30114_FM_CTP 10/5/07 10:26 AM Page iii

AAUSC Issues in Language

Program Direction

From Thought to Action:

Exploring Beliefs and Outcomes in the
Foreign Language Program

H. Jay Siskin
Editor

Australia • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • Spain

United Kingdom • United States
30114_FM_CTP 10/5/07 10:26 AM Page iv

AAUSC 2007: From Thought to Action:

Exploring Beliefs and Outcomes in the Foreign Language Program
H. Jay Siskin, Editor

Executive Editor: Lara Ramsey Semones Senior Marketing Communications

Assistant Editor: Catharine Thomson Manager: Stacey Purviance
Associate Technology Project Manager: Marketing Assistant: Denise Bousquet
Morgen Murphy Manufacturing Manager: Marcia Locke
Associate Content Project Manager: Print Buyer: Susan Carroll
Jessica Rasile Compositor: GEX Publishing Services
Senior Marketing Manager: Project Manager: GEX Publishing Services
Lindsey Richardson

© 2008 Thomson Heinle, a part of The ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work
Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, covered by the copyright hereon may be
and Heinle are trademarks used herein under reproduced or used in any form or by any
license. means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, taping,
web distribution or information storage and
Printed in the United States of America retrieval systems—without the written permis-
1 2 3 — 09 08 07 sion of the publisher.

For more information about Thomson Higher Education

our products, contact us at: 25 Thomson Place
Thomson Learning Academic Boston, MA 02210-1202
Resource Center USA
1-800-423-0563
For permission to use material from this
text or product, submit a request online at ISBN-13: 978-1-4282-3011-8
http://www.thomsonrights.com ISBN-10: 1-4282-3011-4
Any additional questions about
permissions can be submitted by email to
[email protected] Library of Congress Control Number:
2007936134
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 155

155

Chapter 9
Before and After 101: Change in Learners’
Attitudes in the Italian as Foreign Language
Classroom

Robin Worth, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Introduction
It is no secret that language program directors (LPDs) typically find themselves
in the unenviable position of answering to the needs of numerous stakeholders in
a foreign language (FL) program. The priorities, goals, and demands of FL faculty
(those specializing in both language and literature), departmental and institu-
tional administrations, graduate teaching assistants (TAs), undergraduate stu-
dents (and perhaps parents), and the FL teaching profession do not necessarily
exist in perfect harmony. In some public institutions, LPDs also may feel indirect
pressure from legislatures and taxpayers. Given the nature of politics and eco-
nomics, LPDs by necessity tend to align themselves with the priorities and dic-
tates of the more empowered forces, typically their departments and the
institutional demands that hover over them all. As a result, the “end users” of
university language instruction (i.e., students) rarely have much power or voice
to shape their own FL classroom learning experiences. Yet in this era of height-
ened “accountability” (Oukada, 2001, p. 110), ignoring the opinions and needs of
that particular set of stakeholders seems presumptuous at best; and if it leads to
the program being considered unresponsive or irrelevant, the result may “be
fatal” (Bernhardt & Berman, 1999, p. 24). Consequently, means must be found for
heeding learners’ voices and bringing their beliefs and goals into consideration
when determining FL program curricula. This study examines attitudes held by
university FL learners, particularly in light of their potential to be altered by their
FL classroom experiences.

FL Learner Attitudes
Much attention has been paid to student attitudes toward FL learning.
Researchers have looked at student attitudes toward, for example, predominant FL
pedagogies (Bateman, 2002; Frantzen & Magnan, 2005; Mandell, 2002; Schulz,
1996), specific FLs (particularly in terms of their usefulness) (Antes, 1999; Dörnyei
& Csizér, 2002; Magnan, Frantzen, & Worth, 2004; Magnan, Murphy, & Garrett,
2004; Rifkin, 2000), FL learning and questions of gender (Chavez, 2001; Horwitz,
1988), and FL requirements (Alalou, 2001; Antes, 1999; Ely, 1986; Magnan,
Murphy, & Garrett; 2004; Morello, 1988; Oukada, 2001; Roberts, 1992). The major-
ity of FL learner attitude research, however, has been based on attitude surveys or
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 156

156 WORTH

interview protocols that are administered in a single trial instead of longitudinally.

(However, see Hotho, 2000 for a multiple-trial administration of an attitude sur-
vey.) A single-administration methodology seems to support the traditional belief
that attitudes are inherent, psychological traits and consequently are static.
The present study, however, looked for any change in learner attitudes over
time—in this case, the relatively short period of time (15 weeks) that constituted
the first semester of a FL program. In this study, it is theorized that situational and
experiential aspects of FL learning can affect student attitudes and beliefs in as lit-
tle as one semester, which, if is indeed the case, would have wide-ranging implica-
tions for FL courses. Many of the challenges associated with curriculum planning,
program articulation, and instructor preparation may result in part from a misun-
derstanding of how significantly students’ learning is impacted by their classroom
culture and experiences. Knowledge about how students’ classroom experiences
influence attitudes and how attitudes may change in the course of a first-semester
language course would likely inform the efforts of LPDs in productive ways.

The Current Study

The data presented in this paper come from a larger study looking at learner
resistance in the FL classroom. Informed by critical social and pedagogical theory,
the larger study employed a critical ethnographic microanalysis of one section of
first-semester Italian (Italian 101) to uncover and describe enactments of resist-
ance. To situate the ethnography and provide contextual information, an attitude
survey was administered in a two-trial format (course onset and course exit) to all
students enrolled in first-semester Italian (Italian 101) at a large research institu-
tion in the Midwest during spring semester 2005 (nonset = 147, nexit = 142).
Although the surveys were administered in service to the ethnography and were
not the principal means of data collection for the larger study, they yielded plenti-
ful and intriguing data in their own right. The results of these attitude surveys
provide the basis of this paper.

Instrument and Procedures

The survey (Appendix A) contained 68 randomly ordered statements about various
elements of FL learning categorized according to eight subscales to which respon-
dents indicated their level of agreement along a 7-point Likert scale. The survey is
1
based on Gardner’s 1985 Attitude/Motivational Test Battery, the most accepted
and widely used inventory of this kind (Dörnyei, 2001), which is referred to in the
present study as the Attitude Inventory (AI). Responses to the AI items were used
to calculate mean AI scores intended to quantify positive or negative attitudes.
Scores could range from -3 to +3, with scores closer to +3 representing more pos-
itive attitudes toward language learning and, conversely, scores closer to -3 repre-
senting more negative attitudes (Clément et al., 1994; Dörnyei, 1990; Gardner,
1985; Gardner et al., 1997). The two-trial format was implemented to permit a
consideration of change in attitudes over the course of the semester. In addition,
both administrations contained four open-ended opinion questions and a series of
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 157

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 157

background and demographic questions based on those used in Magnan,

Frantzen, and Worth (2004). The responses to the open-ended questions in each
administration are the focus of this article.

Participants
The onset survey indicated that students in Italian 101 (N=147) were predomi-
nantly females (70%), 18–19 years old (56%), with the vast majority (97.9%)
reporting English as their first language (L1). The majority were undergraduates
(37% first-year students, 27% second-year students) and approximately half of the
total population (45%) were studying Italian to satisfy the FL requirement of two,
three, or four semesters depending on degree. Given the institution’s admission
policies, all students had completed at least two years of high school FL. The FL
they studied most frequently in high school was Spanish (63%), followed by French
(16%). Although the greatest number (46%) chose “personal interest” as their prin-
cipal reason for learning Italian, followed by study abroad and travel (25%), 4%
chose Italian because they heard it was “easier than other languages,” 5% chose
Italian because they were advised to take it, and 6% chose Italian because it fit into
their schedules. About 8% of respondents majored in or planned to major in a FL,
nearly all of them (93%) in a Romance language other than Italian.
Based on those demographic characteristics alone, there were clearly some
predisposing factors that may have impacted levels of motivation—or perhaps
more appropriately in a critical framework, investment (Norton Pierce, 1995;
Pavlenko, 2002)—very differently. Although the classrooms may have appeared
rather homogeneous (young English-L1 undergraduates who knew some
Spanish), the population was split almost equally in terms of FL requirement: 45%
were requirement learners; 55% were not. Moreover, the diversity of reasons for
choosing Italian specifically, as well as the very small percentage that planned to
major in any FL, underscores the fact that the program served students with a
wide variety of goals and future plans.

