A Parametric Study of Language Training in The

REPOR TRESUMES

ED 010 877 AL DUO 06$ A PARAMETRIC STUDY OF LANGUAGE TRAINING INTHE PEACE CORPS. FINAL REPORT. Sy- CARROLL, JOHN B. AND OTHERS HARVARD UNIV., CAMBRIDGE, MASS. PUB DATE 66 ECRS PRICE MFS0.07 H046.44 161P.

DESCRIPTORS- *LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION, *MEASUREMENTTECHNIQUES, *LANGUAGE TESTS, PORTUGUESE, *LANGUAGE PROGRAMS,SPANISH, APTITUDE, LEARNING, PEACE CCRFS, CAMBRIDGE

A STUDY WAS UNDERTAKEN TO INVESTIGATE FOREIGNLANGUAGE LEARNING IN BOTH INTRAINING AND FIELD PROGRAMS CFTHE PEACE CORPS; AND TO DETERMINE INDIVIDUAL-AND EXPERIENCEFACTORS AFFECTING THE RATE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING. THE OBJECTIVEWAS TO DEVELOP A PROTOTYPE FOR A PARAMETRIC STUDY INVOLVINGSUCH FACTORS AS LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND PRIOR LANGUAGETRAINING. A TOTAL CF 444 TRAINEES IN SPANISH AND 51 TRAIWES IN PORTUGUESE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO t'ERE GIVEN PLACEMENT TESTS AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE AND PROFICIENCYTESTS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM. RESULTSSHOWED THAT PRIOR KNOWLEr3GE, NOT APTITUDE? DETERMINED THE DEGREE OF FLUENCY. A FOLLOWUP STUDY N'Afi DONE IN TIC FIELDWITH SIMILAR -RESULTS. RECOMMENCATIONS ERE MADE RESPECTING (1) LENGTHOF COURSE. C2) FURTHER TRAINING IN THE FIELD, (3) THEIMPORTANCE CF VARIABLES SUCH AS APTITUDE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IN TRAINEE _SELECTION, AND (4) DEVELOPMENT OF A FRC:CRAM OF LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY MEASUREMLNT. (ML) : 'A'I ° ! '-) -';- / ' ' ' ' ______' -- '/D ¶ 4 ' ?y i cv 4 ' , k 4 4 \ I' , , "-, ) , s;-, . ' i A \ ' , *, ' ''- , I ' 1r7 1 ' *. Sd r fi' r: " 1i' t: 4 ec . ..", H-.-;:-- \ ) r , \ " 1( ': ' . y1 \ C! \ r - t! '1 ' : 'ç\ ' " '; oi -' '7 ; \ ,;' (ç:'e'' : , 1) Allil .: i \S.'? i; : ,- r2 : :' '1 ' ' ' I -. 4 ' \ ' ( 4..jt: ' \- 4 1 ; : ' , ' \' " , 1:' '-i- . r_ ,, ? 4 '' ' ! 't r--- . ' .'I r .! L: L:: 4 4'1L ' . \ k-' k L' ' j " i:_ 1i:_;:L k \ 4 ' . ' :4s':' '' '." '' :; '- 4, r.rL:'' ' ( \ .. T1 4,' \;n % % :c ( 1R' t ' 3L ¶.. b \ }) J4_ I. #' ' . : ;a\\\ __ ;. - ç: - : p - __I ';c .. r'° '4t,; \ f J : ' ' ' .. 4 J . ' I : ; 2:4 . :' ' 's;:'c4 .k I 4 ! : , I i . iV ' :.c {, , ('A ,' .---- _ r' '? . k - - ' ' .'k'.'.1 .:$.i__z;- '4I/ ; L;:t;i ' ' ' >w b k' r ,j ,_4.' :; - 1' t ' . e : '":;'/i I I - : ' 4 : iiE J1t ' ; 1 0 ! I i-L7'; .-. ' 1 1_c& '4' 1V' I - 4 1 f' 0 \\.'1. :;I 'T'* " 4 '\* 1 ff" -' ( J 4l .t . I*' :' 4"- ¶l4;,/' k;k>H3 4 t : = 1r '-.4 II :Di.--T.1b;! : III, ç' -'--' -' 'y ''." ' ' '4A ' 1 -;- l.:'- '' "''" ' 1 I - - " - I ' I 1' I 1 I - % ' .: -:," - ',;1 (I : \I ' ,- - - I" ,- 1 _( V - . I I r -r ,A;;,.,

4 ff - .",,. 'I . '1' , ' ' ,1 . "- ..1 > 4: P. , , s - , ,4\ , .... 4 ,, I . . a,,. .--4k` 1 1 1 ` . ' pp r* 1.1 I pp I 2.,.rtt r 01 "..>, , 1; .. i 4L .,-., . s,;4'i ." 41:'vr 1,`,44 "At.: - .' ,,,, , ' ' ' p )1 , 0.11,,w)r ."' ACKNOWLEDGMENT'S

This study could not haVe beec completed withoutthe generous cooperation ntaff Of.the Pelee Corps of the -Training Program at theUniversity of New ticular we Wish' to thank In par=- the Director (at thetime the study was initiated), Marshall Itasca; the Coordinator Dr, of Spanish trainiagaMrs. Laura Calvert, the ator of Portuguese training, Dr. Coordin- Albegt R. Lopes, andour own Field Coordinator, Vernon Morgan. Mr.

Also, thanks are expressed to the several hundredPeace Corps trainees and teers who, often under trying Volun- conditions, tookour tests and answeredour question - naires, both during-theUniversity of New Mexico training period and invarious countries of Latin America atmid-tour gatherings. We hope that their effortsin behalf of our research can contributeto the further Amproveeent of lenguage trainingprograms both in,the Peace Corpsand in other settings.

Finally, we are grateful to the personnel in the ResearcbDivision of the Peace Corps, tit.' Joseph- doiliai-Dr. Robert Krug, and Miss NitziMall=s, for their advice, help, and generalsupport.

The writing of.thisreportwas the joint effort of the staff. were drafted ty John,L..D. Clark, Parts of the report Thomas M. Edwards, andFannie M. Hendrick. principal investigator, The however, did further draftingof sections and the final of the report; he takes editing sole responsibility forthe statements aad opinions herein. expressed

:his. research Was:performed under a contract with thePeace Corps.

John B. Carroll

Copyright, 1966, by the President and Fellows ofHarvard College Reproduction in whole or in part pa sitte4 for any.purpoSeof the United States GoVernient.

Printed in U. S. A. by the Harvard University PrintingOffice, Job

-;;.- ,.-11'-'111043"22:1"ttiMISTIalt

Page ** OOOO 0'0 OOOOOOOO C ii

. 7 - Jr. '. -111

=of Figuiea :*- i`; - _:417 A - .- vii

Abstract and Recoinstradstions,. s ., o, . .- ..,- .. Chapter,

1.-43ackgroUnd-- and-Purpose-of theStudy__ . -. ... 1 2 Overtido/ of the, Study Dstagn OOOO . OOOOO OOOOOO . 5 3. The Peace Corps Language Training Prograiit at the ttiii4ersiti of Nero-K014-c° ' 6 4. Description of Semple; Studied. . 16

5. Nature of. the Data Collected 19

6. Parameters of Lansulte. Learning In FormalTrainin; 35

7. Parameters of Languago letariiing in the Yield. I, 0 ..... 65 8. Studiee of AttritiOu OO a...... 109 Beferinces 115 -Appendices A. Clots log FormOOOOOOOOOO o . .e OOOOO ...... 117 B. Foreign Language Questionnaire (edministorad- during training) C. Utionalle and oiputatiooa Virpeeddr:es -Used.in Questienuairs Fattof Ai:Artie. 129

D. Peace Corps Langmase .a 131 B. Procedure fer Non= 'tiOnof fro" Two Levels of MLA-Cooperative r *tit: into-s4$41. Store, -end Tobias of soosio,, .- -0 -? 0 132

- A A toilifout g, t; s ,* OOOOO 137

"- ar -,. 145 LIST or-10.0s,

Uhl* Page 1; Proportions of Class Periods "Stent in..Different-.ACtivitiea_.-4 I .... 10 .PtcSgt:*f* 640a 4--4-80244br V Seetig*sThroulit ;- Oita Of . . . . f. 4' '14

3. Perional Mitafor-theOriginal Sailiple -of Studentsof Speitisit 17

'4. PerstOnalData for the Origifial 'Semite of -Students ofPOrtnguese 17

5.Frequency Dietribu4ontOf SettledPlacementScores for Those Mithett _Spaniel placementTest Scores-and -ter DifferentleVels ofScore-.6..^n% -the -Spa-WV'Pleat Test- 23

