that they are learning German so that they can get to know speakers
of German better.
The data presented in Appendix F, however, must be interpreted in the light of
several important limitations. The first relates to the validity o f assessing beliefs with a
questionnaire, as discussed in the previous section. The second has to do with inferences
about teachers’ influence on students’ beliefs. In cases where there is a shift in student
opinion, it is possible to see whether the shift is toward consistency with the instructors’
responses or not, but it is not possible to make any definitive statements about causal
relationships between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. The third limitation has to do with
the generalizability o f the findings. The results reported here pertain to the treatment and
comparison groups; extrapolations to other populations remain limited to other studies
which have used this instrument (see data from Horwitz and Kern also presented in
Appendix F).
4.6 SUMMARY
The quantitative results strongly support the hypothesis that participating
in a process- and learner-centered classroom has a positive effect on the attitudes of
beginning students o f German. In the case o f the present study, this positive effect was
found not only in relation to attitudes towards cross-cultural adaptability, but also in
terms o f a positive attitude towards foreign language learning itself.
131
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facts are generally over esteemed. For most practical purposes, a thing is what men think it is. When they judged the earth flat, it was flat. As long as men
thought slavery tolerable, tolerable it was. We live down here among shadows, shadows among shadows.
John Updike, The Statesman Buchanan,
The first section o f this chapter restates and summarizes the initial obj ectives and
procedures o f this study. The following sections examine the findings that were reported
in Chapter Three in relation to the research questions and discuss the findings in the
context o f implications for foreign language teaching. The final sections give suggestions
for possible future research and summarizes this entire project.
5.1 OBJECTIVES AND SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
The primary goal o f this study was to investigate the claim stated in the
professional literature that teaching culture in the foreign language classroom serves not
only to motivate foreign language students, but also promotes cross-cultural adaptability.
It was postulated that a process- and learner-centered approach to culture learning would
be more effective in the promotion o f cross-cultural adaptability and positive attitudes
towards language learning than an information-acquisition approach to culture learning.
To test these claims, instruments thought to measure cross-cultural adaptability, attitudes
towards language learning, and students’ beliefs about language learning were utilized.
Each o f these three instruments were chosen specifically to address the contextual and
conceptual needs o f this study. Paradigmatic and methodological issues regarding the
strengths and weaknesses o f quantitative versus qualitative research were also raised. An
132
argument was presented for the combination o f these two methodological approaches in
order to provide a more comprehensive analysis o f the data. In the first week of the
study, a pre-test was administered using the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory
(Kelley and Meyers, 1991), the Attitudes Measurement and Test Battery (Gardner, 1985),
and the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (Horwitz, 1988). The questionnaires
were completed by 103 students o f first-semester German at the University o f Arizona.
The 103 students were enrolled in four sections o f German, two o f which were used as a
comparison group and two o f which were used as a treatment group. Following the
initial administration o f the measures, this researcher taught five cultural units designed
to promote cross-cultural awareness to the treatment group. This same group was
assigned (among other things) a culture-portfolio, which was used to assess subjects’
development o f understanding with regards to an individually chosen topic on German
culture. The cultural portfolio was structured for the students to encourage multi-level
processing o f a topic (e.g. over the sixteen week semester, each student needed to
complete a portfolio outline (step one), a portfolio draft (step two), a portfolio draft
rewrite (step three), and a portfolio class presentation (step four)). To create greater
parity between the comparison and treatment groups, this researcher also taught five
strategy lessons to the comparison group, and assigned to these same subjects a strategy
portfolio (please see section 3.5 for a more detailed discussion o f these two groups).
Following the fifteen-week treatment period, a post-test was administered to both groups
using the same instruments as in the pre-test. This set o f questionnaires was completed
133
by 89 Students (the fourteen students who did not complete the post-tests were dropped
from the study). Of these remaining 89 students, 42 were in the comparison group and 47
were in the treatment group. The pre-test/post-test data were then used to obtain gain
scores, which were examined in relation to the hypothesis and five research questions.
Data were computer analyzed using the MINITAB software program (MINITAB, Inc.,
1996), to determine possible answers to the research questions which guided this study.
The specific hypotheses and the research question are repeated here:
Hypothesis:
Beginning students o f German who learn about culture via a process- and learner-centered approach will demonstrate a measurable and statistically significant change in cross-cultural adaptability and in attitude towards language and culture learning compared to beginning students o f German who learn about culture via an information-acquisition approach.
Research Questions:
° Are the gain scores o f students in the treatment group (as measured by the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) and the Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)) different from the gain scores of students in the comparison group?
° Do variables such as age, sex, year in school, major, previous language study, whether or not subject had spent time abroad, self-rated language- learning ability, interest, motivation (integrative or instrumental) or parental encouragement influence gain-score differences as analyzed in question one above?
° Do students enter German 101 with misconceptions, mistaken beliefs or both (as measured by the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)) that could cause frustration in the language-learning process?
° Do students' attitudes (as measured by the BALLI) change after one semester o f language learning?
134
° What information from the qualitative data (e.g. student’s writtenstatements regarding the culture and strategy lessons, and the student and teacher interviews) can be used to better understand the quantitative data analyses?
The next section entails a detailed discussion o f the findings, which were
presented in chapter four, and a discussion o f implications for culture teaching, teacher
professional development, and future research.
5.2 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS
5.2.1 Cross-Cultural Adaptability
The first research question asked whether or not the gain scores o f students in the
treatment group (as measured by the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCA!) will
be different from the gain scores o f students in the comparison group. As reported in
section 4.3, statistical differences were found in gain scores for subscales
Flexibility/Openness (FO) and Personal Autonomy (PA), and the CCAI composite score.
The gain scores o f the two groups for subscales Emotional Resilience (ER) and
Perceptual Acuity (PAC) were not statistically different.
FlexttoiliHy/Opemmess
Of the three categories which showed a statistically significant difference in favor
of the treatment group, FO (p < 01) is particularly interesting for this study because it is
this subscale which relates most directly to the theory and goals o f the experimental
culture lessons and the culture portfolio. The theory upon which a process- and learner-
centered approach is based comes in part from Freire’s problem-posing approach to
education and in part from humanities and reconceptualist methodology (for a more
135
detailed discussion o f these theories, please refer to section 3.5.2). The goals which
underlie both the culture lessons and the culture portfolio are 1) to emphasize the
ambiguity o f culture and the lengthy process involved in learning about culture; and 2) to
focus on techniques o f enquiry and on the process o f learning about culture rather than
facts about the target culture. The FO scale items relate to these goals in that they assess
the extent to which a person is tolerant o f a variety o f ways o f thinking and behaving.
Specifically, Kelley and Meyers (1991) write that:
The FO scale items assess the extent to which a person enjoys a different cultural experience. Open, flexible people like diversity and have a positive attitude toward the unfamiliar. The items deal with responses to people, situations, and experiences different from those which one normally encounters, (p. A-5)
The culture lessons and the culture portfolio were both designed to promote the
learning o f skills which make up the Flexibility/Openness construct. For example, the
experimental cultural lessons strived to develop a learner-centered approach to culture
learning by capitalizing on students’ cultural backgrounds rather than attempting to
override or negate them through cultural facts. In addition, the culture lessons were
designed not to teach specific information about Germans or Germany, but rather to
provide a non-threatening environment for students to slowly become accustomed to the
idea that their culture and the target culture are made up o f many lifestyles, languages,
cultures, and points o f view. Similarly, the culture portfolio incorporated a variety of
different viewpoints through its analysis o f multiple sources and by encouraging learners
to relate this new information to their own culture. In this regard, both the culture lessons
136
and the portfolio helped learners improve three sets o f skills that are related to the
Flexibility/Openness construct: 1) separating facts from cultural assumptions and beliefs
about those facts; 2) shifting perspective; and 3) differentiating between personal
discomfort and intellectual disagreement (Fried 1993). Lankard (1994) also suggests that
exercises which encourage the learning o f these skills help students to understand the
value o f another person’s frame o f reference in interpreting information:
With increased experience and self-disclosure, students begin to distinguish among facts, beliefs, values, and personal experience, learning when to challenge and disagree and when to exercise understanding and acceptance (p. 2).
Another significant point that these findings bring up is that teaching culture in
order to promote cross-cultural adaptability embodies a perspective rather than a
curriculum. Teachers must consider their learners’ cultural identities and be aware of not
only their own potential biases but also the cultural biases found in textbooks. Teachers
can take several approaches to integrate and develop a multicultural perspective to culture
teaching. Most important is the promotion o f activities that highlight similarities and
differences o f students’ cultures and the target cultures. Problem-posing, as outlined by
Friere, is an excellent strategy for developing new perspective on cultures and lifestyles.
Thus, the FO results indicate that students are more likely to express flexibility/openness
traits when process- and learner-centered approaches to culture learning are incorporated
in the curriculum than when lessons are oriented toward information acquisition.
137
■Personal. Autonomy
Treatment group gain scores for PA (Personal Autonomy) were also statistically
greater than comparison group gain scores (p < .05). This scale assesses the extent to
which someone has evolved a personal system o f values and beliefs which he or she feels
comfortable and confident enough to act on amidst diversity. In this respect, one o f the
key characteristics o f the PA scale is the concept o f empowerment. The more a person
feels empowered or self-confident in cross-cultural situations, the greater is his/her ability
to tolerate a condition o f fluctuation and change outside o f him or herself (Kelley &
Meyers 1991, p. A -l 1). Both the culture lessons and the culture portfolio enhance this
sense o f empowerment in that they portray culture learning as strategic. When faced with
a conflict in relation to the target culture, specific knowledge o f that culture may or may
not allow learners to manage their uncertainties. However, students in the treatment
group were exposed to the “process” o f culture in very real ways. For example, treatment
group learners were able to readdress their views in the portfolio over and over again
through the series o f rewrites they completed. In the experimental culture lessons,
students were given many opportunities to question and rearticulate ideas, which also
highlighted the notion that culture learning involves a range o f communicative tasks and
that these tasks are strategic in nature.
Additionally, the combined mean gain scores for all dimensions o f cross-cultural
adaptability were significantly higher (p<05) for the treatment group than for the
comparison group, providing further support for the hypothesis.
138
Gains scores for the comparison group were not only lower than the treatment
group’s, they were actually negative. Thus, without teachers’ efforts to focus on a
process- and learner centered approach to culture learning (i.e. one that explores what
learners already know and the process they need to go through to develop multi-cultural
understandings), students attitudes may literally become more ethnocentric (the
comparison group’s mean gain score on ER, FOG, PA, and CCAI were
-0.5, -1.2, -0.36, and -1.29 respectively). By demonstrating that teaching culture through
an information-acquisition approach does not affect the Flexibility/Openness construct as
measured by the CCAI, this study also strengthens the argument that classroom teachers
can make a difference in their students’ attitudes toward people who think and act
differently than they do. From the data presented here, foreign language teachers may
infer that changes in attitudes towards cross-cultural situations do not necessarily occur
on their own. In fact, because the thrust o f communicative language teaching is so
strong, it is likely that the development o f our students’ capacity for empathy, their
understanding o f others ’ experience, emotions and rationality are in great danger of being
ignored. Even if a teacher’s sole consideration were “communicative competence”, it is
evident from the results presented here that if the goals o f language teaching are to instill
an ability to communicate with people from other cultures at anything beyond an
elementary and extremely basic level, teachers will need to begin looking at language
learning from a much broader perspective. Additionally, i f language teachers want to
claim a genuine contribution to learners’ education as citizens o f mature civilizations, the
139
focus will have to shift towards rather than away from assessment o f learners’ changes in
attitude and insight into other cultures, and their own (Byram 1989, p. 13).
This last point o f view, however, is not synonymous with rejecting the notion of
teaching for communication. These results do not propose that we reject a learner goal o f
communicative competence, although this researcher agrees with Byram (1989) that
communicative competence is often translated simply to mean the passing o f messages
(p. 13). Communication should not be looked at solely from a “utilitarian” argument
which promises some future profitable application o f language learning. The prime
function o f language learning is interpersonal communication, usually in the form of
speech. Yet, the language o f the communicative classroom is often “rehearsal” language
(Hawkins 1981), which does not have the force o f communicating information in the
spontaneous way that a learner- and process-centered classroom does. When this
definition o f communicative competence is combined with an information-acquisition
approach to culture teaching, the essence o f language is misrepresented, which is a
disservice to our learners (Byram 1989, p. 13). Thus, this study suggests that it is when
the communicative classroom is combined with a process- and learner-centered approach
to culture teaching, that we provide an aspect o f a learner’s development which is unique
to language teaching.
140
5.2.2 Attitudes Towards Language Learning
The first research question also asked whether or not the gain scores o f students in
the treatment group (as measured by the Attitudes Measurement Test Battery (AMTB)
will be different from the gain scores o f students in the comparison group. As reported in
section 4.4, statistically significant differences were found in gain scores for subscales
INFL (Interest in Foreign Langages), ANX (Anxiety), INT (Integrative Orientation), and
the AMTB composite score. The gain scores for subscales ATG (Attitude Toward
German Speakers) and INST (Instrumental Orientation) were not significantly different.
Of the four categories which showed statically significant differences in favor o f
the treatment group, IFL (p < 01) is particularly interesting for this study because it is this
subscale which is the most supportive o f the conclusions drawn in the previous section.
For example, the findings with regards to IFL suggest that when students are given an
opportunity to better understand culture, their interest towards foreign language learning
increases. Students’ gain scores from the comparison group were negative, suggesting
that students’ interest in language learning actually decreases when culture learning is
oriented towards facts and figures.