Limitations
The results of this particular study should not be overgeneralized. They are based
on the attitudes of learners at one level of study in a single language (Italian) at
one institution during one semester. However, the findings and methods may be
applicable to similar situations and indicate the need for additional studies about
student attitudes and change. The results and implications of the present study are
intended to shed light on issues of concern to LPDs and others who are responsi-
ble for curricular development, TA preparation, and other matters that can be
informed profitably by a sensitivity to learner attitudes.

Results and Discussion

Overall, on the onset administration, students in Italian 101 reported fairly posi-
tive attitudes toward the various language learning constructs as operationalized
by AI score (M = 1.14; SD = .80). To determine which items in the AI scale showed
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 158

158 WORTH

the greatest levels of reported agreement or disagreement among respondents,

mean scores for each item were determined and ranked. Only 9 of 68 items had
mean group scores below the neutral (0) point, again suggesting that students
overall were fairly positive about the language learning experience as they began
the course. Among the statements most strongly agreed with were those indicat-
ing a desire to know an additional language (item 42, “I wish I could speak another
language perfectly,” M = 2.35; SD = 1.27, and item 15, “I wish I were fluent in
Italian,” M = 2.22; SD = 1.30). Conversely, one of the lowest-ranked items (most
disagreed with) addressed the question of the relative importance of the course in
respondents’ degree programs (item 5, “Italian is an important part of my degree
program,” M = -.84; SD = 1.66). The relative rankings of these individual items are
mirrored by the rankings of the eight subscales, as reported in Table 1.

Table 1
Subscale means on onset AI, ranked in descending order (most to least positive
attitudes)

Subscale N Mean SD
Interest in foreign languages 144 1.85 .90
Integrative orientation 147 1.57 1.17
Attitudes toward learning Italian 141 1.57 .94
Desire to learn Italian 142 1.45 1.05
Motivational intensity 145 1.34 .79
Attitudes toward foreign language 112 .73 1.18
requirement
Instrumental orientation 143 .43 1.22
Italian class anxiety 143 -.29 1.20
Note: Mean scores can range from +3 to -3; 0 represents a neutral attitude. N = number
of respondents who answered all items in the relevant subscale.

The rankings show that respondents report the strongest level of agreement
with statements included in the subscale “Interest in foreign languages.” If we
interpret this finding as evidence that these respondents came to the Italian
course with positive attitudes toward foreign languages, the data supports previ-
ous findings that, overall, university students have positive attitudes about the
value of foreign languages (Antes, 1999; Frantzen & Magnan, 2005). The rela-
tively low level of agreement with the items in the “Instrumental orientation”
subscale also supports previous findings about language utility, that is, that stu-
dents do not view Italian as particularly helpful for their future career plans but,
instead, choose to study it for noninstrumental reasons such as personal interest,
curiosity, or travel (Magnan, Frantzen, & Worth, 2004; Magnan, Murphy, &
Garrett, 2004; Rifkin, 2000). Indeed, responses to items in the “Integrative orien-
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 159

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 159

tation” subscale are also quite positive, presumably indicating positive attitudes
about intercultural interaction and supporting the notion that Italian is viewed
by students as interesting or helpful for traveling but not necessarily useful for
career purposes.
2
Analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and t-tests were calculated to look for
significant differences in mean onset AI score across certain independent
variables. These analyses showed significant differences (p < .05) in terms of gen-
der (q73), requirement status (q78), year in school (q75), and reason for choosing
Italian (q91).
As may be expected, students who were studying Italian to fulfill the FL
requirement had a lower mean AI score (M = .52; SD = .77) than did students who
were not fulfilling a requirement (M = 1.38; SD = .60), (t(96) = 6.18, p = .000).
Females also had a significantly higher AI score (M = 1.12; SD = .80) than males
(M = .73; SD = .73), (t (95) = 2.33, p = .02). No significant differences were found
in mean AI score between age groups (F(4,144) = .637, p = .637), but an ANOVA
showed an overall significant difference by year in school (F(6 ,91) = 3.03, p = .01).
Analysis showed that mean AI scores decreased as students advanced through col-
lege, with one interesting anomaly. Fourth-year undergraduates had a much
higher mean AI score than second- and third-year students, nearly equal to the
mean for first-year students (Appendix B). One possibility was that the presence
of fourth-year students fulfilling their requirement at the last minute (predicted
to have relatively low scores) combined with fourth-year students who were tak-
ing the course purely out of interest (such as French and Spanish majors, n=14,
predicted to have relatively high scores) may have masked a relationship between
year in school and attitude. Consequently, a post hoc analysis of onset AI score by
year in school (q75) among requirement learners only, shows that AI scores were
increasingly lower as learners progressed through college, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Onset AI mean scores by year in school, requirement learners only

95% confidence
interval for mean

N Mean SD Std. Lower Upper

error bound bound
1st-year undergrad 12 .78 .60 .17 .39 1.16
2nd-year undergrad 10 .37 .64 .20 -.08 .83
3rd-year undergrad 11 .30 .92 .28 -.31 .92
4th-year undergrad 1 -.25 - - - -
5th-year or later 3 1.16 1.14 .66 -1.68 4.01
undergrad
Total 37 .53 .78 .13 .27 .79
Note: Ns indicate numbers of respondents with complete responses on AI inventory.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 160

160 WORTH

In terms of students’ reasons for studying Italian, an ANOVA found significant

differences between reasons overall (F(7, 97) = 4.08, p = .001). Table 3, which reports
the observed mean AI scores by reason for choosing Italian (q91), shows that means
for reasons that seem to indicate interest in the language (Rankings 1–5) are quite
positive and higher than AI means of those respondents who claim reasons that
involve factors external to the language (Rankings 6–8). Perhaps not surprisingly,
these findings suggest that students who express interest in Italian per se have more
positive attitudes than those who chose Italian for reasons unrelated to the language.

Table 3
Onset mean AI scores by reason for choosing Italian, ranked descending

95% confidence
interval for mean

N Mean SD Std. Lower Upper

Rank and reason error bound bound
1. Personal interest 46 1.24 .74 .11 1.02 1.45
2. For vacation/travel 7 1.21 .69 .26 .57 1.85
purposes
3. I think it will be useful 3 1.10 .87 .50 -1.06 3.26
for my future career
4. For study-abroad purposes 15 1.03 .63 .16 .68 1.38
5. Heritage reasons 7 .99 .52 .20 .51 1.48
6. I heard it was easier than 5 .38 .48 .21 -.21 .97
other languages
7. I was advised to take Italian 7 .34 .74 .28 -.34 1.03
8. It fit into my schedule 8 .03 1.07 .38 -.86 .93
Total 98 .98 .81 .08 .81 1.14
Note: Ns indicate numbers of respondents with complete data for AI inventory.