6. Items Contributing to Factor I, Interest inForeign Languages 25

7. Item; 'Contributingto Factorn,Coetpulsilifity 8.Items COntributingto Factor111, Preference for -Audiolingual Instruction 26 9. /teas Centributing to Factor IV, HomeExposure to Foreign Language* 26 10. Vies= and Standird'Deviations of electedPredictor and -End-of- TrainingCriterion Variables 38

11. Intercorrelations of End-of-Training TestVariables 39

12. Means and StandardDeviations ofEnd-of-Training Proficiency Tests for Those Who Did (Group A) 'and Did Not (CroupB) Take the Spanish Placement Test 41 13. Prediction of-Endiaof-6Triiiiiitig'Prafielitney Scores from Three Predictor Variables, N = 218 Students (Group A)Who Took a Spanish IlieelairlitItiit4atthe -Mallet -Of Tteiiiing. ..; . ..43

14. Prediction .of tine-.T.4.:r.sinins Proficiency Scoresfrom Two Predictor Vaitilbles,1--= .118-Students( Group B) WhO Did Not Teke a Plateseent Test st the Outsetof Training. 46

15. Prediction dtlEnda'of4iiiiiiing-,PrOficieneyStoreS- from -Three Predicter--Varlables; with Aesumed Valueof Spatilih -Placement Score fOr Group B Equal to 21.4467.1; a336, Comprising Grotpsi-L'add-1.-Combined ;;; 49 16. Prediction of *ndi4Of.61fiiiining Profiiiitidy`SdOret-Ir-ray--Bight Predictor Vertebrae': -N' =.1.111Siudints-(briiiiiV4)'0,1R-Y'TOokrit. PiatiOint- TiSt at the of Treining, 51 IT. lhadieticin-4',End;t0f4raiining -ProficiencyScores froin Eight Pe4ettirie =, 51- -Students- (Grogiv.B) Who Did Not Take:411f iii i it '-"Tee:'t at the,.00tiset of Training

/.!-' AMM111111*...... =1,!....IMOMPol..imi=1:16.-711.

.1.1GACVstOCMCDPINWINCIargerliaCIAMAMENMZ46211711"-~ailerneMWM-

LiOt- of Tables(continued)

dire_" la.* Average Interccirfele,zionw, Page Within and BetweenGroups of- Oriterion Variab ., ._ -.. . 4 4/* 4. 053 Fredictien of 047a4rgin#gProficiency Scores fromMAT Subtext*. N volOkSAUdentn.(ftplaGroup,A1 Whol4n4taiSpenish Plateeept, Test theNtletlpflgalOinv., . . 54

20. Prediction otknei!offIraining 110171: dem-40;os from MAT . Subteits. N 95 Students(froh- Omq:k-B), WhoDid Not Takea Spanish Placetkent,Test,at the Outset: pf Traintng e. *- 4 *.* 55 21. Prediction of End-of4tainingProficiency Scores fromSim Predictor VaYiables. N 27 Students of Portuguese . 0000 il . .58 22. Differences ,.ttween-the- Means; ofGroops.X (No Prig?Training in Portuguese) and Y (Prior_Treinivg in Portuguese)on Predictor and End-of-TrainingVariables 59 23. Mena and Standard Deviations of Predictorand End-of-Training Achievement Variables forGroups X and S (Portuguese Students) 60 24. Correlations Between Predictor andEnd-of-Training Achievement Variables for Groups Xend 'Y (Portuguese Students) . . *** 60 25. PCV ContingentsTested in the Field 66 26. Primary and Secondary Jobs Listed byPCVs in the Mid-Tour Questionnaire 68 27. EListening Score at End of Trainingvs. Reported Effect of Language Problems on Job Performance DuringFirst Month 1 70 28. Self-Ratings of Spanish LanguageCompetence During the First Month in the Field . . OOOOOOOOOOO 72 29. Length-of Time in the Field and Durationof Reported Unstrap Difficulties 73 30. Self-Ratings of Spanish LanguageCompetence at the Mid-Tour Fellow-up

31. Comparison of Reported Effects .of LanguageProblems. on.Job Performance in the First. Month in the Field and Time of the Mid-lour F011owf!up OOOOO -411 0 1, ****** '0 77 32. PCVs' Recommendations for- Changes in.the Language Training Program

Frequency Distributions of Language ProficiencyTest Score; at Mid-Tour compared--tolhose,0siPPar TOW,for-the-Sues Individualist, at End-of-Traipingo Qualification,GrouPiv*,- - 81 344eansOtXndardDivietiOni,and intereorrelitionsof Language FrOfiCien4yleitS,MyenAgE04,0fIraigngt-.04.4t,-,Midiaour,

foruQUalifiedP,1144=Qualified%_and'aotal.Groups.1,..:.,..., * . 82

4 List of Tables (Continued)

Table rage 35. PACT B Scores Versus PCVs' Reports on the Effect of Language Pxoblems on Job Performance at Mid-Tour Follow-up, by

Quaification Groups o . 84

36. Means and Standard Deviaticas for Predictor Variables, End- of-Trainiog and Mid -Tour Samples (Spanish Students) 87

37. Prediction of Mid -Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Test Score Variables frail Urea Predictor Variables, N 117 PCVs (Group A) Who Took a Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training. 89

38. Prediction of Hid -Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Test Score Variables from Two Pradictor Variables, N= 55 PCVa (Group B) Who Did Not Take a Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training. 90

39. Intercormlations of Criterion Variables Used in Table 37 93

40.Intercorrelations of Criterion Variables Used in Table 38.OOOOOO 93

41. Regression System Analogous to that of Table 37 but with the Addition of Questionnaire Factor Scores as Predictors (Nm 83 PCVs, Group A) 94

42. Regression System Analogous to that of Table 38 but with the Addition of Questionnaire Factor Scores as Piedictors (Nm 35 PCVs, Group 11) 95

43. Prediction of Mid-Toisr Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Test Score Variables from Various Start-of-Training, End-

of-Training, and Early Field Variables. N = 89 PCVs (Group A) . .97

44. Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Test Score Variables fromVarlOtAStart-of-Training, End-

of-Training, and Early Field Variables. N a 41 PCVs (Group B) . . . .98

45. Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficienc7 from End-of-Training Test Scores. N m 172,-"Quelified". and "Non-qualified" Groups Combined 100

46. Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ritings aid Test Score Variables frostreta Pertaining WSW:I-of-Training.

N 172, "Qualified!' and !Won-47ualified" Groups Combined . 102

47. Means and StandaaDeviationv,of-PrediCtor and ,Criterion'

Variables, PCVs Trained in Portuguese (N m 24)...... 104

48. Self Ratings of Language'ProficienCy During-Firstlionth in the Field and at the Mid4our F011ow=up-, PCVs Trained' in Portuguese (N m 31) 105

49. Effect of Languagslioblems on,Job«perforisnCeAnrIng the' First Month in therField,and-attfieMid4Odr F011apiapi ?Me Trained in Portuguese (N m 31) . 106

-vi- earieerst2MIEwafteaus=micffoewse-Nzatssoomevacsswasr=ccouseausaltigt.41:42. tli3=1501

Il#t (Ontinned)

701*- Page 50. VaXidity- CO:aftciente. for SeteralVariables in Predicting Midtour LangOage prOficiency N a 24 PCVsTrained in Portuguese 106

54 Mean LAntifte Aptitude and PS Scores,_ By Tineand Reason for Separation, ai,Comperetto Data-for Those Stillin Service 110

520 _Withdrawal Statue, ENLAT Groups, and Prior'Proficiency . 111

33. Students of Portuguese:Withdrawal Status, Language Aptitude, and Pribr Portuguese Proficiency . 113

List of Figures

1. Rate of Introduction of Grammatical Topics andLexical Items in the Test Modern Spanish

2. Frequency Distributions of Scoreson MLA Cooperative Tests at End of Training. . .

3. Frequency Distributions of 3coresen PACT, Form A, at End of Training, for Students Who Did (Group A) andDid Not (Group B) Take a Spanish Placement test at the Outsetof Training 42

4. Graphical Depiction of ExpectedEnd-of-raining Spanish Language Proficiency (as Measured by PACT, Form A) forIndividuals with Selected Combinations of Predictor Variables

5. Estimated Probability of Reporting No AdverseEffeccs of Language Problems on Job Performance It Mid-Tour,as a Function of Ray Score on PACT Form B

6. Graphical Depiction of ExpectedMidv4our Spanish Language Proficiency (au Measured by PACT, Form 3) forIndividuals with Selected Combinations of PredictorVariable Scores

, ew ..vmkrwm.-..m-crrb.r.w..cm,w-.0VM..1

ABSTRACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BaCktrouncLEAEapose of11312ate (Chapter 1)

It was the basic purpose .of this study to investigate the course of foreign language learning in both the training and field-duty aspects of Peace Corps Programs, and to determine some of the individual background and experience factors affecting the rate of language learning under the conditions observed in these Peace Corps programs. The study was designed to be a prototype of a parametric study that wculd answer a question of the following type: Given a (a level of languageaptitude), 11. (an amount of prior language training), and possibly other data on an individual, how much s (achieviement) could one expect the student to attain after t (a specified number of hours of foreign language instruction or exposure to the foreign language milieu)?