A process- and learner-centered approach to culture teaching seeks, undeniably,
social change in that it reflects the belief that change is best effected through social
contact and social practice. However, change o f this kind would not be possible if
students were not in favor o f it. In other words, the approach discussed here works to
break down barriers only in that it frees students to do what they are already interested in
141
doing. For example, recent research by Roberts (1992) reveals that first-year language
students’ positive attitude toward foreign languages is overwhelmingly based on the
notion that while fluency is important, it is not an end in itself; “rather,” as one student
puts it, “understanding basic cultural and ethnic differences should be the principal goal”
(quoted in Roberts 1992, p. 277). Likewise, a male student with two years o f FL study
wrote that “learning a foreign language refines us. It helps us to shape our values [by]
considering others”(quoted in Roberts 1992, p. 278) . Roberts’ study on attitudes of
entering university freshmen towards foreign language study, also revealed that of the
benefits to be derived from the study of foreign languages, “understanding culture” was,
without a doubt, the most common argument category (mentioned in 80.6% of the student
essays). Roberts also notes that culture outranked the second most common argument,
“business” (47.7%), by more than thirty percentage points. Additionally, “understanding
culture” was also ranked first in number o f times mentioned across all demographic
categories (p. 277).
In terms o f this current study, BALLI results reveal similarly that the majority of
subjects (60% (from the BALLI pre-test)) believed that it is necessary to know the
foreign culture in order to speak a foreign language (see question 8 in Appendix D). By
the end o f this study, there was a 27% increase in this belief, o f which only 9% is
attributed to the comparison group. Another aspect o f Roberts ’ study which helps us to
understand the IFL findings is that although some o f her subjects appeared to define
“culture” in terms o f facts concerning historical figures and observable cultural traditions
142
such as holidays, food, and dress, far more mentioned “understanding culture” in
conjunction with world view and total way o f life (p. 278). Arguments were made for a
better understanding o f both global and domestic cultural diversity through foreign
language study (p. 278).
Thus, an information-acquisition approach to culture teaching probably hinders
students’ desire to explore the areas o f culture that interest them most. This is an
important point because if we justify language teaching and motivate learners solely, or
even just mainly, by fulfilling the needs o f communicative competence, we run the risk of
losing our students’ greatest asset - motivation.
Treatment group gain scores for ANX (Anxiety) were also significantly greater
than comparison group gain scores (p < .001). This scale assess the extent to which a
person feels anxious in the language learning environment. Some argue that mild anxiety
facilitates the learning process (Brown 1987), although, no one has yet been able to offer
a satisfactory operational definition o f “mild,” nor o f procedures for ensuring that such
“mild” anxiety as might be provoked does not become acute anxiety (Richards 1996,
219). Nevertheless, it is commonly argued that anxiety is detrimental to effective
learning and that the first task for the language teacher is to reduce anxiety in the learner.
Because o f the complexity o f issues associated with affective factors in the learning
process, it is difficult to say exactly why ANX gain scores decreased slightly for the
comparison group. One interesting point, however, is that gain scores for the comparison
group with regards to this scale decreased by only two tenths o f a percent. Thus, it is not
143
appropriate to claim that an information-acquisition approach actually increases anxiety.
Potential causes o f increased anxiety in both ESL and foreign language classes include
not providing a silent period, giving direct corrections, etc. (Richard-Amato1996).
Classroom observations, however, did not reveal that comparison group and treatment
group teachers were paying attention to their students’ affective needs differently.
Treatment group gain scores for INT (Integrative Orientation) were also
significantly different from comparison group gain scores (p < .05). This scale roughly
assess the extent to which a person desires to integrate and identify with speakers of
German. The studies o f French classes in Canada done by Gardner and Lambert (1959),
and Gardner, Smyth, Clement, and Gliksman (1976) all conclude that integrative
motivation is generally stronger than instrumental motivation in predicting French
proficiency. In addition, Bernard Spolsky (1969) found that integrative motivation, as
determined by a questionnaire that indirectly assessed attitudes toward the target
language group, is among the strong predictors o f proficiency in ESL students.
Additionally, the combined mean gain scores for all dimensions o f Attitudes
Motivation Test Eatery were significantly higher (pc.01) for the treatment group than for
the comparison group, providing further support for the hypothesis.
5.2.3 Modifier Variables
Except for the CCAI and grade, none o f the Mests for either the CCAI or the
AMTB found any significant difference among the posited modifier variables (as
measured by the PDS). What emerges clearly from this finding is that regardless of a
144
person’s gender, age, previous language learning experiences, etc., it is a learner- and
process-centered approach that is essential i f we want to promote positive attitudes
towards language learning and the development o f multicultural perspectives. A focus on
the learner’s culture appears to be, thus, an excellent strategy for developing new
perspectives and motivating learners from the widest o f backgrounds. In other words, it
is the treatment o f each learner as an individual with something special to contribute to
the outcome o f a lesson and about his/her culture which appears to enable a learner’s
acceptance o f the similarities and differences o f others.
The finding regarding grade, however, is difficult to interpret. Although grade is
the only posited modifier variable to indicate a significant affect on gain score, the critical
value for sex does suggest that females may have a slight advantage over men in adapting
cross-culturally. Similarly, gain-score averages for Class Rank (and possibly for age)
also suggest that upper division students have a slight advantage over freshmen and
sophomores towards cross-cultural adaptability. Students considered to have
instrumental motivation also increased their scores four to one over the students who
were considered to have integrative motivation.
5.2.4 Beliefs About Language Learning
Research questions three and four asked whether or not students enter German
101 with misconceptions, mistaken beliefs or both that could cause frustration in the
language-learning process (research question three) and whether or not students' attitudes
change after one semester o f language learning (research question four). To answer these
145
two questions, this section will discuss the BALLI pre-test results and BALLI gain
scores. As stated in section 3.6.3.4, the BALLI is comprised o f five belief-related
categories o f language learning: 1) The Difficulty o f Language Learning; 2) Foreign
Language Aptitude; 3) The Nature o f Language Learning; 4) Strategies o f
Communication and Learning; and 5) Learner Motivations and Expectations. Each o f
these categories will be discussed separately.
5.2.4.1 The Difficulty o f Language Learning
Students’ responses to questions in this category appear to be fairly accurate. In
addition, any shifts that did take place towards a new belief (as measured in the BALLI
post-test), appeared to take place fairly evenly between the treatment and comparison
groups. For example, a relatively high percentage (61%) o f the students indicated on the
BALLI pre-test that German is a language o f medium difficulty (question 4). A lesser but
still significant number o f students (24%) believed that German is a difficult language to
learn, and only a small percentage (15%) believed that German was either an easy or very
easy language to learn. Thus, it appears that the majority o f students entering German
101 have fairly clear perceptions regarding the difficulty o f the task ahead o f them
(especially if one compares learning German to learning Russian or Japanese, which
students in this study could have studied in order to fulfill their four-semester foreign-
language requirement). In terms o f a shift in belief regarding the difficulty o f learning
German, forty-three percent o f all the students changed their belief in favor o f German as
an easy language to learn. This shift was also very consistent between both groups
(treatment: 25%, comparison: 19%).
146
In terms o f language structure (question 5), only seven percent o f the students felt
that German was structured in the same way as English. Again, the maj ority o f students
who answered this question appeared to be aware that German is not always structured
like English, which is significant considering most o f the students in this investigation
had never studied German before.
Students’ answers with regards to question six, however, are probably not that
accurate. For this question, fifty percent o f the students indicated that they felt that they
would ultimately learn to speak German very well (In Mantle-Bromley’ s 1995 study,
which also used the BALLI, the same percentage o f seventh graders indicated that they
too would ultimately learn to speak their foreign language well). Although this may not
be accurate, it is encouraging to know that foreign language learners enter their
classrooms with a high level o f optimism and/or enthusiasm. It is also encouraging to
note that along with this high number o f students believing that they will eventually learn
to speak German well, there is an equally high number o f students who indicated that
they are aware o f the considerable amount o f time it will take to achieve this goal. For
example, nearly to sixty percent o f the students in this study indicated that they would
need between three and five years (or longer) to accomplish this goal. In contrast, sixty-
nine percent o f Mantle-Bromley’s seventh graders (1995) believed that it is possible to
become fluent in their foreign language two years or less. Thus, i f one compares the
results from this study to Mantle-Bromley’s, it appears that college freshmen’s beliefs
about the difficulty o f language learning are much more accurate than the beliefs of
seventh graders.
147
5.2.4.2 Foreign Language Aptitude
Responses to question in this section also indicate that students in this study have
fairly accurate and positive beliefs about language learning. For example, only nine
percent o f the students believed that some people are bom with a special language
learning ability (question 2), and only eight percent strongly agreed that they personally
had this ability (question 15). This is important because this suggests that although a
relatively high percentage o f students believe that they will ultimately leam to speak
German well (question 6), the majority o f these students believe that it is not a natural
aptitude alone that will enable them to achieve their language learning success.
Similarly, students’ responses indicate that only fifteen percent believed that women are
better language learners than men (question 22), and only eight percent believed that
science and math majors are poor language learners (question 29), These responses are
consistent with the findings from question two that students find natural aptitude less of a
factor in language learning success than other possible influences.
Overall, students’ responses to questions in this category remained fairly
consistent and rarely changed more than five percentage points (plus or minus) over the
fifteen-week treatment period. One exception, though, occurred in terms o f students’
beliefs about the importance o f previous language learning experience (question 10). A
sixteen percent change occurred in favor o f the belief that previous language learning is
beneficial when trying to leam a new language . Perhaps this is because students felt
that their peers who had previously studied Spanish, French, etc. were doing better than
148
their peers who had not. Thus, after fifteen weeks o f language study, students are perhaps
more likely to see previous language study as an important factor in language learning
success.
5 .2 4.3 The Nature o f Language Learning
Again, gain scores for the treatment and comparison groups were fairly evenly
distributed and it does not appear that one group was at a significant advantage over the
other in terms beliefs about language. For example, there was an equal shift in opinion
towards neutrality (-13% for the treatment group vs. -13% for the comparison group) that
culture learning is an important ingredient in language learning (question 8). Gain scores
on question sixteen (Learning German is mostly a matter o f learning a lot o f new
vocabulary words) were also similar for both groups and do not reveal anything of
particular interest. Overall gain scores on question sixteen, however, are interesting, Pre
test results, for example, indicate that fifty-nine percent o f the all the subjects believed
that learning German was mostly a matter learning a lot o f new vocabulary words. Post-
test results, however, indicate a thirty-two percent overall shift away from this belief,
indicating that after fifteen weeks of language learning, students are less likely to view
language learning as solely an exercise in increasing one’s vocabulary. In other words,
students in this study began to see the complex nature o f language learning as a result o f
their fifteen-week exposure to language learning.
Responses to question twenty (Learning German is mostly a matter o f learning a
lot o f grammar rules), however, contradict the findings from the previous question
149
(question 16). On this question, post-test scores show a twenty-one percent increase
overall in the belief that learning German is mostly a matter o f learning a lot o f grammar
rules. Again, there was no significant difference between either groups’ change in
opinion, which may suggest that regardless o f a classroom’s focus on culture, students in
this study still saw grammar as an increasingly important factor. This finding is
somewhat disturbing in that in appears that students have simply shifted their opinion
away from vocabulary learning as the overriding factor in learning a foreign language,
and now believe that it is grammar that is the most important factor in learning a foreign
language.
5.2.4 4 Strategies o f Communication and Learning
In this category, students again indicated fairly accurate beliefs about language
learning and most o f the shifts that did occur, were consistent between groups. The most
encouraging set o f responses in this category come from question nine (You shouldn’t
say anything in German until you can say it correctly). Fortunately, the majority o f the
students in the pre- and post-tests indicated that they disagreed with this belief (96% on
the pre-test and 97% on the post-test), which indicates that both groups felt relatively free
to speak German even if they knew that they were going to make a mistake. The one
question in this category which did result in a shift over the fifteen-week treatment period
was question seventeen (It is important to repeat and practice a lot). Here, students made
a radical shift away from the belief that this is important. For example, seventy-five
percent o f the respondents on question seventeen no longer strongly agreed or agreed that
150
repeating is the key to success in language learning. Unfortunately, i f a student does not
respond positively to a question on the BALLI, it is not possible for a student to write
down what it is that they believe. Thus, we know that after the fifteen-week treatment,
students were less likely to believe that repeating is important, but we do now know
exactly what it is that they now find important.
5.2.4.5 Learner Motivations and Expectations
This category was the least consistent in terms o f overall pre-/post-test scores, but
in terms o f changes between groups, both groups were again very consistent. For
example, on question twenty-seven, students shifted towards neutrality (7%), indicating
that they were no longer sure whether or not learning German would help them to get a
good job, on question twenty-three students became more negative (21%), indicating that
they see little opportunities for using their knowledge o f German, on question thirty there
was less disagreement that Americans think it is important to learn foreign languages
(15%), and on question thirty-one, there were absolutely no shifts at all.
5.2.4.6 Summary
In general, it appears that students’ responses on the BALLI tended to become
more neutral in their beliefs about language learning over the fifteen-week semester. This
tendency is similar to Mantle-Bromley’s findings (1995) that students’ attitudes towards
language learning may actually become less positive after the first semester (p. 383).
Although the shift in attitude was not as great for responses in this study as for responses
in Mantle-Bromley’s study, these results do indicate that students’ beliefs about language
151
learning must be addressed. This researcher strongly recommends that teachers design
and implement lessons on language learning that are more in line with their students
needs and desires. Research then needs to be conducted to determine if such lessons can,
indeed, alter students’ beliefs and perhaps increase student retention in language courses.
As Oxford & Shearin (1994) argue, foreign language teachers have the weighty
responsibility o f convincing their students that language study is more than a college
entrance requirement and more than merely a mental exercise or a clever way to speak in
code with one’s peers. However, as indicated in section 5.3.2, students, for the most part,
are aware o f this and do see language learning as an opportunity to gain a variety o f new
insights (many o f which are culture related). Thus, what is important is that teachers
realize that their beliefs are not necessarily the same as their students, and that the way in
which student and teacher belief systems interact may actually cause students to become
more negative in their attitudes towards language study. Awareness o f the needs that
students bring to the classroom (as assessed by the BALLI) can help us and our students
become realistic in setting goals, and in providing a democratic relationship between
students and teacher, and students and learning. Section 5.3 outlines one possible
approach for initiating such a classroom environment.