Change in Attitudes Over Time

A matched pair t-test of the onset and exit mean AI scores for all students who
completed both surveys and had complete AI inventories (n=58) revealed that
mean exit AI scores (M = .67; SD = 1.08) were significantly lower than mean onset
scores (M = .94; SD = .84), (t(57) = 2.96, p = .005). Consequently, as a group, over-
all attitudes (as measured by mean AI score) became significantly less positive by
the end of the semester. To understand and to be able to address these issues of
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 161

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 161

deteriorating attitudes, the more meaningful question might be, in what ways do
attitudes change over the course of the semester? To consider change in attitudes
toward the general variables represented by the eight subscales, a matched pair
t-test was performed to analyze significant differences between onset and exit sub-
scale scores (see Appendix C) among those respondents who completed both
administrations of the survey (n=114). Significant differences were found for six of
the subscales; and in five of the cases, the mean subscale scores were lower (less
positive) on the exit survey.
Significant onset-exit change (p < .05) was found for all subscales except
“Attitudes Toward FL Requirement” (p = .055) and “Interest in foreign languages”
(p=.62). Of those subscales showing significant change over time, change was in
the negative direction except for the subscale for “Italian class anxiety.” With cau-
tion, we might interpret the lack of significant change in the subscales “Attitudes
toward foreign language requirement” and “Interest in foreign languages” to indi-
cate relatively stable attitudes toward the greater context of FL learning, the
rationale, and the value in general. Attitudes that became significantly less favor-
able were toward more specific constructs such as attitudes toward classroom and
learning issues, Italian-specific attitudes, and questions of the perceived benefit of
studying Italian (the orientation subscales). The significant change in the variable
“Motivational intensity” supports the criticism that motivation, typically viewed as
a static and unchanging state or trait, may be better understood in learning situa-
tions in terms of investment, which permits a more dynamic view (Norton Pierce,
1995; Pavlenko, 2002).
“Italian class anxiety” was the only variable to show positive change, indicating
that, overall, reported anxiety diminished. This supports previous findings (Frantzen
& Magnan, 2005; Magnan, Frantzen, & Worth, 2004) that as students get to know
each other, they become more comfortable in the language classroom and report
feeling less anxious. Indeed, if we examine change on the individual item level, the
three items in that particular subscale that changed significantly (items 22, 26, and
27) indicated that students felt more confident, more sure of themselves, and less
embarrassed at the end of the semester than they did at the beginning.
To look at change in reported attitudes at an even more detailed level than
that represented by the subscale variables, paired-sample t-tests were performed to
analyze significant differences between onset and exit responses on individual
items. Only responses of students who completed both administrations of the sur-
vey were included. Significant change (p < .05) was shown in 38 of the 68 items, 33
in the negative direction and 5 in the positive direction. Table 4 lists the 10 items
showing the greatest change in mean score (all negative). For t-test results of
these items, see Appendix D.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 162

162 WORTH

Table 4
Select paired samples statistics: items showing greatest negative onset-exit
change
Mean N SD Std. Error
Mean
Onset Onset Onset Onset
Item Number and Item Exit Exit Exit Exit
60. I keep up to date with Italian by 1.91 112 1.20 .11
working on it almost every day. .45 112 1.83 .17
4. I plan to learn as much Italian 1.47 113 1.49 .14
as possible. .43 113 1.98 .19
18. I find I’m losing any desire I ever 2.15 114 1.06 .10
had to know Italian. (-) 1.24 114 1.87 .17
66. I tend to approach my Italian 1.03 114 1.56 .15
homework in a random and .14 114 1.89 .18
unplanned manner. (-)
7. I would rather spend my time on 1.11 114 1.72 .16
courses other than Italian. (-) .23 114 2.02 .19
63. When I am studying Italian, I 1.04 112 1.42 .13
ignore distractions and stick to .24 112 1.65 .16
the job at hand.
14. I would like to learn as much 1.62 114 1.44 .13
Italian as possible. .84 114 1.98 .19
20. I haven’t any great wish to learn 1.63 114 1.42 .13
more than the basics of Italian. (-) .89 114 1.87 .17
13. I want to learn Italian so well that it 1.26 113 1.72 .16
becomes second nature to me. .58 113 1.98 .19
3. I love learning Italian. 1.66 113 1.26 .12
1.04 113 1.72 .16
Note: (-) indicates a reverse-coded item: Respondents disagreed with items showing
positive means; smaller exit means indicate that respondents disagreed less with the
statement at the end of the course than they did at the onset.

Individual items that showed the most change in the negative direction mir-
rored the results of change by subscale. In general, students reported having
become less interested in learning Italian and less enthusiastic about undertaking
the homework and studying connected to the Italian course. This implies that the
experiences related to the course itself, such as classroom activities, course require-
ments, and outcomes, are connected to the negative changes in attitudes. While
perhaps not surprising, this finding supports anecdotal hunches that students’
enthusiasm for language learning decreases as the semester wears on and issues of
workload may afford part of the explanation as to why waning enthusiasm occurs.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 163

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 163

Open-Ended Questions
The open-ended questions lend more insight into issues of how and why stu-
dents’ interest in learning Italian decreased and, consequently, should be of
particular interest to LPDs and others charged with determining curriculum,
attending to questions of articulation, and preparing and supervising instruc-
tors. Because the survey was administered online, individual respondent codes
were collected as part of the password-protected log-on format. These codes
enabled the matching of each respondent’s onset and exit responses and
allowed for a consideration of changes in attitudes on the individual level, both
in terms of responses to AI items and as described in students’ own words.
Besides giving a measure of voice to each respondent, the open-ended ques-
tions were designed to give students the opportunity to express pressing or
meaningful issues related to their language learning expectations and experi-
ences and to allow for the expression of ideas and beliefs that were unantici-
pated in the design of the survey. The two sets of open-ended questions are
detailed in Table 5.

Table 5
Attitude survey open-ended questions

Item Onset administration Exit administration

69. What I like most about studying The most important thing I
foreign languages is ... got out of this course was ...
70. What I like least about studying I think studying foreign languages is ...
foreign languages is ...
71. I think [this university’s] foreign I think [this university’s] foreign
language requirement is ... language requirement is ...
72. Compared to other languages I’ve Compared to other languages I’ve
studied, I think Italian will be ... studied, Italian is ...

Item 71, which is intended to elicit opinions about the validity of the institu-
tion’s FL requirement, provides the onset-exit pair most clearly able to evidence
change in a particular attitude over time. Responses to this item were evaluated
and categorized as “completely positive” (+), “qualified positive” (+ if), “completely
negative” (-), or “qualified negative” (- if). The “qualified” categories were assigned
when the statement mentioned both positive and negative opinions of the FL
requirement and considered which opinion(s) seemed predominant. Of the 114
matched onset-exit responses, 100 gave valid responses to this item on both
administrations. Table 6 shows the responses to the FL requirement item by cate-
gory on course onset and exit administrations.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 164

164 WORTH

Table 6
Responses to item 71, FL requirement, onset and exit administrations

Onset Exit
+ 64 54
+ if 14 23
Subtotal positive 78 77
- 20 23
- if 2 0
Subtotal negative 22 23

The number of total positive and negative responses between onset and exit
administrations remained essentially the same, which mirrors the lack of change in
the AI subscale pertaining to the FL requirement. That could be viewed as a problem-
atic result if we are of the belief that language study fosters an appreciation for FLs,
which, in theory, would help students come to appreciate the value of the require-
ment. We cannot necessarily determine whether the logic of such a cause-and-effect
is flawed or whether this course simply failed to produce that outcome. However, by
examining the onset and exit responses to this item in more detail, we can gain a
somewhat clearer picture of how attitudes indeed changed. Table 7 presents change
in attitude over time by response category and breaks those categories out according
to whether respondents were studying Italian to satisfy the FL requirement.