At the time the study was initiated, Peace Corps language programs typically involved about 12 weeks of language instruction,, with a particularly intensive period of instruction for the first $ weeks amounting to about 200 hours.A practical purpose for this study was therefore to answer the question of whether this aunt of instruction was sufficient to equip the Peace Corps trainee with an amount of language competence that would enable to perform his job effectively when he readied his field duty assignment in a host country. A secondary question concerned how rapidly a Peace Corps Volunteer could be expected to improve his foreign language competence to a satisfactory level after reaching his field duty assignmentin the foreign language milieu.

Overview of the Studs, Design (Chapter 2)

Data were collected on seven contingents of trainees in Spanish (totalenrolient = 472) and one contingent of trainees in Portuguese (N = 51), all at the University of New Mexico. Information-was gathered relative to three benchmarks in the career of the individual Peace Corps trainee or Volunteer:

(1) The start of the formal language training course. (2) The end of the 12-week language training course, and in the case of those selected for field duty, the first month in the field. (3) A "mid-tour follow-41p" that occurred some five to ten months after the PCV arrived in the field.

Analysis consisted of studying the relationships among the measnres taken. at these three benchmarks in order to plot and assess the course of language learning and to study the relevance of the various predictive measures that became available.

The Peace Corps Language Trairtng Programs at the University of New Mexico (Chapter 3)

The primary objective of the University of New Mexico Peace Corps training program was to train candidates for duty in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countriesand select those who were able to qualify themselves for such duty.Language training played' a very large part in this process. The objective of the language training was chiefly "audio-lingual"; that is, the major objective was to insure that at the end of the training program the trainees bad enlugh competence in speaking and comprehending Spanish or Portuguese=to enable them to perform their jobs effectively upon arrival in the field, or at least to give trainees a very good start in this direction.There warn at the same time substantialemphasis on reading the foreign language, but very little emphasis on writing it.

The methods of instruction were also chiefly " audiolingual."Students were divided into sections of 10 to 13 depending upon their level. of competence or demon-. strafed aptitude; a large pert of class time was devoted to learning to speak and understand spoken language. Instruction was based on scan :are textbooks designed to

PREMDINGPAGEPLANK NOT FILED teach by the audio-lingual methodi with zone reading selectionsas well. Language laboratory facilities were used to some extents and therewere frequent opportunities afforded for the students to converse with their itstructors outside of class.During the first 8 weeks of instruction, there were anywhere iron 3 to 6 50-minute periods of instruction, sit days a week, with a total of about 200 bouts of instruction.The last four weeks were devoted largely to physical fitness training, with language training being continued but at a sharply reduced rate.

Samples Studied (Chapter 4)

The Original rosters for the 7 Spanish zontingents contained 472names, and for the one Pottuguete contingent, 51 names. Some loss of cases occurred in the Spanish contingents early in training, so tiro data were available for only about 444 trainees. In the Spanish cent:..agents, men outnumbered women about 2 to while in the Portuguese contingent, the sex distribution was more aearly equal.The age distribution was highly concentrated around 20 to 23, although therewas a sprinkling of older persons.

All had been selected by the initial screening procedures of the Peace Corps. However, it would appear that the samples were not highly selected withrespect to foreign language aptitude.

Nature of the Data Collected (Chapter 5)

Measures of foreign language aptitude were obtained for the start of training either from Peace Corps files or from actual administration of thetest used for this purpose,-the "short form" of the Modern Language Aptitude Test.These measures were supplemented with data from the remainder of the MLAT by administering the remaining two parts at the University of New Mexico.

Students claiming some prior knowledge of the language theywere about to study were given placement tests by the language training department, scoreson which were collected. For all students, information was collectedasto which section the student was assignedg the sections varying in level of advancement.

At the end of training, a eerie of objective proficiency tests in Spanish or Portuguese, both in spoken and written forms of the language,were given to the trainees, as well as a questionnaire designed to elicit information about previous foreign language study and about attitudes and interests that wouldconcern foreign language study.Four factor scores were derived from the questionnaire: Interest in Foreign Languages; Compulsivity (about school Work); Preference for Audio- Lingual Instruction; and Home Exposure (to the foreign language).Instructors' assessments of various aspects of language training progress were also collectedat this point; they pertained to two points in the 12-week course--the half-way mark and the final assessment.

Project stsff meubers visited the various hoit countries involved and collected data of the following types at a "mid-tour follow-up" that occurredsome five to ten months after the Pas arrived in the host countries: scores on objective language proficiency tests-in listening and reading-comprehension-self-ratings of language competence both at the time of first arrival in the host country-and at the midtour follow-up; reports concerning the effects of language -problemson jolaperformance at these two points "of time; and various other information suchas an account of-the job assignment, recommendations concerning possible changes in the Peace Corps language training program, etc.

Parameters 0 Language LearningjaMalugaullUg(Chapter 0

Most of the detailed analyses were based upon the,Spanish contingents Imeause of the small number in the -one. Portuguese contingwat studied Imallycase, information and aialyaii derived.-froM-tae,Portuguese contingent were not essentially different from those derived from the Spanish contingentb. -x-

I ,=rsewArmws

The analyses of data from the Spanish contingents were based on an initial group of 432 cases which were sufficiently complete in having language aptitude scores and other essential start-of-training data. However., only 336 of these cases _-ere found to halm all essential data at the end of teeming. men; of the original sample having been "deselected" for one reason or another during the course of the training.

An overall assessment of the language proficiency of the 336 Spanish cases was made at the end of training iv terms of scores on objective tests. On one of the listening testsit was found that only 24% of the cases attained a score level that was set on the basis of oidtonr data as being sufficiently high to indicate that the PCV would have little or no trouble with language problems upon arriving in the field. On the other hand, when objective proficiency scores obtained at the end of training were compared with norms for college language courses, the s..re:rege trainee attained percentiles from 64 (in Speaking) to 79 (in Listening) for secohd-year college Spanish norms.

It is estimated that the Spanish group as a whole attained, on the average, the S-I+ level in speaking, and the R-2 level in reading, in terms of FSI absolute language ratings (see Appendix G). The mid-tour data indicates that the trainee must attain at least an S-2 rating in speaking and listening if he is to be ready to deal with his field job assignment with minimal interference from language problems.

The overall assessment of the group as a whole, however, ignores the fact that the group varied widely in the amount of prior knowledge of Spanish.Among the 335 cases studied at the end of training were 218 who had taken the Spanish placement teat given by the language training department at the University of New Mexico., Although scores on this test varied widely, it may be assumed that those who took the Spanish test had some prior knowledge of Spanish acquired either through formal trate- ing or self-study. When studies were made of the pattern of relationships between predictor and criterion variables for this group as compared with those for the remaining 118 cases who did not take the placement test, the relationshipa were found to be quite different.

In the case of those 218 students who had taken the placement test, the best predictor of eventual proficiency at the end of training was the score on the placement test. The language aptitude test scores and the section placement scores also made significant contributions to the predictions, but were of secondary importance. The multiple correlations from these three variables ranged from .71 (for predicting performance on the Speaking test) to .85 (for predicting performance on a combination of elementary and advanced Reading tests). Certain factor scores from the Foreign Language Questionnaire --- Interest in Foreign Languages, and Audiolingual Preference --- enhanced the prediction still further to a small but significant degree. In consider- ing the overall end -of-training.performance of this group with varying amount of prior knowledge of Spanish, we note that-78, or 35.8X, attained or exceeded the score on listening test that had been set as defining a level that would qualify for job performance that would be relatively free of any adverse effects of language problems -- a level which is approximately equivalent to a S-2 rating on the FSI scale.