5.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Because teaching communication, rather than teaching language per se, is one of
the stated goals of communicative language teaching, it is particularly important for us to
examine the degree to which our teaching is communicatively relevant in students’ lives.
152
In putting together this present study, one o f the outcomes was what this researcher
considers to be a post-communicative model o f language teaching. The following section
describes this theoretical model, which embraces communicative methodologies and
incorporates insights acquired from considering other theories o f discourse.
5.3.1 The Model
This model seeks a principled way in which communicative language teaching
can be integrated with a study o f target-language cultures and the cultures o f the learners,
and, in particular, within the curriculum framework o f practical classroom management,
content, and evaluation.
Most importantly, teachers interested in broadening their repertoire o f
communicative tasks already have at their disposal a wide range o f publications and
materials to choose from (Legutke, p. 71). For example, the language-teaching
profession has experienced a proliferation o f materials offering games, problem-solving
or information-gap activities, role-plays, simulations or scenarios to meet the demands of
communicative language teaching. If we look at communicative tasks featured in these
publications from the perspective o f competencies (i.e. grammatical competence
(concern with the mastery o f grammatically correct language, with language code), socio-
linguistic competence (concern with what is socially accepted language, i.e. with
decisions about appropriateness o f language in context), discourse competence (concern
with the ability to decode, negotiate, and encode coherent written and/or spoken text), and
strategic competence (concern with the knowledge and ability o f how to use language to
153
communicate intended meaning and how to repair breakdowns that occur in
communication)) (Canale and Swain), we can see that the communicative objectives
pertain to highly conventionalized usages o f language, most o f which can be taught quite
straightforwardly. One reason for this is that Canale’s description o f the components o f
communicative competence are extremely helpful in providing teachers with a framework
for decision-making and selection, and in offering guidelines for designing
communicative tasks. Nevertheless, communicative competence, as Canale describes it,
is somewhat limiting because it does not include the concept o f cross-cultural
competence. Canale’s competencies highlight the need for learners to understand when
an utterance is systematically different from the one frequently assigned by native
speakers o f the target language (socio-linguistic competence) or when speech act
strategies are inappropriately transferred from LI to L2 (discourse competence) (Thomas,
p. 99). However, they do not underscore a need to understand interactions which involve
cross-culturally different perceptions. In order for learners to understand this aspect of
language, they need opportunities to refer to cultural values and vestiges through their
own eyes and past experiences. The language teacher, however, is in the unfortunate
position o f having to be prescriptive, at least to a degree. That is, in so far as language
teachers attempt to give learners grammatical, sociolinguistic competence, etc., taking
note of Hymes’ (1972) and Canale and Swain’s (1980) definitions, language teachers also
need to begin providing students with opportunities for acquiring a broader range of
socio-cultural competencies.
154
In addition to understanding functional aspects o f language, students also need to
be exposed to sociocultural aspects o f culture in a communicative environment. This
model is thus a natural (and necessary) extension o f the communicative methodologies
with which language teachers are already familiar. What this new model offers, however,
is that (valuable though Canale’s descriptions have been), such concepts o f discourse and
culture are limited. As it stands, almost all applications o f communicative competence
focus on relationships between form and function. In other words, the focus is on how
lexico-grammatical forms come to take on particular meanings in different contexts,
which is only one particular way o f exploring how meaning is created in language use
(Pennycook, p. 118). The goal o f broadening the application o f current communicative
methodologies is to give the language teaching profession a model o f communicative-
language teaching that does not limit social constructs o f culture to functions o f language
(i.e. the relationship between structures and their contexts) or one-way transmission o f
information about people and about their general attitudes and world views (Kramsch, p.
205). Communicative competence has opened up a number o f important dimensions for
language teaching, however by its focus on the relationship between language forms and
a limited sense of context (immediate surroundings, speakers’ intentions, background
knowledge, or conversational rules), it also tends to narrow our understanding of the
larger social, cultural and ideological forces that influence our lives (Pennycook, p. 121).
Because communicative language teaching is particularly good at highlighting
socio-pragmatic aspects o f language through the use o f authentic materials and the
155
negotiation o f meaning, it provides learners with an opportunity to (1) indicate that they
understand or do not understand, or that they want the conversation to continue, (2) help
each other to express ideas, and (3) make corrections when necessary to what is said or
how it is said (Richards, Platt and Platt, p. 244). The communicative classroom, in its
attempt to portray language and meaning within and through the abstracts o f linguistics,
leaves broader areas o f culture and social contexts to be studies as an adjunct and outside
of the constraints o f communicative competence. As a result, the social constructs and
artifacts o f our learners’s cultures and those o f the target-culture are rarely “cussed and
discussed” in a communicative sense. Language teachers, however, do have at their
disposal a means for including cultural competence into the language curriculum. In the
same way that the use o f authentic material has led to a greater awareness o f language
functions and the socio-pragmatic aspects o f language, so could a process o f negotiating
cultural meaning lead to a broader application o f communicative methodologies. It is
through the process o f negotiating meaning that the fundamental values o f our learners’
cultures and those o f the target culture should be made available for inspection.
Teachers rely on linguistics to underlie their understandings o f syntax,
pragmalinguistic aspects of language and phonology, and they rely on the discipline of
pragmatics and sociolinguistics to underlie their understandings o f the functions of
language. These disciplines in combination with the theories o f communicative-language
teaching have made it possible for teachers to see that for social interactions, as well as
for the interaction within written texts, meaning is relational. For students to acquire
156
cultural competence, teaching o f target-culture artifacts and social constructs will also
have to be viewed through negotiated interactions.
To better understand this model, it would be possible to arrange the several
positions above along a continuum. At one end, a very linguistically based view of
language teaching where discourse merely refers to the way sentences are connected
together, moving gradually through positions increasing the importance o f context, until
we arrive at a position whereby language use is determined by the diverse areas of social
life (Pennycook, p. 133). The following illustration also presents the above discussion in
a similar fashion:
Illustration 5.1 Prescriptiveness in Teaching
101
World Knowledge
Socio-cultural KnowledgeDiscourse and Socio-linguistic Knowledge
Linguistic Knowledge
157
This illustration indicates level o f prescriptiveness. The closer the classroom
objective is to the center, the more prescriptive we can be. While communicative
language teaching offers an extremely valuable framework o f analysis for understanding
the relationship between the inner two categories, its concept o f negotiated meaning is
rarely extended into the outer two categories. Each category above implies a very
different view o f the world and it is important to understand that the discourse engaged
for the purpose o f linguistic knowledge can be very different from the discourse for the
purpose o f world knowledge. What is also important to understand is that by extending
the concept o f negotiating meaning into the outer two categories, we present our learners
with an opportunity to understand the relationship between language and other cultural
phenomena, and allow them to link their acquisition o f language skills with their
understanding o f foreign cultures. For example, in teaching language we help our
students acquire various linguistic formulae needed for greeting and taking leave. These
may be practiced in role play, and be acquired through experiential learning. By being
aware of the outer two components o f the above diagram, we also provide opportunities
for students to focus their attention on the similarities and differences they are aware o f
from their first language and personal culture. In order to help students understand that
cultural knowledge is relational, culture needs to be presented in a variety o f ways, some
of which need to include non-prescriptive and non-linguistic dimensions.
In the next section, consciousness raising will be presented as an approach for
extending communicative methodologies into the realm o f culture teaching in the foreign
language classroom.
158
5.3.2 Consciousness Raising and the Negotiation o f Culture
Whereas traditional approaches to culture teaching are teacher centered and lead
students to conform, a post-communicative methodology will need to advocate an
educational approach based on consciousness raising in which learners actively
participate in understanding and negotiating the personal and cultural ambiguities of
social life. When consciousness raising is applied to teaching culture in the foreign-
language classroom, teaching becomes a process o f actively engaging students in an array
of discourses and interactions; in this view, the teacher’s role is dynamic, multiple, and
always changing. One o f the mains goals would be to assist students in making
discoveries and experimenting with knowledge and attitudes. This type o f learning
differs from traditional pedagogies in that knowledge is viewed as public property. In
traditional approaches to teaching culture,
The teacher’s job is to transmit predetermined knowledge or skills that the students need to meet the demands o f society. The teacher is the provider, and the students are the clients or consumers, o f the curriculum. (Auerbach and Burgess, p. 164)
What is hoped is that students will later find ways to apply the knowledge in action.
Despite the efforts o f many would-be reformers, recent reports by researchers such as
Pennycook (1990) and Ramirez (1995) suggest that most language and culture teaching
still involves the teacher as dispenser of knowledge and the student as passive recipient.
The greatest danger o f this approach is that it reinforces silence and passivity, rather than
creating conditions that allow students to identify and think critically about language and
culture. To break away from this, teachers must become active learners themselves,
159
reflecting upon the learning activities they have designed and responding to their students
reactions to the activities. In this way, teachers themselves become more active; they
come to view themselves as more than just spokespersons for the target culture.
5.3.3 The Application o f Post-Communicative Language Teaching
In both current communicative theory and this postrcommunicative model, the
concept o f “negotiated meaning” is very important. Communicative-language
methodologies maintain that for material to be meaningful, it must be clearly relatable to
a learners’ existing knowledge (Omaggio, p. 96), and that learners must have a personal
framework or schemata to which new information can be attached if they are to
understand the new concept (Shade and New, p. 329). Thus, it is important for teachers
not to see themselves as transmitters o f knowledge, but as facilitator o f their students’
education by inviting them to enter into a process o f thinking critically about culture
(Auerbach and Burgess, p. 165). Unlike methods where the teacher creates both the
content and structure o f learning, in a communicative approach to culture teaching will
work to facilitate a dialogue between students with a series o f questions aimed at eliciting
students’ ideas, assisting them in making generalizations, relating the theme to their own
lives, and helping them to take action to effect change where applicable. (Auerbach and
Burgess, p. 166)
Teachers who use a form of conscious raising to engage their students in the
critique o f culture may experience students who find social critique threatening and
foreign. A common reaction for the teacher in this situation may be to take over the
160
control, selection, and flow o f ideas (Sleeter, p. 416). Such a reaction, however,
contradicts the participatory mode o f the model being presented here and creates what
Elshtain terms the “coercive” classroom (Sleeter p. 420). According to Sleeter, “partly
what students resist is the implication that the sense they have made o f their lives is
wrong” (Sleeter, p. 420). Students are more likely to entertain another perspective, as
long as it is not presented as the only “correct” one (Sleeter, p. 420).
Communicative-language teaching and consciousness raising are mutually
supportive in that they both encourage expression on the part o f the student; however,
while communicative-language teaching assumes that the student learns from a stable,
unitary, autonomous self, consciousness raising does not. On one hand, communicative
language teaching views the teacher as a facilitator o f the students' expressions; though
expression is only for the purpose o f practicing the target language. As Freed and
Bernhardt (1992) recently pointed out:
American foreign language education values action over reflection; it believes that the sole responsibility o f language teachers is to get their students to talk and write as well and as fluently as possible. Depth and breadth o f thought belong to other subjects. The overall result o f both these aspects o f the skill versus content dichotomy has often been the trivialization o f the teaching of foreign languages; it has made the teaching of culture a particularly controversial issue. (Qtd. in Kramsch 1993, p. 4)
In order to reverse this trend, it is important for teachers to begin listening for
themes or content areas relevant to their students’ lives. Through listening, we can
discover what our students are worried about and what engages them. General categories
often include the work, relationships (at work, at home or in the community), decision-
161
making structures, monetary problems, values and beliefs associated with work,
interaction o f family and work life, and cultural differences within the classroom and
community (Wallerstein, p. 36). In this process, teachers need to become aware of how
their students express themselves and elaborate on the issues that affect their lives. As
content is drawn from learners’ daily lives, listening will eventually become an ongoing
process involving both teachers and students in the learning process.
As a follow-up to listening, students need to be given opportunities to discuss
their personal experiences in relation to their problems. The goal o f the teacher is, thus,
to help students integrate their experiences into a broader social context (Wallerstein, p.
37).
In applying the ideas o f consciousness raising to the communicative classroom,
teachers need to begin asking themselves the following questions:
5.3.3.1 Do my Lessons Promote Critical Thinking?
Wallerstein argues that many language teaching materials focus on forms rather
than on the content o f language interaction, which only serves to continue the divorce of
language from thought, and language teaching from creative expression. Because we
often fail to examine assumptions about how particular materials mediate meanings
between students, teachers, and society, we very often leave little room for students to
generate their own meanings and develop critical thinking (Auerbach and Burgess, p.
151). Teaching students to negotiate culture and language, rather than teaching “culture”
per se, is one o f the main goals o f this post-communicative model to language teaching.
162
To achieve this, it is particularly important for us to examine the degree to which our
materials are relevant to our students’ lives (Auerbach and Burgess, p. 162). It is
sometimes difficult for us to resist ready-made learning objectives along with suggested
projects and packaged student questions, but the resistance is essential (Doyle). As
Auerbach argues, “Not until language teaching engages the thought and mind o f the
learners can it be called communicative (Auerbach and Burgess, p. 164).
5.3.3.2 Is my Approach to Teaching Student Centered?
As argued above, the transfer o f cultural information is typically one-way, from
the teacher to the students. When language and culture are taught from this perspective,
the curriculum is forced to emphasize a narrow selection o f skills, forms o f culture and
knowledge, and to view education in a way that ignores our students understandings o f
.political issues, race, class or gender issues (Pennycook, p. 308).
5.3.3.3 What is the Meaning o f “Culture” in my Classroom?
As an alternative to teaching culture as “artifacts”, teachers must work with the
knowledge embedded in the social forms and popular cultures o f students’ everyday lives
(Simon, p. 62). As a specific example, teachers could encourage students to select a
quote from a German newspaper (e.g. Worte der Woche from Die Zeif). Instead of telling
the class what the quote refers to, small groups could discusses the possible meanings of
the quote and how it relates to their lives. After about seven minutes o f group work, the
teacher could assist the class in comparing and contrasting their impressions o f the quote.