Table 7
Attitudes toward FL requirement, onset and exit, by requirement status

Attitude
toward FL
requirement Requirement learner
Onset Exit N Yes No
+ Attitude, No Change (n=60) + + 50 10 40
+ if + if 10 7 3
- Attitude, No Change (n=12) - - 12 12 0
+ Change (n=9) - + 3 2 1
+ if + 1 0 1
- + if 5 4 1
- Change (n=19) + - 6 6 0
+ + if 8 3 5
+ if - 3 3 0
- if - 2 2 0
Total 100 49 51
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 165

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 165

It is encouraging to note that the majority of respondents (60%) had stable,

positive attitudes; that is, they reported favorable attitudes toward the FL require-
ment at the beginning of the course and retained that attitude at the end of the
semester. However, almost one third (28%) of the respondents changed their opin-
ion over the course of the semester, suggesting that as little as one semester of
experience in a FL course can alter attitudes. Moreover, more than twice as many
respondents had a change of attitude in the negative direction (n=19) than had a
change in the positive direction (n=9). Of those 31 students who had consistently
negative attitudes or whose attitudes became less positive, 26 were requirement
learners. Given that requirement learners made up half the population, the data
suggest that half of all requirement learners had less-than-positive experiences in
the course, as reflected by the attitudes toward required FL learning they
expressed in the course exit administration of the survey. These findings support
views expressing the shortcomings of FL courses in serving short-term (usually
requirement) learners (Alalou, 2001; Antes, 1999; Byrnes, 2006; Calvin & Rider,
2004; Kramsch, 2006; Oukada, 2001; Schulz, 2006).
Most of the nine individuals whose attitudes toward the FL requirement
became more positive at the end of the course finished the phrase “I think the FL
requirement is . . .” with exit responses that generally alluded to the notion of
opening students’ minds. A sample comparison of their onset and exit responses to
this item reveals positive change expressed along these lines:
• Respondent 59: “It is only useful in some majors, and not necessary in
others. If a student needs a foreign language for their future career then
they will choose to take one, but forcing students who don’t want/need
to learn a foreign language isn’t useful, because they will forget it. If you
don’t practice a language you will lose it very quickly” (onset) versus
“Important, because it makes students more well rounded. If it wasn’t a
requirement many people would not study a foreign language because it
can be difficult” (exit).
• Respondent 77: “a policy that I don’t think everyone necessarily needs,
but I believe it is an interesting ‘talent’ ” (onset) versus “an important
thing. It allows everyone to have at least some knowledge of others”
(exit).
• Respondent 79: “I think the fact that it is a requirement taints the expe-
rience for some people. I have always been forced by ciriculums (sic) to
take foreign languages, and I have always hated them because of it”
(onset) versus “appropriate” (exit).
• Respondent 85: “unimportant to some majors, but it is a good idea to get
people to learn about other peoples and parts of the world” (onset) versus
“helpful in forcing people to venture out of their comfort zone” (exit).
• Respondent 110: “Silly” (onset) versus “reasonable” (exit).

A more troubling outcome, however, was expressed by about one fifth of the stu-
dents; their attitudes toward the FL requirement became less positive—or even
worse, changed from positive to negative—after only one semester of language study.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 166

166 WORTH

The six respondents with wholly positive statements about the FL requirement on the
onset administration and wholly negative statements on the exit survey represent the
most extreme cases of negative attitude change. Not surprisingly, all of these students
were studying Italian to satisfy the requirement. Their statements, which in some
cases are very strongly worded, merit consideration:
• Respondent 15: “a must. [This university] prides itself on having well
rounded students. Learning a second language makes students more
well rounded” (onset) versus “in theory a good idea” (exit).
• Respondent 35: “reasonable. A few people would rather die than take a
language, but [the university] offers a B.S. for them. For a B.A., I think it
is necessary to be cultured in a foreign language” (onset) versus “Not up
to date. The difference between BS and BA relies solely on language.
This should not be the case. I am glad I took one semester, but am now
forced to take another. When it is forced on you it is no longer a fun
experience. For my com arts degree it is important to have a BA, yet I
will never use Italian in my life, other than possible travels. Therefore I
think it should only be a one semester requirement” (exit).
• Respondent 91: “excellent—I wish there was also an option for three
languages, two semesters each. I love the option of learning two lan-
guages though, the more the better” (onset) versus “obsolete. I’ve heard
numerous good things about the Spanish program here, but I’ve also
found that the rest of the teachings of foreign languages aren’t, in terms
of enjoyability, up to that par” (exit).
• Respondent 40: “part of the college experience” (onset) versus “mis-
guided” (exit).
• Respondent 3: “fine by me” (onset) versus “stupid” (exit).
• Respondent 84: “a good idea” (onset) versus “dumb” (exit).

Terms such as misguided, obsolete, stupid, and dumb may seem extreme; but
they should not be discounted. Coupled with the results of the overall decrease in
AI scores over time, it appears that many students in this program felt dissatisfied
with their FL learning experiences—in some cases to the point that in less than
three months’ time, they reversed their thinking about the validity of the FL
requirement. To LPDs and others charged with attending to issues of vertical
articulation, this finding does not bode well for the attitudes that some learners
bring to subsequent courses. It also signals that for some students, the expecta-
tions for and actual experiences in Italian 101 diverged considerably.
Insight into why some learners’ attitudes become negative may be gleaned by
considering themes identified in the responses to this question. References to the
“usefulness” of a FL (e.g., Respondent 35) were common, and many students pre-
dicted that Italian would not be useful for their careers. Supporting the previous find-
ings of Frantzen and Magnan (2005) and Magnan, Murphy, and Garrett (2004), the
present study indicates that students believed that Italian was useful mostly for travel
purposes. However, such a utilitarian view of FL conflicts with this institution’s
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 167

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 167

rationale for the FL requirement, which prioritizes the broadening of student minds,
the appreciation of other cultures, and metalinguistic awareness.
Study of foreign language contributes in an important way to a broad
education in a world where the overwhelming majority of people do
not speak or read English and where much of the knowledge may
never appear in English.
Knowledge of a foreign language is important for an appreciation of
the culture of the people using that language, and helps the student to
understand the complexities of the native language. (Board of Regents,
University X, 2005)

When student goals and institutional rationales seem to conflict or be mis-

matched, the possibility of learner disillusionment is rather likely. Other respon-
dents believed in educational goals similar to those expressed in the rationale for
the FL requirement but did not believe that FL learning would realize those goals.
Respondent 67 wrote, “[The FL requirement is] somewhat unnecessary. It is not as
useful as say a business course or critical thinking. Learning a foreign language
just involves repetition and memorization, not critical thinking.”
Indeed, the opinion that Italian was not useful was one prevalent theme in the
answers to several of the open-ended questions. In addition to usefulness or its con-
verse, the other most common themes identified in the completion of items 70 and
71 on the exit administration (“I think studying foreign language is . . .” and
“Compared to other languages I’ve studied, Italian is . . .”) were difficult versus easy,
fun/enjoyable versus unenjoyable/tedious, and interesting versus boring. The phrase
a waste of time was used repeatedly (9 respondents). Whether respondents found the
course interesting or boring, difficult or easy, useful or useless, LPDs and others
responsible for course curriculum should note that these criteria were volunteered
by students in the context of open-ended questions and, thus, are undoubtedly of
importance to learners. Consequently, when learners’ attitudes toward FL learning
change in connection to courses they found “useless,” “not enjoyable,” or “boring,”
it seems apparent that these criteria should be considered when programming
courses, determining materials and methods, and preparing instructors.