In contrast, only 2 (1.7%) of the 118 students that did not take a Spanish placement test made the qua/ifyidg score on the listening test at the end of training. For these students, language aptitude was the strongest predictor of end-of-training performance, with Section Placement Score (reflecting the level of advancement of the sections in which they were placed) also making a substantisi contribution.Multiple correlations from these two variables ranged from .46 (for predicting the Speaking score) to .68 (for predicting scores on the two listening comprehension tests).None of the questionnaire factor scam made any significant contribution to such predictions. It is to be noted, incidentally, that Age madeno significaat contribution to any prediction; in fact, the correlations of Age withcriterion variables were generally non-significant.

It may be concluded from these analyses that for individualswho enter a 12eweekl language training program with some prior knowledge of thelanguage they are to study, chances of attaining a comfortable, degree of fluency inthat language by the end of the training are related chiefly to the amount of prior knowledgethey possess and secondarily to their aptitude for foreign language learning.In general, only persons with a considerable amount of prior knowledge of the languagecan be expected to attain a a level of language competence in 12 weeks that willimmediately qualify them for effective performance in a foreign country whereuse of the foreign language is critical.

For individuals who enter a 12-weekllanguage trainingprogram with no (or minium') prior knowledge of the language theyare to study, Chances of attaining a comfortable degree of fluency in that language by the end ofthe training are extremely small.The t amount of progress that they make toward that aliml is chieflya function of their measured language aptitude. It is estimated that such an individual,with an average amount of language aptitude, would need about 24 weeks ofintensive tra2.&.ng to attain a level of language competence that would immedlately qualify himfor performance '-e. the field.

These conclusions are based on our analyses of studentsbeing trained for duty in Spanish-speaking countries. The data for the Portuguese-trained studentslead to generally similar conclusions.Whether they would also apply to languages thatare much more different from English than Spanish and Portugueseare is a question that cannot be answered from the present study.

ParamettELALE6121ELJAMMUM2221d1110LAMMEld (Chapter 7)

Out of the 335 students of Spanish and 48 students'ofPortuguese who were studied at the end of training, 176 PCVs assigned to Spanish- speakingcountries and 31 assigned to a Portuguese-speaking country were followedup and tested in the field, some five to ten months after they had arrived in the host country.

In the In-Field Queetionnaire, they were askedto assess their competence in the foreign language aid the effect of language problemson job performance when they first arrived in the field.About two-thirds of the group reported thatat that time language problems had at least some adverse effecton their job performance.Their re- spoases were used to set a "qualifying level"on the language proficiency tests that had been administered at the end of training,such that the qualifying level optimally differentiated those who reportedsome or considerable adverse effects of language problems from those who reported.that theircompetence was equal or superior to the demand. This level is approximately equivalentto an S-2 rating on the FSI scale (see Appendix G).

During the course of the field experience, however,considerable progress in overcoming language problems was reported by thegroup. Those who were already competent in Spanish at the outset of the fieldtour took only a month or so, on the average, to adjust completely to the linguistic deem& of theirjobs in the host country.Those who had not reached the qualifying levelen the proficiency tests at the end of training tea on the average five months.toovercome the difficulty of being noticeably halting and non-fluent in speaking Spanish.

At the time of the midtour follow-up, the majorityof the PCVs, even of those who had not initially reached the qualifying levelon the end-of-training proficiency tests, rated their abilities in spoken Spanish as quite high. Only 19% of the initially "qualified" group reported any adverse effects oflanguage problems on job performance, and only 50% (as compared with 94% at the time of arrival inthe field) of the init-

IA 12-weekcourse, with stmething more than 200 hours of instructionas in the University of New Mexico couite studied here, is meant here,as distinguished from more recent Peace Corps courses weth.ebout 300 hours in 12 weeks. ereStZSMYtrlow,sworqwwss.r.tees..-.-.3s ar-s +b= -nweca.rax=esramearrr-=TirLsmUM"Ar.',As:t"

Ulla "non-qualified" group reported such problems at ail.Still, there were a fey PCVs coma at the time of the midtour follow-up vita apparently were not u, tug Spanish in their work at all, and 9% of the initially "noa-qualified" group were still reporting "considerable" adverse effects of language problems oft job performance.

At the time of the midtour inquiry, the majority of the PCVsa-about 73% of them- - thought the length of the tra4niag program had been proper; 2.3%, however, thought it should have been longer, and 4% thought it should have been shorter. Avery large number of the respondents thought that regardless of the length of the training program, there should have been even more cogitate then there was on speaking and listening training, as well as on the development of vocabulary.

Language competence at the midtour point was tested objectively by means of alternate forms of tests that had also been given at the. end of training. On there tests, -those who were already at qualifying levels at the end of training showedlittie or no progress, except in reading levels.The remainder, i.e., those who had not met qualifying levels by the end of training, made considerable gains, although progress did not appear to he as rapid as it had been during the period of formal training. Whereas 1.6% of the initially "non-qualified" group were technically above the qualifying levp1 on one of the tests at the end of training, 28.7% were above this level at the midtour testing, and the majority of the remainder were not far behind.Nevertheless, progress was very good ahen co' aced with norms for the performance of collage students studying Spanish. Nicety-six per cent of the initially "non-qua/ified" PCVs bad scores aa the advanced ( "M") form of the Cooperative Listening Test that were above the median for second year college norms. Even if not all the "non-qualified" group attained the rather high qualifying levels set on the proficiency tests, most of them were clear:y far ahead of the performance of the typical.graduate of a two-year college course iu Spanish.

It was shown that even though objective proficiency tests did not do a particularly good job of identifying those who would report adverse effects of language deficien- cies on job performance at the midtour point, scores on the test were associated with the probability of making such reports.

It was found that language proficiency at the midtour testing could be predicted quite well --with multiple correlations ranging up to .72 - -fran data available at the ataat of training.The patterns of 'relationships were highly similar to those found for the prediction of language proficiency at the end of the formal training period. For persons who already had some knowledge of Spanish, language proficiency at the midtour testing was primarily dependent upon the level of proficiency measured at the start of training, and only secondarily upon language aptitude and other variables. For persons who had no knowledge of Spanish at the outset of training, language aptitude as measured by the-Modern Language Aptitude Test was a strong predictor. Certain questionnaire factor scores made small but significant contributions for certain group. Aside from the initial level of language proficiency, there were no good predictors of the amount of gain in language competence the PCVwouXd.make during the field experience.

Statistical data are Also given to show how midtour language competence could be predicted from combinations of data from the start of training sad the end of training, and from data from the end of training alone.

Studies of Attrition (Chapter 8)

. Peace Corps trainees and Volunteers leave the Corps for a number of reasons; some withdraw voluntarily, and others are terminated from service for such causes as "language ineptitude", lack of motivation, and personality unsuitability. Language aptitude, as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Teat, and prior proficiency in

eiCialleZsairagallING411111111111111111/

- "w,`. .. "" SpaniSh-(or,Portugueee) were studied in relation toreasons for withdrawal. Both of these variables are related to the probability- of withdrawal; treuess with lower aptitude-snores or withAw prior prone/they in the languageare orlikely to leave the Corps then those with higher aptitude ecorpeot. with priorproficiency.

There is a highly significant relaticneship between languagesptitude and termination for reason of "language ineptitude." Nearly ail of those fewWho, wore separated for th..ks reason had quite low aptitudescores.

None of these relatienehipa, however, is strong enoughto justify using low aptitude or lack of prior knaeledge of the languageas absolute criteria for rejection of candidates from the Peace Corps.

Recommendations .

1. Unless the Peace Corps trainee already has considerable knowledge of therele- vant foreign language before he begins training, an approximately 200-hour, 12-week course of training similar to the one in effect at the University of Noe Xexico in 1963-64 is not sufficiently long to give the traineea degree of foreign language competence that is sufficieat to equip him to do his job in the field withoutsubstantial adverse effects of language problece. It is estimated that for the trainee with " average" language aptitude and with no prior knowledge of the language,a course of approximately 24 weeks would be necessary to bring hiss to the requiredlevel of.competence. For the trainee with higher than average language aptitude, however, the course could be shorter than 24 weeks.Also, the course could be shortened for those with prior knowledge of the foreign language; forsome of these, it could even be shorter Phan 12 weeks.

2. If the trainee is assigned to the field before he has reached the revired level of foreign language competence, further formal languagetraining should if possible be organized in the host country, to assist him in reachingthat level in the shortest possible time.

3. Language aptitude, prior knowledge of the foreign language,and other variables can play an important role in selecting individuals for. Peace Corps training.