The teacher could then engage the students in a dialogue on how the quote relates to their
163
personal lives and how this might be different in a European context. As a concluding
discussion, students could suggest ways they would like to be quoted if they were given
an opportunity to be interviewed by a German newspaper. In the early stages o f
language, such lessons may have to be conducted in the students’ native language. In
upper divisions, most if not all o f this could take place in the target language, as long as it
were supplemented with topical lists o f relevant vocabulary, phrases, idiomatic
expressions, associograms, and brainstorming activities, etc.
Regardless o f the topic, the most important ingredient is that the content o f
language teaching relates to or is generated directly from the lives o f our students. The
discussions may never lead to heated debates about ‘racism’ and/or ‘oppression’. As long
as the issues are grounded in the students lives, they will engage in their own critical self
examinations and thus, further critical thinking. When I tried a consciousness raising
activity with an intermediate German language course that I was teaching, students
brought up issues relating to tuition increases, inadequacy o f university facilities, and
whether or not women should be allowed to fight in combat in the U.S. military. These
issues were highly relevant to the lives o f the students and, at the same time, it was very
easy for me to introduce, compare, and contrast similar issues affecting students in
Germany with the class. In other words, it is possible to introduce “culture” without
collapsing the lesson and issues onto the level o f ‘culture as artifacts’. As we have seen
from the results o f the current study, the introduction, teaching, and learning of culture in
a student-relevant and process-oriented approach can significantly increase learners’
cross-cultural adaptability and give them opportunities and tools to improve their
attitudes towards learning.
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Culture learning based on a process- and learner-centered approach shares many
of the positive aspects reported by Barro et al. (1993) and Robinson-Stuart & Nocon
(1996). However, Barro et al.’s approach requires study abroad, advanced levels o f
language proficiency, and extensive and long-term training. The present study shows that
culture learning can also be effective in lower-level language classrooms in the home
environment. Using these techniques, many more students at various levels o f study
should also be able to experience culture as a process o f producing meaning regarding
each other’s way o f being in the world. Future research, therefore, should focus on
applying these techniques in various levels o f language learning. One possibility would
be to do a similar study using the target language as the mode o f expression in the second
year. It would also be useful to replicate the present study using the base teacher for
teaching the experimental culture lessons.
The data collected from the PDS could also be expanded in the attempt to account
for more o f the variance regarding cross-cultural adaptability. Such an approach would
attempt to gather more information on factors which influence cross-cultural adaptability.
As argued above, the BALLI is very limiting in that if students do not respond
positively to a question, it is not possible for them to write down what it is that they
believe. For example, we may know that after one semester o f language study students
164
165
are less likely to believe that repeating is important, but the BALLI does not allow for
student comments, which would allow us to more accurately assess what exactly it is that
they find important. A shorter version o f the BALLI, along with room for student
comments, might allow teachers and researchers to more clearly understand learners’
beliefs about language learning.
5.5 SUMMARY
This study was limited to undergraduate German students at the University of
Arizona, thus any conclusions apply primarily to this population and can only be
suggestive for other groups. They do, however, have far-reaching implications for the
effectiveness o f culture learning in a process- and learner centered classroom. Curricula
should not only approach these issues on a cognitive level, but should also include
assessment o f culture as an interactive process that engages both teacher and student, as
can be done using a culture portfolio (please see Appendix B).
By expanding the notion o f communicative competence into the realm of culture,
teachers can provide greater opportunities for students to learn and engage in the realities
that are most important to them. To improve students understanding o f multiculturalism,
foreign language education need to begin by including the concept o f “diversity” into its
culture lessons. Teachers must examine their own responses to diversity, and provide the
same type o f opportunities for students to negotiate culture as they do for learning about
the other aspects o f language. Nurturing a critical approach to culture learning means
making foreign-language education a process o f negotiation, through which teachers
promote clarity about diversity and ways to embrace it (Phillips, 1988).
166
Finally, such a stance towards culture teaching does not suggest avoiding the use
of lecture, drills, discrete-point tests or other similar routines, but rather that if we want
our students to recognize the complexity and tolerate the ambiguity and subjectivity o f
culture, we will have to add learning experiences to our repertoire that require students to
ask questions and reflect on their own cultural background rather than accept cultural
information at face value. This research study has shown that these are realistic,
achievable goals.
167
Appendix AExperimental Culture Lessons
Culture Lesson # 1
1. Present cartoon on overhead projector. Cartoon depicts a man being interviewed who
had just returned from Africa. The questions posed to him was, “Please tell us about
culture in Africa?” The caption involves a series o f hon-sequiturs made by the
interviewee, all indicating how difficult it is for the interviewee to describe the cultures
he encountered in Africa.
2. After a brief discussion o f the cartoon, students are asked to come up with their own
definition o f the word “culture”. Students work in groups o f three to five and negotiate
amongst themselves a written definition.
3. Students are asked to share their definitions and to comment on their reasoning for
defining culture in the way they did.
4. Following the previous discussion, the teacher provides a brief description o f the
term, “cross-cultural adaptability”, and relates the ambiguity that the students experienced
in defining culture to the ambiguity involved in assessing “cross-cultural adaptability”.
5. At this point, students are given fifteen minutes to score their own CCAI (Cross-
Cultural Adaptability Inventory). Students completed the CCAI and the other
instruments used in this study during a one-hour period the week prior to the first
experimental culture lesson.
7. Class participates in a discussion involving the validity o f the CCAI. Question:
What is your initial reaction to the CCAI and its ability to predict “cross-cultural
adaptability”? Students responses were very mixed in their attitudes towards this
instrument.
168
C i u i M i i n r e I ^ e s s n i i n i # 2
1. Students are asked to complete an associogram on the front board. An associogram is
an activity which requests students to indicate (using a word or a short phrase) the
associations they make with a particular word or phrase. In the case o f this associogram,
students reacted to two terms, one on each side o f the front board. On the left side of the
board the word American was written on the other half o f the board the word German
was written. Every student in the class came forward and wrote something on the board
for each term. Students were then given a chance to compare answers and to explain why
they wrote what the did.
2. The class is then divided up into groups o f three to four. Half o f the groups discuss
the following directions: 1) Please answer the following question: “If a student from
another country were to study in the U.S., which o f the items on the board would be
useful in his/her attempt to adjust and to feel at home in the United States? Explain your
answer. 2) When you are finishing answering this question, brainstorm in your group an
additional list o f things a foreign student should be aware of in order to make a study
abroad experience in the U.S. a positive one.
Other Yz o f class : If you were to study in Germany, which o f the items on the board
would be useful in your attempt to feel at home in your new environment? Explain your
answer. In the form o f a question or statement, brainstorm in your group a list o f things
that you should know about in order to make a study abroad experience a positive one.
Examples: personal level (having friends), survival level (knowing about bureaucratic
obstacles), practical level (transportation),
3. Connection to quotes: What is useful, goes beyond trivia and it goes beyond
knowledge o f things like artifacts, which are typically used to describe the culture of
another country. Group work on quotes (discuss)
4. Es gibt keine Deutschen (What does this mean? group work)
5. Discussion
7. Handout “What is German?”
169
Quiltiuime Thessimni # 1
1. Associogram - ffriemd Freundl
2. OHP: German/American differences (handout from Haas) (general discussion)
3. Translate small sections o f Martin Walser’s Die Amerikareise; Versuch, ein Gefuhl
zu verstehem (1986) (advance organizer for #4 below)
4. Group work (handout on German attitudes towards the American use o f certain words)
5. BO ARB: Amerikaner sind Oberflachlich (Americans are superficial): General
discussion
1. Are Americans superficial?
Put following chart on board:
Is the German use o f the word Freund more narrow than the American use o f the friend?
Freund Bekannte
acquaintance friend
170
CiaMiuire Lessmn # 4
1. Students create personal data sheet
2. OHP: German school system + terms (handout)
Ask class to describe how the American school system is different (general
comments).
3. Group work (describe what chapters are saying)
RetMmMmg America (Hedrick Smith, 1995)
Group 1: 111
Group 2: 112
Group 3: Bottom half o f 115
Group 4: 118- part o f 119
Group 5: Bottom o f 120-121
Group 6: 123-124
Group 7: 124-124
4. Based on the information you have about the German school system, where would you
place the students from the profiles (generalize on board)
5. Debate: Should America adopt a tracking system?
CiuilftimiCe TLessfro #5
1. Privatraume: Welche Assoziationen lost dieses Bild bei Ilmen aus. Finden Sie eine
treffende Uberschrift fur das Bild.]
2. Show actual title o f photo.
3. Read “American” quotes about Soziale Nahe und Distanz in Germany
4. Group discussion: What would Germans write about the Americans?
5. Conclusion: Students’ reactions to topic.
172
Appendix B The Culture Portfolio
The Colteire PcDritfollcD - Spring 1996 IntimdieetmE
The Plau/Outline is the first o f four assignments in what is know as The Culture
Portfolio. The process o f putting together the culture portfolio is a lengthy task;
however, by engaging in a topic through a multi-step process, it is more likely that we
will make connections between our topic content and our own lives. In addition, such
analyses engender critical thinking and greater awareness o f the complexity involved in
our multi-cultural and multiracial world. Throughout the culture-portfolio process, you
will have many opportunities to update and reconstruct your existing knowledge, thus
generating a cohesive and multifaceted understanding o f your topic. In order to show
your broadened understanding o f your topic, and to make your portfolio as rich in content
as possible, include a variety o f pictures, maps, charts, tables, etc. in your analyses. The
outline below will help you in putting together the beginning stages o f the Culture
Portfolio.
During each semester (German 101 through German 202), you will create one
Culture Portfolio and present it to the class in the form o f an oral report. The Portfolio
and the oral report are to be completed in English and are worth a total o f 100 points.
The PlaM/Omtiime is worth fifteen points. The Draft (stage two o f the portfolio process)
is worth twenty points. The Final Write-up, which involves an in-depth analysis o f the
issues presented in the Draft, is worth forty points and is due on the day o f your
presentation. Finally, the Presentation (approx, ten minutes in length) is worth twenty-
five points. 3 points will be deducted for each day that any assignment is turned in late.
For the important due dates o f the Culture Portfolio, refer to your schedule o f exams.
173
Culture Portfolio Themes
German 101
German-American
German 102
Switzerland or
Similarities
German 201
Impact of German Culture on Other Countries
Austria
German 202
Impact of Outside Cultures on Germany
Completing the Portfolio ProcessSTEP I. The PLAN/OUTLINE (15 pts): Follow the steps outlined on this sheet of
paper (A through D below).
STEP II. The DRAFT (20pts): Expand on the sub-topics that you wrote about in
the PLAN/OUTLINE. This is your chance to be creative and engage in
the critical-thinking process! Choose a variety materials that are useful in
describing your topic. For example, your sources may provide you with
essays, poetry, art, collages, montages, short stories, photocopies,
postcards, posters, videos, etc. that are relevant to your topic. Demonstrate
that you have studied your sources thoroughly. In addition, be sure to
answer the questions that you outlined next to each sub-topic in the
DRAFT/OUTLINE.
174
STEP III. The PORTFOLIO (the final product) (40pts): In addition to addressing
your teachers comments from the DRAFT, show in the PORTFOLIO that
you have thought critically about your topic and that you are able to make
connections between your overall topic and your various sub-topics.
Finally, readdress the points 1 through 5 under D (Cultural Relativity) in
the PLAN/OUTLINE. Rewrite your answers based on what you have
learned throughout the cultural portfolio process. Explain why or why not
your answers have changed.
STEP IV. The PRESENTATION (25pts): Synthesize the most important and
interesting aspects o f your PORTFOLIO and present this information to
the class. A well prepared presentation is very important. You will only
have about 10 minutes to speak, but this is plenty o f time to show off to
your classmates all o f the fun things you learned while putting together the
portfolio!
MeettMg the TopicMost importantly, choose a topic that interests you. The purpose o f the culture
portfolio is for you to explore new topics that are relatively unknown to you. Although
the topic range is relatively open, there are two constraints: First, your topic must
correspond to the Culture-Portfolio Themes o f the German course you are currently
taking (see above). Second, avoid topics on beer, wine, Oktoberfest, favorite
automobiles, etc. These topics may be new to you, but they are dead-end subjects (unless
you can give the topic the depth and breadth that we are requiring for the portfolio).
Before you make your decision, think critically about the cultural content and diversity o f
the topic. Do not begin until you feel that the various issues involved in the topic are
worth your time and effort. In other words, think carefully about whether or not your
topic will challenge you intellectually as you delve more deeply into it.
175
STEF 1= The PLAN/OUTLINE (15pts):Please Write on a Separate Sheet of Paper
A. TOPIC: Describe the general theme o f your topic.
B. CONTENT ( what do I hope to learn?): List the sub-topics you plan to research and
at least three separate issues that you plan to address regarding each o f the five sub-
topics. For example, arrange your ideas as follows (5 pts):
2.
3.
4.
5.
ISSUES
1. ______2. ____3.
1.2._____________________
3.
1.2._____________________
3.________________
1._____________2._____________3.________________
1.___________ _2.3.
176
C. SOURCES: What materials and resources will I use? List five (use a complete
bibliographical citation for each .source). Possible sources include books, film, the
WWW, interviews, journals, literature, music, newspapers (especially German
newspapers), personal experience, poetry, TV/video, etc. Go to the library, pull up a
comfortable chair in front o f SABIO, the CD ROMS, the WWW computers or your
favorite index, and let your ideas take you to places you have never been before! Of the
many sources you come across, choose five that are the most appropriate for your topic.
For each o f the five sources, describe in a sentence or two why you have chosen to use
the source and how it relates to your topic as a whole. (5 pis)
EX CULTURAL RELATIVITY: Please read the following definitions o f “culture”.