Implications and Conclusions

Although the criteria of “enjoyable,” “interesting,” and “fun” are, without doubt,
highly subjective (and consequently rather difficult to program), usefulness may
be a concern that is somewhat more easily addressed. As mentioned earlier,
research regarding the usefulness of foreign languages has identified a number
of learner goals, including instrumental goals such as work and career-related
uses or increased status associated with appearing “educated” (Gardner, 1985),
as well as integrative goals such as travel and study abroad, increased intercul-
tural sensitivity, and the ability to access information in other languages.
Moreover, research has shown that these perceptions of utility tend to vary
between languages (Rifkin, 2000).
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 168

168 WORTH

Program and Course Goals

It is not so much the plurality of goals that may create conflict, disillusionment, or
negative experiences in a FL course; rather, it is the failure to make explicit and
clear whatever the goals of FL study in a particular program or course are deter-
mined to be. In this particular FL program, no course goals were ever stated
explicitly to students, TAs, or any other stakeholders. In lieu of specifically stated
goals, students assumed a variety of often conflicting goals; consequently, some
students were disillusioned by their experiences.
In this study, respondents referred, directly and indirectly, to their goals for
FL learning in response to a number of the open-ended questions. These goals
included speaking and understanding the FL, gaining an understanding of addi-
tional cultures, preparing for travel or study abroad, satisfying the FL require-
ment, pursuing a personal interest or curiosity, and exploring questions of
heritage. Yet students also reported being opposed to activities related to many of
those goals. “Speaking” was one of the most prevalent responses to the statement
“What I like least about studying foreign languages is. . . .” Other students
resented the presence of “culture” in the course, finding it a distraction or a waste
of time. As one respondent wrote, “[I]f the university wants you to experience and
learn about other cultures, then make us take a class about the culture of the
country and not the language.” While many viewed the course in terms of utility
for future travel, a number of students expressly stated that they would never go to
Italy or “use” the language elsewhere. Moreover, one of the findings of the larger
study was that in lieu of explicit course goals, the course was sometimes posi-
tioned, particularly by means of instructor and student discourses, as “travel
preparation.” This positioning or implied goal resulted in the disenfranchising and
marginalizing of those students who did not share that implicit goal. These stu-
dents expressed in interviews that they did not believe the course was intended for
them; consequently, at the end of the semester, they could not list any benefits
they may have derived from having taken the course.
The existence of multiple goals is, of course, not limited to students. As LPDs
know quite well, there are numerous stakeholders in a language program (TAs,
LPDs or coordinators, course chairs, departments as a whole, and individual fac-
ulty members) with goals that presumably vary and sometimes conflict with those
of other interested parties (Brecht & Ingold, 2000). These goals may or may not
coincide with the goals of the institution as a whole, whether as expressed within
the rationale for the FL requirement in particular or as understood in a more gen-
eral educational sense. Finally, the goals of the FL teaching profession as a whole,
as represented by, for example, the Five Cs (ACTFL, 1999) or other definitions both
explicit and implicit, more than likely diverge somewhat from those of the other
stakeholders. Textbooks are also goal-based, both explicitly and implicitly; and the
selection of a textbook affects the goals of the course whether this is consciously
determined or not. Although a multitude of perspectives is understandable,
unavoidable, and potentially quite positive, this plurality becomes problematic
when goals are never made explicit.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 169

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 169

The difficulty of specifying, negotiating, and reconciling the plurality of goals

has not gone unconsidered. Calvin and Rider (2004), for example, describe the
lengthy and detailed process used for developing goals for Indiana State
University’s recent curricular revision to the FL requirement, positioned as a
“model for the 21st century,” and one that considers the role of culture and the
means for developing understandings about cultural matters. Other scholars
(Alalou, 2001; Brecht & Walton, 1995; Ingram, 2005; Maxwell & Garrett, 2002;
Oukada, 2001) have similarly considered the changing nature of goals for FL study
in more internationalized curricula and the necessity of being responsive to the
needs of students in this era of globalization.

Curricular Reform
Being responsive to student needs hearkens back to the concerns of the students
in this study about questions of “usefulness.” Increasingly, the calls for consider-
ing the outcomes of requirement learners in a FL program demand that we pro-
vide “curricular closure” (Oukada, 2001, p. 110) to those who do not continue on
to upper-level courses. Providing closure implies that students need to come away
from the language sequence with more than the groundwork for further FL study.
If we agree that providing something “useful” is an important consideration, we
must begin by defining what “useful” might be and then determine what can be
achieved in the space of two, three, or four semesters. Schulz (2006) has proposed
that “lasting benefits of a short-term FL requirement experience, in addition to
some survival skills,” include
insight into (a) language as rule-governed behavior, (b) the systematic-
ity of language, (c) language as a living “organism” that changes over
time, (d) sociolinguistic variation of language use, (e) rules of pragmatic
use, (f) how language reflects culture, (g) how culture affects language
and language use, and (h) the language learning process and strategies
useful for language learning. (p. 254)

These goals, which necessitate including intellectual content in addition to

linguistic skill-building in the beginning FL curriculum, are supported by the
rationale of this and probably many institutions’ FL requirements. The call for the
inclusion of content in courses such as these represents another growing move-
ment in postsecondary FL pedagogy (Calvin & Rider, 2004; Larson, 2006; Oukada,
2001; Rifkin, 2006; Steinhart, 2006; Swaffar, 2006). But whether we use the
requirement rationale or some other starting point to determine a program’s goals
and resulting curriculum, we first must verify that students are made aware of and
understand those goals; then we must deliver on our promises. Once we begin to
offer FL programs with thoughtfully considered and well-articulated goals that
offer something “useful” even in the initial semesters, we may be more likely to
satisfy demands for “fun,” “interesting,” and “enjoyable” courses as well.
Designing and articulating language courses to include content at all levels so
that students find them “useful” may well demand a reconsideration of current
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 170

170 WORTH

pedagogical approaches. The shortcomings of Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT) and the related objective of communicative competence have increasingly
been the object of discussion, both in terms of underlying theory and classroom
practices (Byrnes, 2006; Kramsch, 2006; Larson, 2006; Magnan, in press; Rifkin,
2006; Schulz, 2006; Steinhart, 2006; Swaffar, 2006). Coming increasingly under
fire is the noncritical approach to what may be referred to as the target language-
only policy, or the banishment of English from the FL classroom. This practice
essentially eliminates the possibility for students at elementary levels of profi-
ciency to discuss abstract or complex subjects, a necessary component if students
are to develop critical thinking skills, and can even result in students feeling
silenced or infantilized (Worth, 2006). In response to such criticisms, some schol-
ars are calling for careful considerations of systematic roles for English in the FL
classroom (Calvin & Rider, 2004; Larson, 2006; Worth, 2006).

TA Preparation
The finding that student attitudes toward FL learning may change, often nega-
tively, in a short amount of time has important implications for TA preparation
and supervision. In short, TAs need to be made aware that student experiences in
first-semester courses impact attitudes that students will bring with them to sec-
ond semester and beyond, both positively and negatively. It should go without say-
ing that TAs need to be aware of the goals of the individual courses they teach. But
just as importantly, TAs should understand the overall language program curricu-
lum and the philosophy of its articulation so that they may be better equipped to
bring about its success.
LPDs also should make TAs aware of the various goals and needs of the stu-
dents they will be teaching because too often, uninformed TAs make assumptions
about students based on their own language learning experiences, attitudes, and
values. TAs often are not as sensitive to questions of learner differences as are
more experienced LPDs. Given that, by definition, TAs who are graduate students
in FL programs tend to be motivated and successful language learners as well as
above-average students, they often unwittingly project their attitudes and beliefs
onto their students, resulting in frustration and disillusionment on both sides. TAs
in a program serving requirement learners must acknowledge the fact that not all
students are potential FL majors, not all intend to study abroad or even travel to
other countries. Yet the attitudes and beliefs of all learners in a classroom should
be viewed as valid, a critical perspective that becomes much easier to realize when
elementary and intermediate FL course goals are viewed as something broader
and more universally applicable than preparation for upper-level FL courses.
Regardless of the exact policy for English versus target language use adopted
by a course or program, TAs need to be prepared to execute the policy sensitively
and critically. When implementing a target language-only policy unquestion-
ingly, with no regard for students’ communicative, educational, or affective out-
comes, TAs may effectively force “communication to take a backseat to the
strictures of language policy” (Chavez, 2002, p. 194). To help TAs become more
adept at implementing course policies for classroom language use, LPDs may, for
example, lead the TAs in training exercises that sensitize them to the potentially
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 171

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 171

silencing or infantilizing effects of the TL-only policy among novice learners.