4. It is suggested that the Peace Corps organizea formal peograst of language proficiency measurement, based largely on objective tests,to be applied at the start of training, at the end of training, and atsome point in the course of the tour of duty in the host country. Informal measures and ratings of language profieiency rendered by lemguage training staffs are not adequate interms of reliability, validity, and standardization. A set of tests havinga wide range of measurement and having equivalent alternate foxes should be used.At the start of training, the tests should be .given not ally to those who claim some prior knowledge of die foreignlanguage but aleo to all others, in order to establish baselinesor chance-score levels of performance. In this way the Peace Corps would be able to trace the developmentof language competence in a much more objective and reliable way and utilize the resultingmeas- ures in selection and assignment processes. . - mr

A PARROT= STUDY OF LANGUAGE TRAINING IN THE PEACE CORPS

Chapter 1

Background and purpose of the 'study

The need for adequate research to aid in the formulation of policies concerning the teaching of foreign languages has received increased attention in recentyears (Carroll? 1960, 1963b). One type of study that can be of muchuse, not only in formulating language teething policies but alio in guidins individuals* is what may be called the "parametric" study or "baseline" study that simply seeks to chartas accurately at possible the course of foreign language learning under specified training conditions for persons of different degrees of aptitude, prior training, and interest. The "parameters" of such studies have to do with measured degrees of aptitude, prior training, and interest in relation to the amount of time spent in learning and the degree of achievement after various stages of training.From such studies it should be possible to predict her such training is necesaery to produce desired degrees of achievement in persons of known characteristics.

Despite the fact that language courses are conducted by the thou ands every year little reliable information; which could be compiled to serve as a basis for the desired, predictions, has belle collected.- Most of the 'available information Is of a judgmental, subjective nature.One of the best sources of information is a chart issued by the foreign language training department of the Foreign Service Institute, U. S. Department of State.This chart contrins estimates of the ammats of time that would be required by individuals to reach a series of subjectively defined standards of proficiency.The charted time requirements vary with the language studied as well as with the language aptitude of the student.Data of this character have been the basis upon which governmental agencies and other institutions concerned with foreign language training have formulated policies regarding the duration of training programs and the standard for selecting trainees.

It is the basic purpose of this study to provide more accurate parametric data on foreign language learning in a particular setting--the Spanish and Portuguese lgaguage training programs of the Peace Corps.More generally, the purpose is to indicate what kinds of variables must be taken into account in parametric studies and to present a prototype of a parametric study.

Ideally, a parametric study should answer a question of the following type: Given a (a level of language aptitude), er (an amount of prior language training), and possibly other data on an individual, how much s (achievement) could one expect the student to attain _after t (a specified number of hours of foreign language instruc tion)?To answer this question, it would be necessary to take precise measurements 'of language aptitude and amount of prior training, and then to plot a family of learning curves based on rather frequent measurements of progress during the training program. Itwasnot possible to take frequent measures of progress in this study, but thelata nevertheless give certain indications of the parameters of the language ' learning curves.

The special nature of the Peace Corps training program and field experience made it possible also to investigate a further qgeation: What is the course of foreign language learning after formal instruction has ceased and the learner is assigned to a country where. he must use the foreign language every day in his work? There has been much speculation concerning -the rate at which an individual can "pick up" a language when placed in an environment in which the foreign language is used, but we are not familiar with any studies of this matter. -2.

nit-Page": BLUmmini- At theinLtistialhepresent , WS- -4S-Ned- mo* the policy 01:Asion to concentrateall formal Ian- pap situ/171W --ii0kok ten to fifteen weeks, depending Par#1Y aea_ CO' lie studied d partLy o the mature of the eventual duty llaViflg ifitOtatio4 cát1elb. tanditaf (1963) furthat gives

Volnitt. 1st" overStaatiltrainees are given ten to fifteen Weekic--4iteislii-*-1,fiefnint--60er-lit'lkioitriCan111theiiiiitiesandlike idatitetient, and both-befete'''aiWtr4tig Ittottiire proedurea arS 40114 to thea AIthoa4bth ofVO1tuiteeesavirigi inthe-tifietitise sOtierangeup into the _freeiztjA,WittOM legai altilso-ofatettain.. $inti. pet cent artSAM,

1w-J*4thEA traft-per1-014Itrte proportionof the tilt is lux#- titan up with the faCiIityin -a-la-keeled ishiguitssfor overseas nee. Title ISiletr-apent n speii1iz.d work tfainlitg;in skills it tied-hint Englishas a foreignissittilit-;fó t the. Who aretotetedh Englith worms.

t ittibitt Of-Ceetstries-Iii1JtinMatice Mote thana IIME facilityin Spanish or Portuguese Vi,-i iirà1 ñicftity fOr Nairiceto Fiat*Corp*stiadards. With massy African protriase French is likewisearequirement.... "In some a- the ROtince language iretkareas, as well as those Oiler* English is mart se:Welly UndarstoOdi Soli-Other strie-eittio language isoftenthe selected language' Of *dime fai3.itet4uired---dUrini ifli iii trilning.Indollitboritian: with theTrainingDiii1tOU at Paide Corps, contracting institutionshavethUi fat developed intenSivie trainingpretreatfor Minima/ oralfacility in thirtrathrte languages:

AFRICA -Atic - lb* Somali Trench !no (Sierra Leone]Sitahill ES* Mande Tune Hausa Nyanja Tii Yoruba NEAR EAST Greek [Cyprus] Persian Turkish

SOUTH ASIA Bengali Nepali Singhalese Gujarati Panjabi Tamil Hindi Pashto Urdu Kazinadi. Sindhi

SOUTHEAST ASIA Tagalog Thai

LATINAMSRIcA Portliguise- Spanish -Quechua

Toppingand Cammack (1965) have described the University ofHawaii Peace Ctirps LanguageTraining-Program, involving eight differentlanguages'up to December 1164; tiaittit an istanderit'MalityiThai;Ile-S.ano;--'11tialeg, CebUitneo Hilageynen, andc60410.-.:',CA1141.)2'parametric- dataikrel' 'available ires:-thilir-Study. Per euemple thef-il_iii0hat-siftee'2001oUrs ofinstructioninThaiintheirpregraga, students made thefoIl#** ForeignServie Inatitiite Nel,--otstudentia

8-0' 3 S-0+ 25 8-1 16 S.1+ 4

Their data can *Aso be analysed to show that the tLAT (Madera Language Aptitude Test) Store is -a fairly good predictorof success:

No. of students attaining! MAT Score * S-0 and S-O.. S=.1 and S-1+

--uvLuis- thin 40 1 0 40 to 60 22 6 Above 60 5 14 }MANNIMEnlierraMmuli 28 20

* This is evidently the T-score used by the Peace Corps, labeled PCMAT In our own study (see p. 20)

It should be noted, however, that even a level of S-1+ is not very high on :the PSI

scale, which ranges from S-0 (no ability) to S-S (ability of a native speaker). "54+" is a eating in between S-1 " ability to use liAited social expressions, numbers, and language for triers/ requirements" and S-2 "ability to Satisfy routine social and limited office requiretents."

The-dedision to study training programs in Spanish and Portuguese for the present investigation-was dictated partly by the fact that these languages, particularly Spanish, are of prime importance in Peace Corps operations and must be learned to fairly high degree Of proficiency if the Volunteer is to perform to satisfactory standards in his Latin American duty assignment, and partly by the fact that large numbers, of trainees is Spanish and Portuguese were expected to be available for-study at the -University of New Mexico where a large training progran was in operation.In thie training prO3ram,,lenguage learning was concentrated mainly in the first eight weeks of ti twelve week period.The final four weeks_were devoted-chiefly to physical conditioning under simulated field conditions.From a purely preifical standpoint, the question of whether this amount-of language training in Spanish and Portuguese eta sufficient to equip a Peace Corps Volunteer for work in the field was the nein focus of interest IA this-study.

According to-data-furnished by the Foreign Service institute, if 'a well-motivated student take* f011-time language training, in Spanish or Portuguese involving 4-6 hours 01:10,000,60:And- 2 0.4 hours-of drill and study daily, it should take him the- feIiewing *Ober- of Mouths to attain the S-2 level of proficiency "able to satisfy toUtine coal del** and limited office requirements':

AptitUdel No. of months

`Nigh' (65-80)1 2 Average (5064 4 Loit (bele* 50): 7

vilissawlI01111IMMOSP 4,1Ptt esecIre! Oil. 0.0004Aige#08LO:04:119derkloing44ge'APrirude 11*-91aref -*CO24-410,iti: istd ` 4000'4,0rAl0400PA, :APPrerlmare 9f t J.Ikearkfayistam4rei:#10':09=7.91tAverage antis )k.00111 PlIAT scoresused- in- 41;00440.