When you are finished, please answer the questions one through four below (5 pis):
Culture signifies the particular ways in which a social group lives out and makes sense o f its given circumstances and conditions o f life (Henry Giroux 1988, 193).
Culture is a way o f thinking, feeling, believing. It is the group's knowledge stored up (in memories o f people; in books and objects) for future use. A culture constitutes a storehouse o f the pooled learning o f the group (Clyde Kulckhohn 1944,24).
Another way o f defining culture is to conceptualize it as the modal personality o f a unique group o f people that provides rules and guidelines for appraising and interpreting interactions with the events, people, or ideas encountered in daily living (Barbara Shade & Clara New 1993, 317),
1. What is your definition o f “culture”?
2. How does your topic relate to experiences you have made living in the United States?
What aspects of your topic could or could not be connected to “culture” in the United
States (give 3 examples)?
3. What are some common generalizations or stereotypes held about your topic (name at
least 3)?
177
4. Why is an in-depth knowledge o f your topic important to you? In other words, how
does it affect you as a young/budding German language and culture learner (give at least
3 examples)?
5. The concepts and phrases such as “global village,” “multi-culturalism,” “cross-cultural
communication,” and “diversity” suggest that every issue can be understood from a
variety o f perspectives. Show your multi-faceted perspective by giving three examples o f
cultural perspectives relating to your topic that are different from your own.
THE CULTURE PORTFOLIO GRADING THE DRAFT
As you read through and provide feedback on the Culture-Portfolio draft, please
consider the following five items. On the back o f this sheet is a form that can be used for
providing feedback to your students.
1. Has the strident readdressed the original questions from the Culture Portfolio
Outline? If not, encourage the student in your comments to rewrite the answers to
these questions. Subtract at least three points for every question that was not
addressed in the draft.
2. Philosophy: The draft is the second o f four assignments that our students will
complete in the Culture-Portfolio process. By engaging our students in a multi-
step research project (versus a one-shot research project), we hope that they will
be able to make more connections between their topic content and their own lives.
Multi-step analyses engender critical thinking and greater awareness o f the
complexity involved in our multi-cultural and multiracial world. Throughout the
culture-portfolio process, we want our students to have many opportunities to
update and reconstruct their existing knowledge, thus generating a cohesive and
178
multifaceted understanding o f their topic. As you read through the drafts, think
about this philosophy statement and then look for ways to encourage your
students to delve deeper into their subject area. Look for areas in the draft that
offer the most potential for further examination (e g. the aspects that are either
controversial or the ones that clearly contain other perspectives that the student
has not yet considered). Make it clear to each student that he/she must address
your comments to receive full credit on the final Culture Portfolio.
3. Are the students showing any evidence o f making connections between their topic
content and their own lives? For example, if they have chosen a famous person as
a topic, have they applied any o f the characteristics o f that person to people or
attitudes o f people today? One example is “Crazy Ludwig”: he was eccentric
(etc!). How does our society react to eccentric people if they are unknown (e.g. a
homeless person) or famous (e.g. Michael Jackson)? Are there other
characteristics o f Ludwig that are relatable to present-day people or events, e.g.
self glorification, patron o f the arts (with/without selfish motives). Or, as another
example, i f your students write about objects (art works, buildings, modes of
transportation), you could encourage them to discuss how these are status symbols
or cultural objects which reflect society and the environmental factors of the
particular culture and age. For example: Forms o f transportation and their place
in American society are related to geographical distances, public transportation
availability, and environmental attitudes. In Germany or Europe, similar factors
play a role, however the Stellenwert o f transportation has very different cultural
meanings. Is the student making similar connections in his/her draft? If not,
guide the student into making such connections.
179
4. Ask students to reflect on their own emotional/affective response to the topic.
For example: They might say something like, “German history is cool!”. With
such a statement, try to encourage them to reflect on why they have this attitude,
why this is their response, and why they even thought o f this topic as a German
culture project.
5. Our main goal is to urge students to think critically about culture learning, to be
self-reflective, and to apply knowledge from their culture portfolio to their world
and life outside o f our classrooms.
FORM FOR GRADING THE PORTFOLIO DRAFT
C i n i l f a i r e F i n r t f o l m D r a f t C a m m e i n i t e
I. Content & Sources (5 pts):
II. Preparation (5 pts):
III. Creativity (5 pts):
TotalIV. Organization (5 pts):
FORM FOR GRADING THE FINAL VERSION
The following grading scale applies to the FINAL VERSION of the Culture Portfolio:I. CONTENT:
A. Use of at least 5 sources and documented with bibliography (10 points):JL No source._I_ Source is applicable, but its inclusion into the topic is not entirely justified (i.e.
another source would be more appropriate)._2_ Source is well suited for this topic.Source 1 ____ Source 2 ____ Source 3 ____ Source 4 ____ Source 5 ____Points:___ _ Comments:
B. Effective information (e.g. useful and necessary) (6 points):1 - 2 A large portion o f the information in the portfolio is irrelevant or unnecessary.3 - 4 Information is effective, but a more in-depth critique o f the information would
have been more useful.5 - 6 Information is very effective (i.e. analysis was insightful).Points:____ Comments:
C. Ability to communicate ideas clearly (6 points):1 - 2 Some ideas may be clear, but the majority o f the portfolio is vague and difficult to
follow.3 - 4 Most ideas presented are clear. Only occasionally are the ideas presented
unclearly.5 - 6 Through and through, the ideas were presented with expressiveness and clarity. Points:
Comments:
II. PREPARATION:A. Outline/plan was well thought out (6 points):
1 - 2 Outline and plan were not complete (i.e. some o f the sources were missing, some o f the questions not answered)
3 - 4 Outline and plan were complete; however, some o f the groundwork needed for developing the final portfolio was not sufficient or adequate.
5 - 6 The preparation for the final portfolio was well thought out and clearly defined (i.e. student was focused even in the early stages).
P oints:____ Comments:
III. CREATIVITY:A. Used information in a unique way (6 points):
1 - 2 The student made very few connections between her/his topic and other subjects (i.e. the student was unable to personalize or illustrate a clear context for the information presented in the portfolio).
3 - 4 The student was able to integrate his/her topic into an appropriate context, but not in a consistent fashion.
5 - 6 The student was creative in demonstrating the relevance o f her/his topic in a meaningful context.
Points:____ Comments:
IV. O R G A N IZA TIO N :A. Ideas were presented dearly (6 points):
1 - 2 Presentation o f material was very sloppy 3 - 4 Parts o f the organization were unclear.5 - 6 Final portfolio manifests excellent skill in organizing information.Points:____ Comments: Total:
181
Gradmg Seal© for the Oral PresentationI Content1-2 Presentation completed with minimum effort and insufficient content/inadequate
length3-4 Content is good, but lacks clarity
5 Outstanding in content Points_______II Organization/Creativity1-2 Presentation o f the material was very sloppy and not creative 3-4 Parts o f the organization were unclear; lack o f creativity
5 Presentation was very well organized and outstanding in creativity Points______III ComprehensiMlity/FhaeBcy1-2 Mostly incomprehensible (to a non-teaching native speaker o f German)3-4 Comprehensible for a teacher or one experienced with dealing with foreigners, but
still some comprehensibility problems5 Most o f the presentation easily comprehensible; only occasional words or phrases
incomprehensible PointsIV Vocabulary1-2 Lack or misuse o f basic vocabulary 3-4 Occasional lack o f basic words; generally accurate usage
5 Extensive mastery o f basic vocabulary; very accurate usage for the presentlevel Points
V Stractmre1-2 Some correct elements, but major structural problems 3-4 Many correct elements, but still definite structural problems
5 Almost always correct usage for the present level Points
182
Appendix C Strategy Lessons
Strategy Lesson #1: -
1. Introduce strategy use with hexagon from Oxford 1990, p. 15.
2. Discuss following strategies in relation to hexagon:
A. BREAK-DOWN: Break down into parts any long words and expressions in the new language that you find overwhelming.
B. CANNED TALK: Learn some common “canned” routines by heart in the new language so you can rattle them off easily when you need them in social conversation.
C. LOOKING AHEAD: Use preview questions or other ways to look ahead at the new target language reading material, so that you can orient yourself.
D. SPREAD ‘EM OUT: Plan your sessions for reviewing new material in the target language so that the sessions are at first close together and then more widely spread out.
E. STEERING CLEAR: When the conversation in the new language gets onto topics for which you don’t know the vocabulary, change the subject or just don’t say anything.
F. WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA?: Find all sorts o f ways to locate the main idea as you are reading a passage in the new language.
G. WRITERS CRAMP: To combat your “mental block” against writing a report in the new language, try to calm down and relax by means o f music and breathing exercises.
3. Group work: Handout covering details o f many strategies (see Oxford 1990, p. 17-21)Students work in groups and discuss personal examples o f the strategies onhandout.
Follow up with class discussion
183
Strategy T,essmn #2t
1. OHP: Display several fun quotes from Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad
2. Discuss the complexities o f speaking (general discussion + lecture)
3. Group work: 5 groups, each groups reads a different section from Brown’s (1989) Chapter Five: Take the Plunge.
4. Discuss classes reactions
5. Lecture on planning an utterance, executing the utterance
Strategy I ̂ essimni #3;
1. Associogram: Students write on board the various types o f reading strategies they use.
2. Lecture: What is know about the process o f reading:Analytic (discuss accuracy chart), Constructive (discuss reading triangle)
3. Discuss Principles o f reading/leaming6. Activate prior knowledge7. Organize prior knowledge8. Set up purposes for reading9. Selection o f information10. Maintain schema for reading11. Evaluate new information12. Integrate new information13. Apply new information
4. List strategies used by good readers (see Oxford 1990, p. 283-85)
5. Group discussion on the strategy prediction
Strategy Lesson #4:
1. Introduce all the various types o f dictionaries (i.e. dictionary o f German for foreigners, Stilwdrterbuch, dictionary o f idiomatic expressions in German, etc.)
2. Group work: students look up the various meanings o f words that have multiple meanings (each group gets its own dictionary).
3. Lecture to students on the behaviors o f competent writers
4. Group work on personal writing strategies
184
S tr M e g y ThesstDini # 5 ;
1. Associogram on listening strategies
2. Lecture on the similarities between listening and reading
3. OHP: List strategies o f good listeners (from Oxford 1990)
4. Play video o f Terrell giving lesson in Deutch
5. Group work: Groups talk about the strategies they used to understand his presentation.
Appendix DExample Items from the CCAI
For a complete copy off the CCAI, write:National Computer Systems P.O.Box 1416 Minneapolis MN 55440 Tel: 1800 627-7271
Because of the CCAI copyright, it is not possible to print the entire inventory here:
Example items ffor the Emotional Resilience (ER) Scale:
Item 4. I feel confident in my ability to cope with life, no matter where I am.
Item 16. If I had to hire several job candidates from a background different from my own, I feel confident that I could make a good judgment.
Item 18. I could live anywhere and enjoy life.
Example items ffor the Flexibility/Openness (FO) Scale
Item 2. I believe that I could live a fulfilling life in another culture.
Item 22 (Negative). When I am around people who are different from me, I feel lonely.
Item 40. When I meet people who are different from me, I am interested in learning more about them.
Example items ffor the Perceptual Acuity (PAC) Scale
Item 15. I am the kind of person who gives people who are different from me the benefit of the doubt.
Item 20. I perceive how people are feeling, even if they are different from me.
Item 28. I pay attention to how people’s cultural differences affect their perceptions of me.
Example items for the Personal Autonomy (PA) Scale
Item 6. I believe that I can accomplish what I set out to do, even in unfamiliar settings.
Item 12. All people, of whatever race, are equally valuable.
Item 25. I feel free to maintain my personal values, even among those who do not share them.
185
186
Appendix EAMtMdes Measurement Test Battery
1. I have always admired German-speaking people.2. Americans should make a greater effort to learn the German language.3. I have a positive attitude toward German-speaking people.4. German-speaking people are trustworthy and dependable.5. Some o f the U. S. ’ best citizens are o f German decent.6. For the most part, German speaking people are sincere and honest.7. German-speaking people are very friendly and neighborly.8. I would like to know more German-speaking people.9. The more I learn about German-speaking people, the more I like them.10. I would like to get to know German-speaking people better.11. If I were visiting a foreign country, I would like to be able to speak the language
o f the people.12. Even though the U.S. is relatively far from countries speaking other languages, it
is important for Americans to learn foreign languages.13 . I wish I could speak another language perfectly.14. I want to read the literature o f a foreign language in the original language rather
than a translation.15. I often wish I could read newspapers and magazines in another language.16. I would really like to learn a lot o f foreign languages.17. If I planned to stay in another country, I would make a great effort to learn the
language even though I could get along in English.18. I am definitely going to major or minor in a foreign language at the U. o f A.19. I enjoy meeting and listening to people who speak other languages.20. Studying a foreign language is an enjoyable experience.21. Studying a foreign language can be important to me because it will allow me to be
more at ease with people who speak that language.22. Studying a foreign language can be important for me because it will allow me to
meet and talk with more and varied people.23 . Studying a foreign language is important for me because it will enable me to
better understand and appreciate other countries’ art and literature.24. Studying a foreign language is important forme because I will be able to
participate more freely in the activities o f other cultural groups.25. Studying a foreign language is important for me because I’ll need it in my studies
at the U. o f A.26. Studying a foreign language is important for me because it will make me a more
knowledgeable person.27. Studying a foreign language is important to me because I think it will someday be
useful in getting a good job.28. Studying a foreign language is important for me because other people will respect
me more if I have a knowledge o f a foreign language.29. It may embarrass me to volunteer answers in German.30. I probably will not feel sure o f myself when I am speaking German.
187
31. I am afraid the other students will laugh at me when I speak German.32. My parents try to help me with my German.33. My parents feel that I should continue studying German all through undergraduate
school.34. My parents really encourage me to study German.