Equipped with a heightened sensitivity, a TA can mitigate or prevent some of the
problematic outcomes associated with the noncritical application of this practice.
Finally, the diversity of attitudes, goals, and needs of the students in a FL pro-
gram can be effectively addressed only with up-to-date knowledge about what atti-
tudes in any given context truly are. Surveys or other forms of needs assessments
are indispensable so that LPDs and others responsible for curriculum develop-
ment and instructor training avoid unfortunate assumptions. Although the atti-
tude survey implemented in this study may be impractically long and
time-consuming for use as a regular needs assessment tool, similar but shorter
versions may be helpful for determining and monitoring the changing attitudes
and goals of FL learners. Only when those responsible for curriculum develop-
ment are armed with input from all stakeholders in a FL program, including and
especially the often-overlooked “end users,” can effective policy and curricular
decisions be made.

REFERENCES
ACTFL (1999). Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century.
Yonkers, NY:ACTFL.
Alalou,A. (2001). Reevaluating curricular objectives using students’ perceived needs:The
case of three language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 453–469.
Antes,T.A. (1999). But will I ever use this foreign language?: Student perceptions of the
applicability of foreign language skills. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 219–233.
Bateman, B. (2002). Promoting openness toward culture learning: Ethnographic interviews
for students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 86, 318–331.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Berman, R.A. (1999). From German 1 to German Studies 001:A chronicle
of curricular reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 32, 22–31.
Brecht. D. R., & Ingold, C.W. (2000, Fall). Literacy, numeracy, and linguacy: Language and
culture and general education. Liberal Education, 86(4), 30–39.
Brecht, D. R., & Walton, A. R. (1995). The future shape of language learning in the new
world of global communication: Consequences for higher education and beyond. In
R. Donato & R. M.Terry (Eds.), Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime
(pp. 110–152). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Byrnes, H. (2006). Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 90, 244–246.
Calvin, L. M., & Rider, N.A. (2004). Not your parents’ language class: Curriculum revision
to support university language requirements. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 11–25.
Chavez, M. (2001). Gender in the language classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Chavez, M. (2002.) The diglossic foreign-language classroom: Learners’ views on L1 and
L2 functions. In S. Magnan (Series Ed.) & C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of
foreign-language classrooms (pp. 163–208). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group
cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417–448.
Dawes, R.V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 481–489.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language
Learning, 40, 45–78.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation:
Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462.
Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation:A descriptive and causal analysis. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 28–35.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 172

172 WORTH

Frantzen, D., & Magnan, S. (2005).Anxiety and the true beginner-false beginner dynamic
in beginning French and Spanish classes. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 171–190.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London:Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second lan-
guage learning:An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 81, 344–362.
Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
Hotho, S. (2000).“Same”or “different”? A comparative examination of classroom factors in
second language settings. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 320–329.
Ingram, M. (2005). Recasting the foreign language requirement through study abroad: A
cultural immersion program in Avignon. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 211–222.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern
Language Journal, 90, 249–252.
Larson, P. (2006).The return of the text:A welcome challenge for less commonly taught
languages. Modern Language Journal, 90, 255–258.
Magnan, S. S. (in press). Reconsidering communicative language teaching for national
goals. Modern Language Journal.
Magnan, S., Frantzen, D., & Worth, R. (2004). Factoring in previous study of other foreign
languages when designing beginning courses. In S. Magnan (Series Ed.) & C. Barrette
& K. Paesani (Vol. Eds.), Issues in language program direction: Volume 2004.
Language program articulation: Developing a theoretical foundation
(pp. 149–171). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Magnan, S., Murphy, D., & Garrett, P. (2004). [Student motivation for undertaking language
study]. Unpublished raw data.
Mandell, P. (2002) On the background and motivation of students in a beginning Spanish
program. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 530–542.
Maxwell, D., & Garrett, N. (2002). Meeting national needs. The challenge to language
learning in higher education. Change, 34(3), 23–28.
Morello, J. (1988). Attitudes of students of French toward required language study.
Foreign Language Annals, 21, 435–442.
Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 1–31.
Oukada, L. (2001). Toward responsive beginning language curricula. Foreign Language
Annals, 34, 107–117.
Pavlenko,A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second
language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 275–302).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Rifkin, B. (2000). Revisiting beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 33, 394–420.
Rifkin, B. (2006). A ceiling effect for communicative language teaching? Modern
Language Journal, 90, 262–264.
Roberts, L. P. (1992). Attitudes of entering university freshmen toward foreign language
study:A descriptive analysis. Modern Language Journal, 76, 275–283.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’
views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29,
343–364.
Schulz, R.A. (2006). Reevaluating communicative competence as a major goal in postsec-
ondary language requirement courses. Modern Language Journal, 90, 252–255.
Sisson, D. A., & Stocker, H. R. (1989). Analyzing and interpreting Likert-type survey data.
The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 31(2), 81–85.
Steinhart, M. M. (2006). Breaching the artificial barrier between communicative compe-
tence and content. Modern Language Journal, 90, 258–262.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 173

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 173

Swaffar, J. (2006). Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative
competence. Modern Language Journal, 90, 246–249.
Worth, R. (2006). Learner resistance in the university foreign language classroom.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin.

Notes
1. The AMTB, which was created for English-speaking learners of French in Canada,
has subsequently been adapted and implemented in a variety of contexts (Gardner,
Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994).Although care must
be taken when adapting such a scale to different populations and contexts, Clément
et al. (1994) demonstrated that this scale can be reliable, yet flexible enough across
populations to lend valuable results. Following Clément et al. (1994), Gardner et al.
(1997) and others, the wording of inventory items was modified to reflect the con-
text in question, usually just changing the word French to Italian.The ratio of posi-
tively and negatively worded statements (5 of each in every 10-item subscale) was
preserved, but the subscale that seeks to measure Attitudes Toward Target Language
Speakers was omitted because, as Dörnyei (1990) indicates, classroom FL learners
are notably different from L2 learners in that they typically have little or no interac-
tion with speakers of the target language.This lack of contact would indeed be the
case in the present context, a city that has relatively few L1 speakers of Italian, most
of whom are affiliated with the university and consequently are highly proficient
users of English. In addition, the subscale designed to measure Target Language (TL)
Use Anxiety was omitted because it was comprised of items such as “It would
bother me if I had to speak [TL] on the telephone” and “I would feel calm and sure
of myself if I had to order a meal in [TL].” Consequently, the TL Use Anxiety subscale
would be irrelevant at the time of the onset administration for beginners in a course
that had met for only four or five hours. Consequently, TL Use Anxiety was not
included in the exit survey because there would be no baseline for measuring
change and it would only serve to make the already lengthy survey even longer.
Because the potential influence of the FL requirement on attitude was of interest, a
new subscale of 10 items intended to measure attitudes toward that requirement
was created and refined with a series of pilot tests.
2. Parametric analyses (ANOVAs and T-tests) were used to determine statistically sig-
nificant relationships. Although these tests assume normal distribution and Likert-
scale responses are at the ordinal, not interval, level, it is generally accepted (Sisson
& Stocker, 1989) that because the ordinal level of responses is linear, normal distri-
bution is closely approximated when analyzing the averages of responses provided
the sample of respondents is large enough (N of at least 100, Dawes, 1987). Normal
distribution for Likert scales is thought to be adequately approximated at the
6-point level. Seven-point Likert scales were used in this study.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 174

174 WORTH

Appendix A – Attitude Survey Items

Attitude Survey of Students of Italian 101
University of XX Research Protocol # SE-2005-0008
If you are under the age of 18, please do not complete this survey.
Click to view and/or print a copy of the consent form, which will open in a separate
browser window.
You are being asked to fill out this confidential survey because you are
enrolled in Italian 101. Your feedback will be very useful in helping us better
understand the attitudes and needs of students of Italian 101. Your responses will
not be seen by or made available to your instructor, and will not affect your
Italian 101 grade in any way.
Please complete all the questions at one sitting before you submit your
responses—it should take about 20 minutes of your time. When you have
completed the survey, please click the submit button at the bottom of the page to
register your responses.