","0"491.011FAMRREMISOF--._ - _ - - .tt

't ZP, , ' 4 s. asst. .t- I, T.. ,);;..1 t * "..".; ' ,, 17. 5 s,1 4! 1.,4 ;'1,1 . 0. r ..:` rnWLOWV-1.111:1MkgW,V,Ww4M,FIS0.0.2711.14WW.mtle-API=M=meMmlo.m.r.rx.mnalcammcw,==MWI

.5.

Chapter 2

Overviee of the Study Design

This utudy was made feasible by the excellent opportunity fcr data collection offered by the contieuing Peace Corps language trainingprograms in Spanish and Portuguese at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, end by the fact that the Peace Corps made it ppeSible to test groups of graduates of theseprograms after they had been it field-duty keeignments in Latin Americo fora number of months.

Data were collected on seven centingents of trainees in Spanish (witha total enrolment of 472 beforethe start of training) and onone contingent of trainees in Portuguese (with an enrolment of 51 before the start of training).In addition, certain data were collected on one contingent of trainees in Portuguese (withan enrolment of 37 before the start of training) at the University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee branch).

Information was gathered relative to three benchmarks in thecareer of the individual Peace Corps trainee or Volunteer.1

The first benchmatkmay be considered to be the trainee's entry into the Peace Corps training program--in this case a 12-week trainirg.program. Information obtained at this point, or relative to it, included the following: a) Personal data such as'ageo'sexi marital status, etc. b) Part and/or total scores on the Modern Language Aptitude Test. c) Information concerning. prior training in, or otherexposure to, the language to be studied. (For the most part, this information was summarized in a "section placement score", reflecting the fact that the language training staff sectioned the students on the basis of their measured or judged prior kaowiedge of the language.) d) Questiannaire questions covering a wide ran3e of matters suchau self-ratings of interest in foreign language study, prior experience with foreign languages, self -rated aptitude for language study.

The second benchmark for the study came at the trainee's completion of the 12-week training period.Measures of individual trainees taken at that point consisted primarily of tests of foreign language achievement.

The third benchmark occurred after the Peace Corps Volunteer had completed some five to ten months service in the host country to which he or she had been assigned. Once again tests of language achievement were given,. as well as questionnaires covering the Volunteers' experiences with language problems in this setting.In the present report, this point will be referred to as the ni&stour follow-up.

Various other types of information were collected, including detailed logs of classroom activities during the training period, reasons for termination or separation of trainees from the.trataing program (where applicable), and various assessments of the trainees by staff personnel. Many type., of data were ineomplete, or defective in some respects, and are hence ignored in the present report.

Analysis consisted of studying the relationships among the measures taken at the three benchmarks-in order to plot and assess the course of learning and to study the relevanceof the various-predictive measures that became available.

.0111=111 IIIINIIIIIIIIIMMINMINAWAIIINIMMUMP11111 V111111111CMMINIIMMIAKIMIIMMEMINIMIG. IMMIMMI011.111=bm. I Trainees are not-officially liesienatedas Volunteers until they have successfully completed the training program mad, been assigned to field -duty stations.

11...... *0100N. CP?'"29f''t:".'c:*"'"""'--"LO""'nM'tte".I'Ie!aeir=rrcTrceItozavresl:ceiomne..scsefp.a.aw:rsRps,.,zaaeawersr"""tl

-6-

Chapter 3

The Peace Corps LanguageTraining Programs

at the University of NewMexicb

Although langUage4.astructiOn constitutes a large part ofthe overall Peace Corps training programat the Uhivaisity of New Mexico; theprogram also includes instruction iii.the geography, history,'add' politicaland economic organization host country, -.as well of the as.the study of worldaffairs and United States Further; 'each trainee id-involved institutions. in a rigordui.programof physical conditioning inc10414,paactide in sUrvival techniques, hordemandhip,njeepmanship," add hiking and climbing.. -Lecturesand demonstrations are also given in medical andfirst aid procedures-0 impOrtande inthe hoit country environment.

The project staff was concerned exclusively withthe language training dures employed,.and the proce- present report deals onlywith that aspect of theoverall training'program. It is, howeVer, importantto a proper understanding of ditions under which the the con- volunteers undertake thestudy of a foreign realize that many demands'are language to made on their time andenergy in addition to the rigorous language peograth itself.

The Spanish Trailailleehoecaaa

During the period when thelanguage program was studied (appraximately June15, 1963 to January 1964),the Spanish training staff at the Albuquerquecenter included a director,- Mrs:-.Laura D. Calvert,an assistant director, Mr. teaching staff of-about:fifteen Enrique Cortds$ anda instructors.Thwinstructors were mostlyexperienced teachers at the secondaryschool level who had completed guage teaching methodology_at a one-year course is lan- the University of NewMexico.- Met of these either, held N.A. 'degrees teachers in theoteadhing of fore-4nlanguages-or had completed dence and course requirements resi- for that degree. A numberof the instructors native speakers of Spanish. were Info sal visits made bythe project staff to several classes suggested that-both native and non- nativeinstructors were fluent in Spanish and well trained in the audio-visqal methods employedin the program.' The total training period for which the Universityof New Mexico was divided into two-phases. was responsible -First, approximately eight-weeks of laaguage training were provided in Albuquerque for each contingent.':Individual class sections sisting generally of con- :ten -to thirteen students whonet with a single instructor number of daily-50.eminute.sessions; for a Monday through Saturday. scheduled per day, although Usually, 4 or 5 were on.occasion the amber variedfrom 3 to 6, apparently reflecting necessary and temporary irregularities inscheduling. week period; there.were During this eight-- thus approximately 200.hours of languageinstruction.

*-Each'-training'contingent was-divided,into from -.6 to 13class sections, nuebered conseautiveIre Sower- numberedsectionseiere madeup of students haying prior training in Spanish, no or little while-nigher-numbered sectionsincluded students of proficiency as judged by greater the training staff. Section placememnt trainees assignments of a few wereeehangedeinethelirst-fewodaysOf training 'if itappeared that a slightly highel-oernlOwerilnUm4eredogroUpwas-agora-suitable for thetrainee. A weekly system of rotationamong insticiettitsisit.,each oUthree levels (beginning;intermediate, and advanced) providedtheoppOrtunity for students in the various sectionsto work with 01111111111110. 4.4.,MallillolalM.;114.14 igaft11IMISIEW 4..M/V/ 1 A /...... 10.11.114MINMI11001.* neontingentlAainangroup-of-.:traineesobeingprepared forservice-in country. a particular The "I and II" contingent, for example, Whey Will serve in-Aondurae denotes a group of trainees following'the training period. The numeral indicates that-this is the seddndgroup which. the Peace Corps has thit.country.' prepared for aorwice in own.

-7-

Occasion- two or three different instructorsin the course .of the eight -week period. ally, instructors particularly skilled in certain areas(such as teaching the use of 3 the subjunctive mode) would be asked to teach acombined class of two or three sections for a day or two. With relatively few exceptions, such as theteaching recesses required by four-day hikes(usually scheduled to include Sunday) andother Outward Bound training activities, the rigorousdaily schedule outlined above was continued throughout the first training phase.

In the second phase of training, the lastfour weeks, the program was devotedin large pert to rigorous physical training andwork projects in the TaoS, New Mexico area, where ehe Peace Corps hasestablished an auxiliary training centerin the ski. valley a few miles from the town itself. Since much of-the trainees' timeduring the Taos program was spent in rough"non-academic" activities, the language training procedures followed during this period wereusually of a more informal nature. The weber of hours devoted to lenguage training duringthese four weeks was considerably loss than 100. (More recently, the Peace Corps has instituted programswith approximately 300 hours'of language trainiug in a 12 -weekperiod.)

The teaching method in the eight-week program in Albuquerque cm be described as "audio - lingual ", although the term might be more properly "audio - visual- lingual"' since the student was exposed from the beginning to written material in Spanish, and considerable use was made of pictorial material as well.Written material was introduced.not only for the sake of developing reeding and writing facility, but also to The standard textbook for serve as a memory aid in listening and speaking situations. 4 all but the mist 'advanced sections was the MLA produced Modern Sadf11 Solinger I3 et al., /960), consisting of separate teaching. units based on the reading and memorization of dialogues, followed by pattern practice and other exercieest involving material presented in the dialogues.Considerable use was also made of staff-produced flannelboard materials, particularly for the teaching of verb fares, where visual presentations were made showing an entire paradigm (subject pronoun - -verb stem- tense/mode suffix-person/nuMber suffix, for each of the six persons) whose consti- tuent elements were successively "vanished" during or practice until the students were responding entirely from memory.Other staff-produced materials included English-to-Spanish translation exercises designed to reinforce previously presented grammatical principles and oral practice and to introduce additional items of vocabulary.