188
Appendix FBALLI Items and Responses (percentages)
The Blfffaeelty ©ff Lanigmage Leatramg (Items 3 ,49 5, <S9 149 249 28):Note: All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Thus, percentages may not total 100% due to rounding and/or missing responses.3. Some languages are easier to learn than others.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 28 33 42 17 23 17 25 -4 -3
A 58 57 50 50 47 47 50 0 0
NAD 10 6 7 25 22 33 25 7 4
D 3 3 1 8 3 3 0 0 0
SB 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 -2 -3
4. In terms of difficnlty to learn, German is:
Horwitz88
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
VBL 1 3 2 0 0 0 25 0 0
BL 38 25 30 25 24 17 0 -4 -4
LMB 54 60 54 67 61 25 50 -21 -14
EL 5 11 13 8 7 47 25 23 17
VEL 0 2 1 0 8 11 0 2 1
@ a very difficult language, a difficult language, a language o f medium difficulty, an easy language, a very easy language
5. German is strnctnred in the same way as English.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA n/a 5 7 n/a 2 6 n/a 2 2
A 27 29 5 11 3 3
NAB 28 23 39 42 1 2
D 35 35 33 22 -6 -4
SB 5 7 21 20 -1 0
189
6. I toelieve that I will ultimately learm to speak German very welL
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 13 25 26 n/a 10 14 n/a 1 3
A 41 45 , 39 40 47 4 3
NAD 36 21 23 35 25 -6 -5
D 9 8 11 11 14 1 3
SB 1 1 1 4 0 -2 -2
14. If someone would spend one hour a day learning German, how long would it take him/her to become fluent?
Horwitz Kern 1995 T o ta l CjrSlIM
1988
o Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
>1 6 7 , 3 , 0 6 0 0 -4 -3
1-2 38 33 35 33 32 6 0 -10 -16
3-5 34 37 41 33 43 36 50 -3 -4
5-10 7 11 9 8 10 36 50 16 10
n/p 12 12 .2 25 . 9 1 22 0 5 8
©Less than a year, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, not possible
24. It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 6 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 -1
A 24 12 16 0 9 6 0 -2 -1
NAD 6 22 20 17 11 0 0 -8 -3
D 51 47 43 58 25 34 25 4 5
SB 13 17 16 25 55 60 75 2 3
190
28. It is easier to read and write a foreign language than to speak and understand i t
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gmm
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 22 11 21 8 9 13 0 2 2
A 49 39 37 42 27 41 50 5 7
NAD 16 21 20 33 21 28 50 2 5
D 11 26 19 17 18 3 0 -9 -6
SB 2 3 3 0 25 15 0 -6 -4
Foreign Language Aptitede (Items 1 ,2S10,15,22,29,32,33,34):1, It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 44 38 48 17 29 31 25 1.2 0.9
A 39 41 34 50 25 36 25 6.6 4.5
NAD 11 11 7 25 43 22 50 -12.6 -9
D 4 9 9 8 3 6 0 1.8 1.2
SB 1 2 2 0 0 5 0 • 3 2
2. Some people are born with a special ability which helps them learn a foreign
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 13 12 12 17 9 8 25 -0.6 -0.5
A 33 ' 41 41 42 21 31 50 6 3.5
NAD 29 26 27 33 31 14 25 -10.2 -6.7
D 19 14 14 0 19 31 0 7.2 4.9
SB 3 7 7 8 20 16 0 -2.4 -1.6
vi.
191
10. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn anotherone.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 27 15 14 33 11 6 0 -2 -3
A 48 46 55 42 23 39 100 10 6
NAD 11 25 19 17 48 44 0 -2 -2
B i i 9 9 0 12 6 0 -4 -2
SD 3 4 3 8 6 5 0 -1 0
15. I have foreign language aptitude.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 . Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 8 9 14 n/a 8 0 n/a -5 -3
A 25 49 38 19 31 4 8
NAD 44 33 36 38 36 -1 -1
D 19 8 9 24 22 -1 -1
SD 3 1 3 11 11 0 0
22. Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 1 1 3 0 3 13 0 4 6
A 8 6 9 0 12 0 50 -7 -5
NAD 39 42 39 17 13 13 50 0 0
D 31 31 28 42 20 34 0 8 6
SD 19 20 21 42 52 40 0 -4 -8
192
29. People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreignlanguages.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 4 2 8 0 8 3 0 -3 -2
NAD 35 30 29 25 12 16 75 2 2
D 34 42 41 50 26 38 25 7 5
SB 23 24 21 25 54 43 0 -7 -4
32. People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre >, Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 2 3 6 0 4 3 0 -1 0
A 25 19 18 0 6 9 0 2 1
NAD 41 55 50 50 55 56 100 1 0
D 24 18 22 42 22 16 0 -2 -4
SD 8 4 4 8 13 16 0 2 1
33. Americans are good at learning foreign languages.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gam
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 2 0
A 6 7 11 8 1 0 0 -1 0
NAD 60 67 55 67 21 28 50 5 1
D 23 21 27 25 55 63 0 5 3
SD 9 4 3 0 22 6 50 -10 -6
193
34. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign lamgiuiage.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gam
Single Test Fre Post Inst Fre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 25 44 43 25 35 31 50 -2 -2
A 48 36 42 75 35 38 50 2 1NAD 17 13 12 0 29 25 0 -3 -1
D 7 7 2 0 0 3 0 2 1
SB 2 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1
The Natrare of Laegeage Learning (Items % 11916, 20 ,2§9 26):
8. It is necessary to know the fforengm cnilture in curder to speak a fforeigm larngmiage.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gsiim
Single Test Fre Post Inst Fre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 8 10 7 8 10 3 0 -6 -2
A 35 28 33 17 25 25 0 0 0
NAD 35 32 26 58 24 42 100 12 7
D 18 26 29 17 30 11 0 -7 -11
SD 5 4 4 0 11 19 0 5 3
11. It is better to learm si foreign larngmage m the foreign conimtiry.
Horwitz Kern 19951988 1
Total Gain
Single Test Fre Post Inst Fre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 25 37 41 8 30 25 75 -3 -2
A 41 41 43 33 31 44 25 5 8
NAD 24 16 14 42 30 22 0 -3 -5
D 6 6 2 17 6 6 0 0 0
SD 3 1 0 0 4 3 0 -1 0
194
16. Learning Germaum is mostly a matter of leatramg a lot of new vocafottlatry words.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gam
Single Test Pre Post 1 Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 10 2 2 0 2 0 0 -1 -1A 29 16 22 0 8 28 0 . 11 9
NAD 13 22 18 8 31 44 0 8 5
D 46 51 46 67 37 24 50 -5 -8
§D 3 9 12 25 22 4 50 -11 -7
20. Learning German is mostly a matter of learmimg a lot off grammar rales.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total (GrSiin
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 4 2 4 0 1 3 0 1 1
A 21 20 27 0 14 25 25 7 4
NAD 32 28 29 17 39 47 0 2 6
D 36 44 36 58 29 19 75 -5 -5
SB 5 6 4 25 17 6 0 -4 -7
25. Leammmg a foreign language is different from learning other school subjects.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 37 19 27 17 26 23 25 -2 -1
A 42 57 55 42 43 38 75 -3 -2
NAD 7 15 8 33 22 23 0 1 0
D 8 8 6 8 7 13 0 1 5
SB 3 1 4 0 2 3 0 1 0
195
26. Learning aumotiher lamgmage is a matter of tmmsWmg from EmpMsllii-
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0A 13 7 11 0 5 6 0 1 0
NAD 17 16 11 0 15 9 0 -5 '-2
D 48 52 51 17 31 47 25 10 6
. SD 17 24 26 83 49 38 75 -7 -4
Strategies of CommraEkatioE amd Learmirng (Items 7,9,12,13, .17, 18,19,21):
7. It’s important to speak a foreign langmage with an excellent accent. _________
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 15 13 15 0 10 6 0 -1 -3
A 37 37 44 17 20 22 25 i 2
NAD 30 29 22 33 26 33 25 5 3
D 14 19 18 33 29 28 25 -1 -1
SD 3 1 1 17 15 11 25 -2 -3
9,. Yon shomMm’t say amythimg in German mm# yom can gay it correctly.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 9 3 6 0 4 3 0 -1 -1
NAD 14 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
D 46 42 48 50 23 28 50 2 3
SD 27 46 39 50 73 69 25 -2 -2
196
12. Iff I heard someone speaking German, I would go up to them so that I couldpractice speaking German.
Horwitz1988
Kem 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 5 6 7 n/a 5 0 n/a -2 -3
A 27 33 31 11 23 7 5
NAD 36 37 35 33 19 -6 -8
D 27 19 24 34 36 1 1
SB 2 5 3 21 22 1 0
13. It’s OK to guess iff you don’t know the word in German.
Horwitz1988
Kem 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 5 16 20 33 7 0 50 -3 -4
A 33 52 51 42 27 53 50 10 16
NAD 33 21 18 25 35 33 0 -1 -1
D 19 9 10 0 18 8 0 -5 -5
SB 8 2 1 0 13 6 0 -4 -3
17. It is important to repeat and practice a lot.
Horwitz1988
Kem 1995 Total Gam
Single Test. Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 74 60 57 42 58 3 50 -29 -26
A 25 36 38 58 33 13 50 -8 -12
NAD 0 3 5 0 7 34 0 16 11
D 0 1 0 0 2 34 0 19 13
SB 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 7 9
197
18. I feel self-conscionis speaking German m front off other people,
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 14 12 12 n/a 11 4 n/a -5 -3
A 45 38 44 13 13 0 0
NAD 17 20 20 38 30 -3..
-2
D 18 23 20 21 38 8 5
SB 3 7 4 17 16 0 -1
19. Iff yon are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid offthem later on.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 19 8 13 0 8 0 0 -5. -3
a ; 38 25 29 24 18 6 25 -7 -5
NAD 17 20 22 25 23 25 0 1 1
D 17 33 27 42 28 41 75 5 8
SD 7 14 9 8 23 28 0 1 4
21. It’s important to practice in the langnage laboratory.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre . Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 39 16 21 0 10 3 0 -4 -3
A 45 53 50 84 35 28 100 -4 -3
NAD 9 21 21 8 39 38 0 -1 0
D 3 8 7 8 11 6 0 -2 -3
SD 2 1 1 0 5 25 0 7 13
198
Learner Metivaticms and Expectations (Items 239 279 30,31);
23. If I get to speak German very well, I will have mamy opportmniitieg to use i t
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 16 19 14 n/a 20 9 n/a -7 -4
A 33 36 40 27 23 -2 -2
NAD 31 29 30 27 23 -2 -2
B 15 16 16 17 38 13 8
SB 3 0 1 9 7 -1 -1
27. If I leara to speak German very well, it will help me get a good job.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 3 8 9 0 14 6 50 -3 -5
A 19 17 oo 19 23 50 3 2
NAB 44 47 35 84 30 38 0 5 2
D 21 21 22 0 29 19 0 -6 -4
SB 10 6 8 8 8 14 0 2 4
30. Americans think that it is important to speak a foreign langmage.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 3 3 4 0 2 0 0 -1 -1
A 22 17 17 0 6 6 0 0 0
NAB 27 25 24 8 16 13 25 -2 -1
B 28 40 41 65 39 59 25 7 13
SB 18 15 13 27 37 22 50 -10 -5
199
31. I would like t o 'earn German so tlnat I cam get to know its speakers better.
Horwitz1988
Kern 1995 Total Gain
Single Test Pre Post Inst Pre Post Inst Treat Comp
SA 10 13 14 n/a 12 13 n/a 1 0
A 38 40 41 24 25 0 1
NAD 33 32 29 30 28 -1 -1
D 13 14 13 26 25 -1 0
SD 5 1 3 8 9 -1 0
200
REFERENCES
Allen, W.W. “Toward Cultural Proficiency.” Proficiency. Curriculum Articulation: The Ties that Bind. Ed. A.C. Omaggio. Middlebury: Northeast Conference, 1985.
Alport, G.W. “The Historical Background o f Modem Social Psychology.” Handbook of Social Psychology. Ed. G. Lindzey. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Arizpe, V., and B. Aquirre. “Mexican, Puerto-Rican and Cuban ethnic groups in first- year-college-level Spanish textbooks.” The Modem Language Journal 71.2 (1987): 125-37.
Arsenault, Philip. Preface. Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages. Ed. Warren C. Bom. Montpelier: Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages, Inc., 1976.
Auerbach, Elsa Roberts, and Denise Burgess. “The Hidden Curriculum o f SurvivalELS.” Freire for the Classroom: A Sourcebook for Liheratory Teaching. Ed, Ira Shor. Portsmouth: Poynton/Cook, 1987.
Ausubel, David. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
Bacon, Susan M. “Coming to Grips with the Culture: Another Use o f Dialogue Journals in Teacher Education.” Foreign Language Annals 28 (1995): 193-207.
Banks, James A. Multiethnic education : theory and practice. 2 ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.
—, and Cherry A. McGee Banks. “Preface.” Multicultural Education. Ed,James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. xiii-xiv.
Bartley, D. E. “A Pilot Study o f Aptitude and Attitude Factors in Language Dropout.” California Journal o f Educational Research 20 (1969): 48-55.
Belenky, Mary Field. “Connected Teaching.” Women's Ways o f Knowing. New York: Basic Books, 1986. 214-229.
201
Benson, P.G. “Measuring Cross-Cultural Adjustment: The Problem o f Criteria.” International Journal o f Tnterciiltnral Relations 2 (1978)- 7.1-37-
Benson, P.G. Culture Shock Inventory. 1990. 209-214.
Bentahila, Abdelali & Eirlys Davies. “Culture and Language Use: A Problem for Foreign Language Teachaing.” IRAL 2 (1989): 99-112.
Best, Linda. “Freire's Liberatory Learning: A New Pedagogy Reflecting Traditional Beliefs.” : ERIC, 1990. Vol. ED326050.