Thank you!
qsec. Please indicate your section number for Italian 101:i
1. Sec 1 (8:50 – Instructor A)
2. Sec 2 (9:55 – Instructor B)
3. Sec 4 (11:00 – Instructor C)
4. Sec 6 (12:05 – Instructor D)
5. Sec 7 (12:05 – Instructor E)
6. Sec 8 (3:30 MW – Instructor F)
7. Sec 9 (1:20 – Instructor G)
8. Sec 11 (2:25 – Instructor H)
9. Sec 12 (3:30 MW – Instructor J)
10. Sec 13 (7:00 TR – Instructor K)

qreq. Are you enrolled in Italian 101 to meet a foreign language requirement for
your degree?
y. yes
n. no

qps.ii DId you complete the pre-course survey for this research project at the
beginning of this semester (Spring 2005)?
y. yes
n. no

I. The following section seeks to understand your attitudes and opinions about
Italian and foreign languages in general. Please indicate your level of agreement
with the following statements according to the scale indicated below:
Strongly Agree (3)
Moderately Agree (2)
Slightly Agree (1)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (0)
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 175

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 175

Slightly Disagree (–1)

Moderately Disagree (–2)
Strongly Disagree (–3)

Attitudes Towards Learning Italian

q1 42 + Italian is really great.
q2 24 + I really enjoy learning Italian.
q3 46 + I love learning Italian.
q4 13 + I plan to learn as much Italian as possible.
q5 53 + Italian is an important part of my degree program.
q6 54 – I hate Italian.
q7 29 – I would rather spend my time on courses other than Italian.
q8 21 – I find the study of Italian very boring.
q9 27 – Learning Italian is a waste of time.
q10 59 – When I finish this course, I will give up the study of Italian entirely
because I am not interested in it.
Desire to Learn Italian
q11 64 + I wish I had begun studying Italian at an early age.
q12 49 + If it were up to me, I would spend all of my time learning Italian.
q13 37 + I want to learn Italian so well that it will become second nature to me.
q14 18 + I would like to learn as much Italian as possible.
q15 38 + I wish I were fluent in Italian.
q16 56 – Knowing Italian isn’t really an important goal in my life.
q17 58 – I sometimes daydream about dropping Italian.
q18 28 – I find I’m losing any desire I ever had to know Italian.
q19 51 – To be honest, I really have little desire to learn Italian.
q20 67 – I haven’t any great wish to learn more than the basics of Italian.
Italian Class Anxiety
q21 45 + I don’t usually get anxious when I have to respond to a question in my
Italian class.
q22 22 + I feel confident when asked to participate in my Italian class.
q23 43 + I do not get anxious when I am asked for information in my Italian class.
q24 52 + I don’t understand why other students feel nervous about using Italian
in class.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 176

176 WORTH

q25 12 + Students who claim they get nervous in Italian class are just making
excuses.
q26 40 – I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in our Italian class.
q27 7 – It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in our Italian class.
q28 60 – It worries me that other students in my class seem to speak Italian bet-
ter than I do.
q29 35 – I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my Italian class.
q30 68 – I am sometimes afraid the other students will laugh at me when I speak
Italian.
Attitudes Towards Foreign Language Requirement
q31 26 + A foreign language requirement is a legitimate part of a college degree.
q32 19 + Taking foreign language courses is good for my GPA.
q33 2 + All degree programs at this university should have foreign language
requirements.
q34 1 + I would study a foreign language even if it weren’t required for me.
q35 31 + The foreign language requirement is particularly relevant in this day
and age.
q36 33 - There should be ways to be exempt from the L&S foreign language
requirement.
q37 47 – Taking foreign language courses brings my GPA down.
q38 34 – The foreign language degree requirement should be eliminated.
q39 4 – Studying a foreign language is a waste of my tuition.
q40 20 – The university foreign language requirement is obsolete in today’s society.
Interest in Foreign Languages
q41 65 + I would really like to learn many foreign languages.
q42 50 + I wish I could speak another language perfectly.
q43 8 + I often wish I could read newspapers and magazines in another language.
q44 57 + 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.
q45 25 + I enjoy meeting and listening to people who speak other languages.
q46 5 – Studying a foreign language is an unpleasant experience.
q47 17 – I really have no interest in foreign languages.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 177

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 177

q48 44 – Seeing that the United States is relatively far from countries speaking
other languages, it is not important for Americans to learn foreign
languages.
q49 16 – Most foreign languages sound harsh and crude.
q50 6 – I would rather see a foreign film dubbed in English than see the film in
its original language with English sub-titles.
Instrumental Orientation
q51 63 + Studying Italian is important because it will make me appear more
cultured.
q52 3 + Studying Italian is important because it will give me an edge in competing
with others.
q53 11 + Studying Italian can be important to me because I think it will someday
be useful in getting a good job.
q54 39 + Studying Italian is important for me because it will increase my ability
to influence others.
Integrative Orientation
q55 15 + Studying Italian can be important for me because it will allow me to
meet and converse with more and varied people.
q56 9 + Studying Italian is important because it will allow me to participate
more freely in activities with other cultural groups
q57 55 + Studying Italian is important because it will allow me to be more at ease
around people who speak Italian.
q58 30 + Studying Italian is important because it will enable me to better under-
stand Italian life and culture.
Motivational Intensity
q59 41 + I make a point of trying to understand all the Italian I see and hear.
q60 14 + I keep up to date with Italian by working on it almost every day.
q61 36 + When I have a problem understanding something we are learning in my
Italian class, I always ask the instructor for help.
q62 61 + I really work hard to learn Italian.
q63 10 + When I am studying Italian, I ignore distractions and stick to the job
at hand.
q64 23 – I don’t pay too much attention to the feedback I receive in my Italian class.
q65 66 – I don’t bother checking my corrected assignments in my Italian class.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 178

178 WORTH

q66 32 – I tend to approach my Italian homework in a random and

unplanned manner.
q67 62 – I have a tendency to give up when our Italian instructor goes off on
a tangent.
q68 48 – I can’t be bothered trying to understand the more complex aspects
of Italian.
II.iii The following section seeks to understand your attitudes and opinions about
Italian and foreign languages in general. Please answer the following questions
by entering your answers in the accompanying boxes.
69. What I like most about studying foreign languages is...
70. What I like least about studying foreign languages is...
71. I think the university foreign language requirement is…
72. Compared to other languages I’ve studied, I think Italian will be…

II.ii The following section seeks to understand your attitudes and opinions about
Italian and foreign languages in general. Please answer the following questions
by entering your answers in the accompanying boxes.
69. The most important thing I got out of this course was...
70. I think studying foreign languages is...
71. I think the university foreign language requirement is…
72. Compared to other languages I’ve studied, Italian is…

III. Background information:

73. Your gender:
M. Male
F. Female
74. Your age:
0. under 18
1. 18–19
2. 20–21
3. 22–23
4. 24–28
5. 29 or older
75. What year are you in at [institutuion]?
0. non-degree student, High School student
1. 1st year university undergraduate
2. 2nd year university undergraduate
3. 3rd year university undergraduate
4. 4th year university undergraduate
5. 5th year or later university undergraduate
6. graduate student
7. other
76. What school or college at [institution] are you in?
0. Special or non-degree program
1. Letters & Sciences – BA
2. Letters & Sciences – BS
3. Other than Letters & Sciences
4. Don’t know, undecided.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 179