Grammatical concepts were not taught inductively but were instead presented in "lecture" form (and in English) by the instructor. These presentations often made use of the Visual Grammar series of instructional posters(Bull, 1961).Using sequences of real-life scenes, these posters depict the proper use ofcertain verb 3 tenses and modes, prepositions (e.g., pave. 2E2), adverbs, cenjunctionS, useof certain idioms, and so forth.

In addition to the classroom language training, eachstudent was required to Sit at a language table with one of the instructorsand converse exclusively in Spanish during the evening meal. These periode presented an opportunity for informallyintro- ducing a nuaber of topics-enamenclature for types of food, social customsand eti- quette--and to discuas other areas of intetestto the trainees.

A library containing host country books, magazines,and newspapers was maintained for trainee use on an individual basis, and ashortwave receiver was available

...0027NDar//'/NON/IINWONEK 7MMIli-YmaimINMINMi,IMMIMMISTA.=M./MNIMION.10/Ma / A term provided by irs. Calvert in aa article describing the UNM PeaceCorp& language training program (Calvert, 1963). See also her "Role of Written Exercises in an Audio-Lingual Program" (Calvert,1965),

Jr for listening to broadcasts from Latin. American countries. A certain -number of formal lectures were given in Spanish, and Spanish-speaking filmswere also shown from time-to time.

Some instruction was done via a language laboratory.Below, data are presented to indicate the approximate proportion of the scheduled time that was devoted to its use.The language laboratory was also available after hours, but itwas the impression of the research staff'that students did not have much tineto use it. Unfortunately, no information bearing on this pointwas collected from the students.

Use of Class Loss to Analyze Classroom Content

Although a reasonable acquaintance with teaching goalS and methodology could be obtained from classroom visits and La2ormal conversation with the language staff, it was felt desirable to obtain more specific day-to-day information about actual classroom procedures throughout the training period. For each Spanish contingent involved in the study, information of this type was obtained through theuse of special class logs which each instructor was asked to fill out for each of the daily class periods taught. These logs (see Appendix A for a copy of the forused) allowed the instructor to summarize in five minutes or so following each class period the major activities in which the class had been involved.With minor exceptions, instructors filled out the logs conscientiously and in sufficient detail is permit the later coding of this information according to the type of activity to which each class period had been primarily devoted.

A description of the coding categories is givea below:

1. Textbook Oriensod Activities.This category includes both the use of the Modern §pjaish textbook.(together with flannelboard presentations) and the Visual Grammar poster series.Class periods falling into this category would thus be characterized by morphological and syntactical exposition on the part of the instructor, student participation in dialogues, pattern practice, and other textbook-based exercises.

2. Use of Language Laboratory Materials.For the most part, this category includes only those class periods devoted to the language laboratory use of the . commercially recorded tapes accompanying each unit of the Modern ialteltext.To a very limited extent, other taped materials, such as recorded lectures in Spanish, were used in addition to the regular Modern Spanish, tapes; any instances of such use are also included in this category.

3. Use of. Staff-Produced Teaching Materials. The Albuquerque training staff had at the time of the study, produced an "Instructor's Handbook" -keyed to the Mo4ern Spanish test and the Visual Grammar materials.These materials included a number of supplementary written exercises, amplification of idiomatic expressions, and special word lists. All such materials were being constantly reviewed, revised, amdexpanded by the Albuquerque staff. In 'determining those class periods to be included in this category, the criterion established was that of any reference to the use of the supplementary materAals during the class period. Use of these materials did not usually occupy the entire class period, but rather served as an adjunct to textbook material covered in the same period.Thus; class periods designated as using "staff-produced materials" also included, for the most. part, regular textbook- based activities, and the two categories should be considered essentiallycongruent in this respect.

4. Staff Tests and Quizzes, The training staff had prepared a series of achievement tests, based on material included in each of the different units of ModernSpanish, to be administered at the end.of.the study of each unit. Typicai1ly, these tests consisted of an oral quiz (with both the questions and the answer options spoken in Spanish) followed by English-to-Spanish translation exercises, usually the -9..

translation of sentences incorporating vocabulary and syntax employed in the unit. Other types of test iteas were ale° used-depending on:the, nature-of the material tested; for example, the changing of verb -tentii thrOughout-A.connected script or the rewriting of sentences substituting pronbuns for nouns.The unit tests usually occupied an entire class period, but in some cases there were short review periods before the test or the presentation of new narerial folliewing the test.For coding purposes, any. class period in which a unit test wasadministered was placed in this category.

ream time to time, additions? classroom quizzes were administered independently of the unit tests. For the most part, such additional quizzes were prepared and administered by individual instructors to suit a particular teaching situation. Quizzes of this type were included in the test category if they appeared to occupy a substantial proportion of the class period (as opposed to short warm -up quizzes sometimes given at the beginning of a class period).

5. Use of Native Informants and Other Sources of Cultural Information. During the Albuquerque period, considerable use was made of the serviees of nativeinformants, who would typically be asked tc speak to a class section in Spanish on sometopic of potential interest and utility to the trainees:formulas of politeness and other protocol observed in the host couetry, industrial or agricultural organizationsof the host country, aspects of the monetary and financial syetems, or major health andeduca- tional problems. A common procedure was for the class to spend the period preceding the informant's visit preparing specific questions to be asked by the studentsin a discussion following the informant's presentation.Such preparation periods were also included in this category if they appeared to occupy a major portion of the class period.

In addition to activities involving native informants, a few otherculturally oriented classroom procedures were considered to fall into this category.These included such activities as reading host country newspapers and magazines in classand the use of maps and other realia of the country in question.

An iedication of the relative emphasis accorded to these various activitiesin the course of the Albuquerque training period may be obtained by comparingthe proportion of class periods devoted to these activities,botb for the trainingcontingent as a whole and for the individual class sections.A representative analysis is provided iu Table 1 for the daily log entries for the Colombia VIII Peru RCA contingents (in training simultaneously near the beginning of the projectperiod) and the Honduras II contingent (the last group studied during the projectperiod).

Certain trends may be-noted in Table 1.Referring first to the figures for the Colombia VflI -Peru RCA groups, we see a gradual decrease in textbook orientedactivity across training sections, with the greatest proportionof textbook use concentrated in the lower-numbered (less advanced) sections.In section 12 and 20 for this group, clase.periode devoted to textbook, Visual Grammar or flannelboard materials form a very low percentage of the-total. Conversely, the use of native informants is relatively restricted in the first 11 sections (mean proportion = A7), while in the more advanced- sections:, meetings with native informants (or extended Spanish conversations with the section instructor) comprised slightly more than half of the classperiods,

The use of staff tests is relatively constant across the first eleven groups (mean proportion = .09); this probably reflects the fact that all of these groups were working through the Modern Spanish text andadministering the uniform tests specified for each unit. Formal testing procedures dropped to insignificence with the last two sections, since these two groups were sot using Modern lBanishand presumably were being tested informally through. classroom conversations and oral reports.

For all sections, there appears to have been s fairly substantial use ofspecial etaf-produced meterials, with a mean proportion of .14, or about oncein every 7 - Traiut!r t in-Differant _

Tr . SeetiOn.7-s-f ertb&lk: "Stiff Tests Inforaints coIciabia COnfiinect Classes July 1.-Jul* 18, 19632 1 .1.4 .10 .04 2 .08. .08 .68- -.07 .10 .03 4 .07 .07 .10 .05 5 .63 .11 .09 .11 (,06 6 .56 .16 .09 .09 .10 7 .54- .05. .21 .10 .08 . .61 .10 .15 .03 .05 9 .63. . 08 .10 .03 10 _.5g. .13 -.16 .06- .13 .56 .. .13 .11 .10 .10 14. 47- .00 .30 .62 .51 20 .27 .0.0 .18 .00 355 Colombia VII Classes July 19 - August 15

1 .69 . 17 .05 .07 .02 2 .77 .09 .96 .07 .01 3 .80- -- .98 .03 .06 .02 4 .74 .05 .07 .02 $_ .54 .14 .20 .08 .04 6 .47 .15 .25 .12 .00 7 .65 .19 .05 .06 .05 8 .59 .10 .14 .05 -.11.