Bishop, Reginald G. Jr. Forward. Culture in Language Learning: Reports o f theWorking Committees o f the Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages. Ed. G. Reginald Bishop, Jr., 1960: ERIC Document: ED 014 938.
Blyler, Nancy Roundy. “Pedagogy and Social Action: A Role for Narrative inProfessional Communication.” Journal o f Business and Technical Communication9.3 (1995): 289-320.
Borg, Walter R., and Meredith Damien Gall. Educational Research: An Introduction.5th ed. New York: Langman, 1989.
Bowers, Roger. “English in the World: Aims and Achievements in English Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 20 (1986): 393-409.
— . -‘Memories, Metaphors, Maxims, and Myths: Language Learning and Cultural Awareness.” ELT Journal 46.1 (1992): 29-50.
Branch, Chris W. “Racial Attitude Development among Young Black Children as aFunction o f Parental Attitudes: A Longitudinal and Cross Sectional Study.” Child Development 57.3 (1986): 712-21.
Breen, M., and C. Candlin. “Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum.” Applied Linguistics 1.2 (1979): 90-112.
Brooks, Nelson. Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice. Second ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964.
—. “Teaching Culture in the Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign Language Annals 1 (1969): 204-217.
202
Brown, Ann L., and Joseph C. Campione. “Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners.” Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Ed. Kate McGilly. Cambridge: A Bradford Book, 1994. 229-70.
Bruer, John T. “Classroom Problems, School Culture, and Cognitive Research.”Classroom l essons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice Ed. Kate McGilly. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994. 273-90.
Budner, Stanley. “Intolerance o f Ambiguity as a Personality Variable.” Journal o f Personality 30 (1962): 29-50.
Buttjes, Dieter, and L. Kane. “Theorie und Zielsetzung der Landeskunde imFremdsprachenstudium.” Anglistilc und Englischuntem'cht 4.Mai (1978): 51-61.
— . “Lanlceskunde im Fremdsprachenunterricht.” Neusprachlicht Mitteilungen35.1 (1982): 3-16.
— . “Mediating Languages and Cultures: The social and Intercultural DimensionRestored.” Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards and Intercultural Theory of Foreign language Education. Ed. Dieter Buttjes and Michael Byram. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991.
Byram, Michael. “Foreign Language Education and Cultural Studies.” Language. Culture and Curriculum 1.1 (1988): 15-31.
—•. “Post-Communicative" Language Teaching.” British Journal o f language Teaching26.1 (1988): 3-6.
— . Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Vol. 46. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1989.
—, Veronica Esarte-Sanies, and Susan Taylor. Cultural Studies and Language T,earning: A Research Report. Ed Derrick Sharp. Vol. 63. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1991.
—, and Veronica Esarte-Sarries. Investigating Cultural Studies in ForeignLanguage Teaching: A Book for Teachers. Vol. 62. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1991.
203
et al. “Young People's Perceptions o f Other Cultures: The Role o f Foreign Language Teaching.” Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards and Tntercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education. Ed. Dieter Buttjes andMichael Byram. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, 1991. 103-119. Vol. 60.
— . “Teaching Culture and Language: Towards an Integrated Model.” Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Tntercnltnral Theory o f Foreign Language Education. Ed. Dieter Buttjes and Michael Byram. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991. 17-32. Vol. 60.
—. “Language and Culture Learning for European Citizenship.” Language and Education 6.2 (1992): 165-76.
Byrnes, Heidi. “Foreign Language Departments and the Cultural Component o f an International-Studies Program.” ADFL 1 (1990): 10-15.
Canale, Michael. “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pegagogy.” Language and Communication. Ed. J. Richards and Richard Schmidt. London: Longman, 1983.
—, and Merrill Swain. “Theoretical Bases o f Communicative Approachesto Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1980): 1-47.
Candlin, Christopher N. “Language, Culture and Curriculum.” Canberra 6 (1992): 3-13.
Case, R. “Key Elements o f a Global Perspective.” Social Education 57.6 (1993): 318- 325.
Chapelle, Carol. “Ambiguity Tolerance and Field Independence as Predictors ofProficiency in English as a Second Language.” Language Learning 36.1 (1986): 45.
Clark, John L. Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Clement, R., P.C. Smythe, and R.C. Gardner. “Persistence in Second Language Study: Motivational Considerations.” The Canadian Modem Language Journal 34 (1978): 688-694.
Cohen, Andrew D . Language Learning: Insights for T.earners. Teachers, and Researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1990.
Coste, D. “Analyse de Discours et Pragmatique de la Parole dans Quelques Usages d'une Didactique des Langues.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1980): 244-52.
Crawford-Lange, Linda M. “Curricular Alternatives for Second-Language Learning.” Curriculum. Competence, and the Foreign language Teacher. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Skokie: National Textbook Company, 1982.
— , and Dale L. Lange. “Doing the Unthinkable in the Second-Language Classroom: A Process for the Integration o f Language and Culture.” Teaching for Proficiency, the Organizing Principle. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company, 1984. 139-77.
Cross, David. “Sex Differences in Achievement.” System 11.2 (1983): 159-62.
Cui, G. & S. Van Den Berg. “Testing the Construct Validity o f InterculturalEffectiveness. International Journal o f Intercultural Relations. 15 (1991): 259-84.
Cummins, Jim. “Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention.” Harvard Educational Review 56.1 (1986): 18-36.
Damen, Louise. Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom. Ed Sandra J. Savignon. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1987.
Danziger, K. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins o f Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Denton, David. Existentialism and Phenomenology in Education: Collected Essays. Ed David Denton. New York: Teachers College Press, 1974.
Dinges, N. “Intercultural Competence.” Handbook o f Intercultural Training. Ed. D.Landis and R.W. Brislin. New York: Pergamon Press, 1983. 176-202. Vol. 1.
Doyle, Clar. Raising Curtains on Education: Drama as a Site for Critical Pedagogy. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1993.
Doyle, Denis P. “Innocents at Home: American Students and Overseas Study.” Education Week November 16 1994: 1.
Ellis, Rod. Instructed Second l anguage Acquisition: T earning in tbe Classroom. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
204
205
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. “The Social Relations o f the Classroom: A Moral and Political Perspective.” : Telos, 1976. 110. Vol. 97.
Farhady, H. Justification. Development, and Validation o f Functional TangnapeTeaching. Vol. Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University o f California, 1982.
Fiedler, F. E., T. Mitchell & H.C. Triandis. “The Culture Assimilator: An Approach to Cross-Cultural Training.” Journal o f Applied Psychology. 55 (1971): 95-102.
Field, Lucy Fukasawa. “The Effect o f Multicultural Counseling Training onMulticultural Sensitivity o f Graduate Students.” : Indiana State University, 1990.
Fischer, Gerhard. “Tourist or Explorer? Reflection in the Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign language Annals 29.1 (1996): 72-81.
Flavell, J.H., and H.M. Wellman. “Metamemory.” Perspectives on the Development o f Memory and cognition. Ed. Jr. R.V. Kail and J.W. Hagen. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1977. 3-33.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1970.
—. “To the Coordinator o f a Culture Circle.” Convergence 4.1 (1971): 61-2.
Fried, J. “Bridging Emotion and Intellect: Classroom Diversity in Progress.” College Teaching 41.4 (1993): 123-128.
G. Reginald Bishop, ed. G. Reginald Bishop, Jr. Forward. New Brunswick: Princeton University Press, 1960. 11-13.
Gardner, R. C., and W.E. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House, 1972.
—, and P.C. Smythe. “Motivation and Second Language Acquisition.” The Canadian Modem Language Review 31 (1975): 218-230.
—, et al. “Second Language Learning: A Social Psychological Perspective.”The Canadian Modem Language Review 32 (1976): 198-213.
—. Social Psychology and Second Language I .earning: The Role o f Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
206
—, et al. “A Multidimensional Investigation o f Acculturation and Language Proficiency.” Research Bulletin 692. ERIC ED321575. (1990).
—, and Peter D. MacIntyre. “On the Measurement o f Affective Variables in Second Language Learning.” Language Learning 43.2 (1993): 157-194.
George, Mary. “Cultural Diversity in Public Elementary Schools: An Examination of Principals' Cultural Adaptability and Student Achievements.” : University of La Verne, 1991.
Giroux, Henry A., and Roger I. Simon. “Popular culture, schooling, and everyday life.” Popular culture, schooling, and everyday life. Ed. Henry A. Giroux and Roger I. Simon. Toronto: OISE Press, 1989.
— . Border Crossings: Cultural Workers arid the Politics o f Education. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Goldstein, Donna L. “A Comparison of the Effects o f Experiential Training onSojourners'Cross-Cultural Adaptability.” : Florida International University, 1992.
Graman, Thomas. “Education for Humanization: Applying Paulo Freire's Pedagogy to Learning a Second Language.” 58.4 (1988): 443-448.
Greene, Maxine. Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts, and Social Change. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995.
Grindhammer, L. “Language Learning and Language Teaching: The Cultural Imperative.” Anghstik und Englischunterricht 4.Mai (1978): 63-83.
Grittner, Frank M. “Editor's Introduction to This Special Edition on Culture.” Foreign Language Annals 29.1 (1996): 17-18.
Grumet, Madeleine R. Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching. Amherst: University o f Massachusetts Press, 1988.
Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989.
Haase, J.E., and S.T. Myers. “Reconciling Paradigm Assumptions o f Qualitative andQuantitative Research.” Western Journal o f Nursing Research 10.2 (1988): 128- 137.
207
Halliday, M.A.K. New Ways o f Meaning: A Challenge for Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki, Greece. ERIC Document: ED 324-960,1990.
Harding, J., et al. “Prejudice and Ethnic Relations.” Handbook o f Social Psychology Ed. G. Lindzey. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Hatch. Evelyn & Farhady. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Rowley: Newbury House, 1982.
—, and Anne Lazaraton. The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1991.
Henderson, Ingeborg. “Addressing Diversity: A Call for Action.” I Internchtspraxi s. Winter (1991): 4-9.
Higgs, Theodore V. & Ray Clifford. “The Push Toward Communication.” Curriculum, Competence and the Foreign l anguage Teacher. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs.Skokie: National Textbook Company, 1982.
Holliday, Adrian. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Horwitz, Elaine K. “Using Student Beliefs About Language Learning and Teaching inForeign Language Methods Course.” Foreign Language Annals 18.4 (1985): 333- 40.
—. “The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning UniversityForeign Language Students.” The Modem Language Journal 72 (1988): 283-294.
Huebner, Dwayne E. A Reassessment o f the Curriculum. New York: Bureau o f Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964.
Hymes, D. H. “On Communicative Competence.” Sociolinguistics. Ed. J. B. Pride and J. Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Inspectorate), HMI (Her Majesty's. Modem Foreign Languages to 16. London: HMSO, 1987.
Jacobsen, M., and M. Imhoff. “Predicting Success in Learning a Second Language.” The Modem Language Journal 58 (1974): 329-36.
208
Janger, J. “Literacy and Schooling: A Sociocognitive Perspective.” Language, Literacy and Culture: Issues o f Society and Schooling. Ed. J. Langer. Norwood: Ablex, 1987.
Tick, T.D. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in action.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (1979): 602-10.
Johnson, Alleyne J. “Life after Death: Critical Pedagogy in an Urban Classroom.” Harvard Educational Review 65.2 (1995): 211-210.
Jurasek, Jurasek, and Cork Sprechen WirDentsch: Textbook and Accompanying Workbook. 3rd Edition ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1992.
Kanpol, Barry. Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1994.
Kam, Richard G. “Students' and Teachers' Beliefs About Language Learning.” Foreign Language Annals 28.1 (1995): 71-92.
Kelley, Colleen, and Judith Meyers. Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory Manual. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, 1991.
—, and Judith Meyers. Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory Manual Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, 1995.
Kempf, Franz R. “The Dialectic o f Education: Foreign Language, Culture, and Literature.” ADFL Bulletin 27.1 (1995): 38-46.
Koch, Ingeborg. “The Dangers o f Image Perpetration in Foreign Language Teaching.” Canadian Modem Language Review 3L4 (1975): 342-48.
Kohonen, Viljo. “Teaching Content Through a Foreign Language is a Matter o f School Development.” ERIC Publication ED 383 198 (1994).
Koppe, Pamela Gilson. “Teaching Culture and Language in the Beginning ForeignLanguage Class: Four Strategies that Work.” Die IInterrichtspraxis 18 (1985): 158-169.
Kraft, D., andM. Sokofs. The Theory o f Experiential Education. Boulder: Association for Experiential Education, 1989.
209
Kramsch, Claire. “The Cultural Discourse o f Foreign Language Textbooks.” Toward a New Integration o f Language and Culture. Ed. Alan J. Singerman. Middlebury: Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages, 1988. 63-88.
—, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. “(Contextual Knowledge in LanguageTeaching.” Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study. Ed. Claire Kramsch and Sally McConnell-Ginet. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1992. 3-25.
—. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
— . “Embracing Conflict versus Achieving Consensus in Foreign Language Education.” ADFL Bulletin 26.3 (1995): 6-12.
Lafayette, Robert C. “Integrating the Teaching o f Culture into the Foreign Language Classroom.” Toward a New Integration o f Language and Culture. Ed. Alan J. Singerman. Middlebury: Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages, 1988. 47-61.
Lambert, W.E. “Psychological Approaches to the Study o f Language Part II: On Second Language Learning and Bilingualism.” The Modem Language Journal 14 (1963): 114-21.
Lange, Dale L. “The Curricular Crisis in Foreign Language Learning.” ADFL Bulletin 25.2 (1994): 12-16.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael H. Long. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman, 1991.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Sam D. Sieber. Organizing Educational Research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
Lee, Bock-Mi. Stages o f Acculturation: Their Relationship to ESI. Students' Preferences Associated with TEST Methods. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1991.
Legutke, Michael & Howard Thomas. Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. New York: Longman, 1991.
Lett, John A. “Assessing Attitudinal Outcomes.” The Language Connection: From the Classroom to the World. Ed. June K. Phillips. Skokie: National Textbook, 1977. 267-312. Vol- 9 o f ACTFT Review o f Foreign Language Education.