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 179

77. Does your college or degree program have a foreign language requirement?
0. I don’t know
1. No, there is no language requirement that applies to me.
2. Yes, for me, it is two semesters
3. Yes, for me, it is three semesters
4. Yes, for me, it is four semesters
5. Not applicable
78. Are you taking this Italian course to fulfill a degree requirement?
0. no
1. yes
79. If this course is fulfilling a degree requirement, how many total semesters of this
language do you need to take?
0. not applicable
1. 1 semester
2. 2 semesters
3. 3 semesters
4. 4 semesters
80. If this course is fulfilling a degree requirement, do you plan to take more than the
required number of semesters?
0. no
1. yes
2. don’t know
3. not applicable
81. If this Italian course is NOT fulfilling a degree requirement, do you plan to take
more Italian after this course?
0. no
1. yes
2. don’t know
3. not applicable
82. What are your plans for next semester with regard to foreign language study?
0. I plan to continue with Italian.
1. I plan to switch to a different foreign language.
2. I do not plan to take any foreign language.
83. What is your primary (“native”) language(s)?
(Check all that apply)
0. English
1. Spanish.
2. French.
3. Korean.
4. Other.
84. Do members of your family, household or community speak Italian?
0. no
1. yes, but I don’t understand them.
2. yes, and I understand them but I respond to them in English.
3. yes, and I understand them and I respond to them in Italian.
85. How much Italian have you studied BEFORE COLLEGE?
0. none
1. less than one year elementary, middle or high school
2. 1 year elementary, middle or high school
3. 2 years elementary, middle and/or high school
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 180

180 WORTH

4. 3 years elementary, middle and/or high school

5. 4 or more years elementary, middle and/or high school
86. How many languages have you studied at the college level, NOT INCLUDING
ITALIAN?
0. none
1. one
2. two
3. three or more
87. NOT INCLUDING ITALIAN,of languages you have studied at the COLLEGE LEVEL,
which language have you studied the most?
0. no other language
1. Spanish
2. French
3. Portuguese
4. Latin
5. German
6. A Slavic language
7. An Asian language
8. Hebrew or other Semitic language
9. An African language
10. Other language
88. For the language indicated in Q87 above, for how many college semesters have
you studied this language?
0. less than one semester
1. one semester
2. two semesters
3. three semesters
4. four semesters
5. five or more semesters
6. Not applicable
89. Of any languages studied in high school or earlier, NOT INCLUDING ITALIAN,
which language did you study the most?
0. No other language
1. Spanish
2. French
3. Portuguese
4. Latin
5. German
6. Russian
7. Japanese
8. Hebrew
9. American Sign Language
10. Other language
90. For the language indicated in Q89 above, for how many high school or earlier
school years have you studied this language?
0. less than one year
1. one year
2. two years
3. three years
4. four years
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 181

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 181

5. five or more years

6. Not Applicable
91. What is your principal reason for choosing Italian over other languages?
0. I was advised to take Italian
1. It fit into my schedule
2. Heritage reasons
3. Personal interest
4. I heard it was easier than other languages.
5. I think it will be useful for my future career
6. For vacation/travel purposes
7. For study abroad purposes
92. Are you majoring in, or do you plan to major in, a language other than English?
0. no
1. yes, in Italian
2. yes, in another Romance language
3. yes, in a non-Romance language
4. undecided, not sure
93. What is your overall university Grade Point Average (GPA)?
0. 3.5 – 4.0
1. 3.0 – 3.4
2. 2.5 – 2.9
3. 2.0 – 2.4
4. 1.5 – 1.9
5. Under 1.5
6. Don’t know
7. Don’t have one yet

When you have completed the survey, please click the ‘Submit’ button.
(Online survey also collected NetID to distinguish among participants and provide
for onset and exit matching)

Notes
i Instructor names have been eliminated to maintain confidentiality.
ii Items on exit version only.
iii Items on onset version only.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 182

182 WORTH

Appendix B
Onset AI Mean Scores by Year in School
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
N Mean SD Std. Lower Upper
Error Bound Bound
Non-degree/ HS 2 2.05 .13 .09 .84 3.27
student
1st year 36 1.20 .67 .11 .97 1.42
undergrad
2nd year 27 .88 .75 .14 .58 1.17
undergrad
3rd year 17 .43 .85 .21 –.01 .87
undergrad
4th year 9 1.19 .95 .32 .46 1.93
undergrad
5th year or later 6 .82 .88 .36 –.09 1.75
undergrad
Graduate student 1 1.73 . . . .
Total 98 .98 .81 .08 .81 1.14
Note: N’s indicate numbers of respondents with complete responses on AI inventory.
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 183

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 183

Appendix C
Subscale Means for Onset and Exit Attitude Surveys
Mean N SD Std. Error
Mean
Onset Onset Onset Onset
Subscale Number and Name Exit Exit Exit Exit
1 Attitudes Toward Learning Italian 1.51 104 .98 .10
1.07 104 1.31 .13
2 Desire to Learn Italian 1.44 109 1.09 .10
1.03 109 1.38 .13
3 Italian Class Anxiety –.29 106 1.26 .12
–.07 106 1.39 .13
4 Attitudes Toward FL Requirement .71 79 1.22 .14
.50 79 1.42 .16
5 Interest in FLs 1.84 107 .89 .09
1.81 107 1.01 .10
6 Instrumental Orientation .50 110 1.19 .11
.27 110 1.32 .13
7 Integrative Orientation 1.65 112 1.13 .11
1.22 112 1.34 .13
8 Motivational Intensity 1.37 107 .79 .08
.85 107 1.10 .11
Note: Only respondents who completed both course onset and exit surveys were
included in onset-exit analysis. Incomplete responses were omitted.

Paired Sample T-Test for Onset and Exit Subscale Means

Paired Differences (Onset-Exit)

95% Confidence
Interval of the Sig.
Subscale Number Std. Error Difference (2-
& Name Mean SD Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
1 Attitudes Toward .44 1.01 .10 .24 .64 4.45 103 .000
Learning Italian
2 Desire to Learn .41 .96 .09 .22 .59 4.43 108 .000
Italian
3 Italian Class –.22 1.03 .10 –.42 –.02 –2.23 105 .028
Anxiety
4 Attitudes Toward .21 .97 .11 –.004 .43 1.95 78 .055
FL Requirement
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 184

184 WORTH

Paired Sample T-Test for Onset and Exit Subscale Means (continued)
Paired Differences (Onset-Exit)

95% Confidence
Interval of the Sig.
Subscale Number Std. Error Difference (2-
& Name Mean SD Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
5 Interest in FLs .03 .66 .06 –.09 .16 .50 106 .620
6 Instrumental .23 .95 .09 .05 .41 2.52 109 .013
Orientation
7 Integrative .43 .99 .09 .24 .61 4.56 111 .000
Orientation
8 Motivational .52 .90 .09 .34 .69 5.93 106 .000
Intensity
30114_09_CTP 10/5/07 10:23 AM Page 185

BEFORE AND AFTER 101 185

Appendix D
Matched Pair T-Tests for 10 Items Showing Most Negative Change in
Population Mean Scores Between Onset and Exit Administrations.
Paired Differences
95%
Confidence
Mean Std. Interval of the Sig.
(Onset- Error Difference (2-
Item Exit) SD Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
60. I keep up to date
with Italian by
working on it almost
every day. 1.46 1.65 0.16 1.16 1.77 9.40 111 .000
4. I plan to learn as
much Italian as
possible. 1.03 1.74 0.16 0.71 1.36 6.32 112 .000
18. I find I’m losing
any desire I ever had
to know Italian. (–) .91 1.71 0.16 0.59 1.23 5.69 113 .000
66. I tend to approach
my Italian homework
in a random and
unplanned manner. (–) .89 2.00 0.19 0.51 1.26 4.72 113 .000
7. I would rather
spend my time on
courses other than
Italian. (–) .88 1.83 0.17 0.54 1.22 5.12 113 .000
63.When I am
studying Italian, I
ignore distractions
and stick to the job
at hand. .80 1.55 0.15 0.51 1.09 5.50 111 .000
14. I would like to
learn as much Italian
as possible. .78 1.65 0.15 0.47 1.09 5.04 113 .000
20. I haven’t any great
wish to learn more
than the basics of
Italian. (–) .74 1.68 0.16 0.42 1.05 4.67 113 .000
13. I want to learn
Italian so well that it
will become second
nature to me. .68 1.80 0.17 0.35 1.02 4.03 112 .000
3. I love learning
Italian. .63 1.38 0.13 0.37 0.89 4.89 112 .000