210
Lier, L. van. The Classroom and the Language T .earner. Ethnography and Second- Language Classroom Research. Harlow: Longman, 1988.
Lightbown, Patsy. “Great Expectations: Second Language Acquisition Research and Classroom Teaching.” Applied Linguistics 6 (1985): 173-189.
Mackie, Robert. “Introduction.” Literacy and Revolution: The Pedagogy o f Paulo Freire. Ed. Robert Mackie. London: Pluto Press, 1980. 166.
Mantle-Bromley, Corinne, and Raymond B. Miller. “Effects o f Multicultural Lessons on Attitudes o f Students o f Spanish.” The Modem Language Journal 75 (1991): 418- 425.
—. “Preparing Students for Meaningful Culture Learning.” Foreign Language Annals 25 (1992): 117-127.
—. “Students' Misconceptions and Cultural Stereotypes in Foreign Language Classes.” Middle School Journal 26 (1994): 42-47.
—. “Positive Attitudes and Realistic Beliefs: Links to Proficiency.” The Modem Language Journal 79 (1995): 372-386.
Marsh, Colin J. Curriculum: Alternative Approaches. Ongoing Issues. New York: Merrill, 1995.
Martin, A.V., B. McChesney, E. Whalley & E. Devlin. Guide to Language and StudySkills for College Students o f English as a Second Language. Englewood Cliffs! , Prentice-Hall, 1977.
McLaughlin, Barry. Theories o f Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold, 1987.
McLeod, Beverly. Language I .earning: Educating Linguistically Diverse Students. New York: State university o f New York Press, 1994.
Meade, B. & G. Morain. “The Culture Cluster.” Foreign Language Annals 6 (1973): 331-38.
Meras, Edmond A. A Language Teacher's Guide. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.
Milleret, Margo. “Evaluation and the Summer Language Program Abroad: A Review Essay.” The Modem Language Journal 74 (1990): 482-488.
211
Morgan, Carol. “Attitude Change and Foreign Language Culture Learning.” L a n g u a g e Teaching 26 (1993): 63-75.
—. “Teaching "Culture" at A-Level.” Language Learning Journal 7 (1993): 42-44.
Mounin, G. “Sens et place de la civilisation dans 1’enseignement des langues.” Le francais dans 1e monde. 188 (1984): 34-6.
Mueller, T.H., and R.I. Miller. “A Study o f Student Attitudes and Motivation in aCollegiate French Course using Programmed Language Instruction.” International Review o f Applied Linguistics 8 (1970): 297-320.
— “Student Attitudes in the Basic French Courses at the University o f Kentucky.” TheModem Language Journal 55 (1971): 290-8.
Nation, R., and B. McLaughlin. “Experts and Novices: An Information-processingapproach to the "good language learner' problem.” Applied Psycholinguistics 7 (1986): 41-56.
Newell, A., and A.H. Simon. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1972.
Norton, Robert W. “Measurement o f Ambiguity Tolerance.” Journal o f Personality Assessment 39.6 (1975): 607-619.
Nostrand, H.L. “Empathy for a Second Culture: Motivations and Techniques.”Responding to New Realities. Ed. G.A. Jarvis. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company, 1974. Vol. 5.
— “The ‘Emergent Model’ applied to contemporary France.” American ForeignLanguage Teacher. 4 (1974) n3: 23-27.
Nunan, David. Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
—, and Clarice Lamb. The Self-directed Teacher. Ed Jack C. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
O'Gorman, Frances. “Conscientization—Whose Initiative Should It Be?” Convergence:An International Journal o f Adult Education 11.1 (1978): 52-59.
212
Oberg, K. “Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments.” Practical Anthropology 7 (1960): 177-82.
Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1993.
Ome, Martin T. “Demand Characteristics and the Concept o f Quasi-Controls.” Artifact in Behavioral Research. Ed. R. Rosenthal and R.L. Rosnow. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Ortuno, Marian Mikaylo. “Cross-Cultural Awareness in the Foreign Language Class: The Kluckhohn Model.” The Modem Language Journal 75 (1991): 449-459.
Osgood, C.E., G.J. Suci, and P.H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement o f Meaning.Urbana: University o f Illinois, 1957.
Oxford, Rebecca L. Language I.earning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House, 1990.
—, and Jill Shearin. “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework.” The Modem Language Journal 78.1 (1994): 12-28.
Peck, Jeffrey M. “Toward a Cultural Hermeneutics o f the "Foreign" LanguageClassroom: Notes for a Critical and Political Pedagogy.” ADFL Bulletin 23.3 (1992): 11-17.
Pennycook, Alastair. “The Concept o f Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics o f Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 23 (1989): 589-618.
—. “Critical Pedagogy and Second Language Education.” System 18.3 (1990): 303-314.
—. “Incommensurable Discourses?” Applied Linguistics 15.2 (1994): 115-38.
Perkins, Cynthia. “Food and Culture: We are what we eat.” MFLA Newsletter 4.4 (1978): 8-14.
Pfister, Guenter G. “Creating Cross-Cultural Contrasts.” American Foreign Language Teacher 2.3 (1972): 39-41.
Phillips, J.K. “Developing Reading Proficiency in a Foreign language.” ACommunicative Syllabus. Ed. A. Papalia. Schenectady: New York State Association o f Foreign Language Teachers, 1985.
213
Phillips, C.B. “Nurturing Diversity for Today's Children and Tomorrow's Leaders.” Young Children 43 (1988): 42-47.
Pica, Teresa P. “Communicative Language Teaching: An Aid to Second LanguageAcquisition? Some Insights from Classroom Research.” English Quarterly 21.2 (1988): 70-80.
Pinar, William. “Search for a Method.” Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptnahsts. Ed. William Pinar. Berkeley: McCutchan Pub. Corp., 1975. 415-424.
— . Understanding Curriculum as Phenomenological and Deconstructed Text. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.
Politzer, Robert. “Developing Cultural Understanding Through Foreign Language Study.” Report o f the Fifth Annual Pound Table Meeting on linguistics and Language Teaching. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1959.
Popham, W. James, and Kenneth A. Sirotnik. Understanding Statistics in Education. Itasca: F.E. Peacock, 1992.
Prodromou, Luke. “What Culture? Which Culture? Cross-Cultural Factors in Language Learning.” E L I 46 (1992): 39-50.
Pruegger, Valerie J. The Effects o f Traditional Versus Experiential Training on theDevelopment o f Cross-Cultural Awareness. Calgary: The University o f Calgary, 1991.
— . “Cross-Cultural Sensitivity Training: Methods and Assessment.” International Journal of Tntercultural Relations 18.3 (1994): 369-387.
Ramirez, Amulfo G., and J.K. Hall. “Language and Culture in Secondary Spanish Textbooks.” The Modem Language Journal 74 (1990): 48-65.
—. “Culture in the Language Classroom.” Creating Contexts for Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Methods. White Plains: Longman, 1995. 58-83.
Rappaport, Joanne. “The Role o f an Anthropologist in L2 Teaching.” Issues in L2: Theory and Practice/Practice as Theory. Ed. Angela Labarca and Leslie M. Bailey. Norwood: Ablex, 1990. 247-257 o f Proceedings o f the 7th Delaware Symposium on Language Studies (October 1985).
214
Richards, Jack C., John Platt, and Heidi Platt. Longman Dictionary o f T.angnagRTeaching and Applied Linguistics. Ed C.N. Candlin. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited, 1992.
—, and Charles Lockhart. Reflective Teaching in Second l anguage Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Rivers, Wilga M. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Seconded. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, 1981.
—. “Developing International Competence for a Centripetal, Centrifugal World.” ADEL Bulletin 26.1 (1994): 25-33.
Roberts, Linda Pavian. “Attitudes o f Entering University Freshmen Toward Foreign Language Study: A Descriptive Analysis.” The Modem Language Journal 76 (1992): 275-283.
Robinson, G.L.N. “Culturally Diverse Speech Styles.” Interactive Language Teaching. Ed. W.M. Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Robinson-Stuart, Gail, and Honorine Nocon. “Second Culture Acquisition: Ethnography in the foreign Language Classroom.” The Modem Language Journal 80.4 (1996): 431-49.
Rosenbusch, Marcia H. “Is Knowledge o f Cultural Diversity Enough? Global Education in the Elementary School Foreign Language Program.” Foreign Language Annals 25.2(1992): 1992.
Rosnow, Ralph L., and D.J. David. “Demand Characteristics and the Psychological Experiment.” Et Cetera 34 (1977): 301-313.
Rynkiewich, Michael A , and James P. Spradley. “The Nacirema: A Neglected Culture.” The Nacirema: Readings on American Culture. Ed. James P. Spradley and, Michael A. Rynkiewich. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1975. 1-6.
Sadow, Stephen A. “Experiential Techniques that Promote Cross-Cultural Awareness.” Foreign Language Annals 20.1 (1987): 25-30.
Savignon, Sandra J. Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development, 1972.
215
Schludermann, et al. “Sociocultural Change and Adolescents' Attitudes towardThemselves and Others.” International Journal o f Behavioral Development 9.2 (1986): 129-52.
Schumann, J. “Social and Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition.”Understanding Second and Foreign Language T earning' Issues and Approaches. Ed. J. Richards. Rowley: Newbury House, 1978.
Seelye, H.N. Teaching Culture. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company, 1984.
— . Teaching Culture: Strategies for Tntercnltural Communication. Skokie: National Textbook Co., 1991.
Selinker, Larry, “Interlanguage.” IRAL lO.August (1972): 209-231.
Shade, Barbara J., and Clara A. New. “Cultural Influences on Learning: TeachingImplications.” Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Ed. James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee-Banks. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. 317-331.
Shane, Harold G. “Foreign Language Study for the World in Transition. The Language Connection: From the Classroom to the World.” ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series. Vol. 9,1977: ERIC Document 161 256.
Shaw, M.E., and J.M. Wright. Scales for the Measurement o f Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Shor, Ira, and Paulo Freire. A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. Granby: Bergin & Garvey, 1987.
— . “Education is Politics: Paulo Freire's Critical Pedagogy.” Paulo Freire: ACritical Encounter. Ed. Peter McLaren and Peter Leonard. London: Routledge, 1993.
— . “Education is Politics: Paulo Freire's Critical Pedagogy.” Paulo Freire: ACritical Encounter. Ed. Peter McLaren and Peter Leonard. London: Routledge, 1993. 25-35.
Simon, Roger I. Teaching Against the Grain: Texts for a Pedagogy o f Possibility. New York: Bergin & Garvey ̂ 1992.
Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf, 1971.
216
Sleeter, Christine. “Reflections on My Use o f Multicultural and Critical Pedagogy When Students are White.” Multicultural Education. Critical Pedagogy, and the Polities of Difference. Ed. Christine E. Sleeter and Peter L. McLaren. Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1995. 415-442.
Smith, L.E. Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes. Ed L.E. Smith. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1987.
Stagich, Tim. “Cultural Context: The Key to Second Language Learning and Acquisition.” Educational Horizons .Winter (1995): 59-61.
Standards, National. Standards for Foreign Language T .earning: Preparing for the 21stCentury. Final Report o f the National Standards in Foreign language Education Project: Draft: 8-11-1995. 1995.
Stem, H.H. Fundamental Concepts o f Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press, 1983.
— . Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Eds. Patrick Allen and Birgit Harley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Taylor, H.D & J.L. Sorensen. “Culture Capsules.” Modem Language Journal. 45 (1961): 350-54.
Taylor, J.S. “Direct Classroom Teaching o f Cultural Concepts.” Perspectives for Teachers o f Latin American Culture. Ed. H.N. Seelye. Springfield: State Superintendent o f Public Instruction, 1970: 224.
Thomas, Jenny. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics 4.2 (1982): 91-112.
Thomlison, Dean T. “Effects o f a Study-Abroad Program on University Students: Toward a Predictive Theory o f Intercultural Contact.” Eric Doc. No. ED 332 629 (1991): 46.
Tran, Thanh V. “Sex Differences in English Language Acculturation and LearningStrategies among Vietnamese Adults Age 40 and over in the United States.” Sex Roles: A Journal o f Research 1988 19.1L12 (1988): 747-58.
Trandis, Harry C. The Analysis o f Subjective Culture. New York: John Wiley, 1972.
Valdes, J.M. Culture Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
217
Wade, Ira et al. “Teaching o f Western European Cultures.” Culture In LanguageLearning. Reports o f the Working Committees o f the Northeast Conference on the Teaching o f Foreign Languages. Ed. G. Reginald Bishop, Jr., 1960: ERIC Document: ED 014 938.
Wallerstein, Nina. “Problem-Posing Education: Freire's Method for Transformation.” Freire for the Classroom; A Sourcebook for Liheratory Teaching. Ed. Ira Shor. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 1987.
Waxman, Hersholt C. “Improving the Quality o f Classroom Instruction for Students atRisk o f Failure in Urban Schools.” Peabody Journal o f Education 70.2 (1995): 44- 65.
Web, Michael W. “Cross-Cultural Awareness: A Framework for Interaction.” The Personnel and Guidance Journal .April (1983): 498-500.
Webber, Mark J. “The Role o f Culture in a Competence-Based Syllabus.” Theory into Practice 26.4 (1987): 251-57.
— . “Intercultural Stereotypes and the Teaching o f German.” I Jnterrichtspraxis .Spring (1990): 132-141.
Wenden, Anita. I-earner Strategies for T.earner Autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Widdowson, H.G. Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford University Press, 1978.
— . Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Wildner-Bassett, Mary E. “A Video Visit to the Land o f Them: Commercials and Culture in the Classroom.” I Jnterri chtspraxi s .Spring (1990): 54-60.
Woodford, Protase. “A Common Metric for Language Proficiency: Final Report.” : ERIC, 1981. Vol. ED212165.
Yorky, R.C. Study Skills for Students o f English as a Second Language. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.