9 . .45 .14 .06. .22

10 .43 .07 . .00 .37 ll .44 -.00 .05 .03 .48 Peru =A- Classes July 19 - August 15

1 .55 .06 .28 .08 .03 2 .52 .08 .24 .08 .08 J5, :12, .23 .07 .03 . .35- .02-- .05 .02 .56

.lioncluras 11:-Claases- _August_ November 10 .06 .05 1.-05 .07 .04

t tb1400=.-3iretith tow: but it was not possible to initiate reSittvvamisaalcal....

class meetings.

Language laboratory use. for ail but thetwo most advanced groups appears rather constant, at ataamilevel of. al0.This would be expected in light ofthe fact all units of liodern.Spanish, are accompanied by laboratory tapes, with which eachsection apparently worked consistently duringthe period.

Following the separation of Colombia VIIIand Peru RCA into different training groups on Jay 19, certain changesmay be noted in the distribution of class periods. The use'of native informantsis reduced in the lower and intermediatesections, and some of-the lower sections. of ColsombieVIII classes (Sections2, 3, 4) appear to be devoting about 75Z of the total class periodto textbook and grammatical presentations. Some reduction is noted in the proportion ofperiods devoted to-testing; this may be explained in part by a °doubling-up" in severalcases, where tests for two units of work would be adaninistered inone class period.

Proportions for the Honduras IIgroup show a fairly uniformly high concentration of textbook-oriented work, consistentuse of staff produced material& (mean proportion = .12), and a reduction inexposure to native informants or periods of extended conversation.One interpretation of such figures would bethat a generally lower level of beginning-of-trainingproficiency for the Hondurasgroup necessitated an approach more concentrated on fundamental, textbookstudy and allowing less time for the more informal, unstructured learning l 4 situations afforded by meetings with Informants or participation in discussionsessions.

An analysis the Text, Modern ,Seanish

Because the text Modern &wish (Bolingeret al., 1960) was the basis fora large part of the instruction, as shown by the analysisof classroom activities, itseems useful to make an analysis of itscontent so as to gain en impreasion of what the student who completes its studycan be expected to have learned.

This text was designed for elementary Spanishlanguage instruction at the college level, but it has also been widelyemployed at the high school level. It is divided into 30 sections or "units," each intendedto require about one week of classroom work in the usual college schedule.The first unit providesa detailed discussion of Spanish pronunciation and intonation:Units 2 through 24 deal primarily withgrammar and lexicon, and units 25 through 30 providereading selections based on various aspects of Spanish sad Latin American history,litorature, and culture.

Each of the twenty-three grammar-lexiconunits presents initiallya dialogue in Spanish based on such "real-life" situationsas a telephone conversation, dinner in a restaurant, or a visit to the doctor.Each diaXegue Incorporates the grammatical constructions and vocabulary to be stressedin later pattern and substitution drills. Students are expected to memorize the dialoguefor each unit as a basis for work with the exercises.

Some "idea of the organization of the MaderalegligLtext may be gained through an examination of the number of grammar "topc introduced in each unit, together with a count of the items of "Active Vocabulary"presented in the unit. A "grammar topic" in this sense includes allmaterial presented under the boldfacesectionings following the dialogue for each unit.Examples of such topics are: "presenttense of -at verbs," "word order in questionsv" "pcasesive adjectives,""the aado form," "irregular preterits," etc. "Active Vocabulary" refers toany lexical item which appears in the dialogues, grammar discussions,or drills; acquisition of such items would presusably be necessary in order for thestudent to deal successfully with the dialogues and ftills of each unit.

smangmmmycgmmmapm -'12-

As shown in the lower curve in Figure 1, therate of introduction of.grammar topics is relatively constant throughout units2-24.Although it certainly cannot be saiLthat-iiiic# of,the topics is equivalent,in the sense that the same amount; -of time would biLrequitect.fOr mastery of the' topic,the fact that a generally constant rate of .introduction, off` 'these topics is maintained throughoutthe text does imply an attewt on the part of the authors to intredunalrammaticalconcepts at a rather steady rite (as opposed, for example, toa gradually increasing rate of introduction).

The situation is slightly different withrespect to the introduction of items of "activs vocabulary" (Figure 1, upper. curve). Here (andprobably necessarily), the rate of ibltroduation of lexital items is both high aadincreasing through unit 5; on the assumption that the student his no initial vocabulary inSpanish:, it is necessary to Introduce -a relatively large vocabulary at theoutset in order to reach a level: at which the presentation of meaningful dialogues in colloquiallanguage is feasible. The rate of introduction of lexical itemsappears then to decrease slightly through unit 21, at which point the is a substantial increase, possibly in antici- pation of the reading units to follow.is my be seen from Figure 1, 492 lexical items are introduced by the end of unit 24.

Use of )!ern Spanieletly Sections

As indicated previously, the higher- numbered sections in any given group were the acre advanced sections. Some of these sections were so advanced that they made very little use of the text Modern Spanish.

Students in the lower-numbered sectionstiere in most cases started at or near the beginning of this text and carried throzsh the successiveunite of it at an approximately constant rate. Thts rate, however, variedsomewhat over the sections.To give an impression of this variation, Table 2 -silows the_unitnulber to which the several sections of the Colombia XIEcuador Vgroup had progressed at the end of each of eight weeks of training (orthe corresponding auleber of hours-of instruction). It may be seen that at the end of 8 weeks of instructionsome of the slower sections had completed only 22 units.Soma of the faster sections, however,were able to reach unit 24, the last of the regulargranmar and vocabulary units (units 25-30 are composed of reading selections). Wallia111411111146.101 11.1, Z. 4111*IMMEMOINKM.M. t 1114,...... 0.41/.11...... 11...1.114W4111421., ' a , 110411111111WSK4411111MUNImmam.r...... emobeanorm >lt,p 5, teOK01.44,1110511WIMUIPIW~S41001PaktIgallentaillinilillt *at' 1"261*A.14' 1111 ). qr. jr f. , r 011.114II#PP!!:''AriA;141i1C) tt:

r` r Li V. 55 , 5,1,,"t1t.55. , t, 5,( 5 5,51: . 5, 5 t5 40b14,e, 5, . 5 t r t"1-Q AlitianMSAINMS1618.111101arwm,..r...... smoalmormarowormamor ,ft aValnallaaMMISZO 1=7 - i:'' \ - .'., , \ . : . . t : 1 q r ) ' \ \ \. \ \ - ! ' tJ I II j I ' t ca I i \ i ; H ' t a a a __ a a a a u ' ( a: , a a a\k \ ,' a Table 2 (' I a Ø/ / ' a a - I " a a\ , 'I tnrOugh Units of Modern '$pan16h 1a a \\\f i )* 1 -' Pror; of Co1oub.a Xtections i j a * \ j- ccipI..t.dy' 1 k ) L ! _\__R' a (entries inc11iar.1utunitnt.r I .- : : a': F a l '' - ' : " : , . 1.: _. jta I \ r ki: 2 " , a iaI _ _ 6: 7 a,, ,: ': '' :; I -- a I ', ,- 1 I I a : ' t __ . 1 I . a , I I I zo . 30 ! 40 50 60 70 80 -,- 9 I 100 110 120 130 140 150 I __-_T- -___l 4 , 16O.:yXo :210! a ' ' k .1.-' I -- - 180. 19O.2OO j , ,,. :,' ' :: \ 1 3 '. 6 7 1 , \ a '. : . 5 5 8 9 1;; 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 I 1 < v a U 18** 1\ L ' a . a r 'I I I I \ * 3 3. I. c'\ , ' . . :i 4 : 6 7 al ;. ' 4 5 6 9 12 ..,;. ' 4a'\ ,'i : L 10 13 13 14 15 17 18 19 ' 2O 2]. H 22 '-c " 'c I .- a ' 4 > 4 - \ i: 5 \ 3 T 4 :" .: a ' :":a 3; 9 . 12 I, I a 1 13 ' 15 1.6 17 18 L9 20 23 : i! :: '-k '6:' a 3 _ 1011 , a fl134 2122 1 7 ' 2 3 5 67 8 'I' a'' r ' ' ' '' 5 5 6 7 9 23. '[ $, '8: 3 lOU. 12 SI 13 14 15 16 16 1? 18 ' '23' :' " '' I S ""/1 :: I '$44. a 2 £, ''",':.' a a 'a.i._a_L___ I a * a , sectIos occasionally varied class hovra, howeveislightly in ;otai number of meetings per week, the ek1y brakets are a are exact for each group. a I ** ce8ar1v aite. Cumulative ''o was - V ,' I Sectioning histocy y4ah instruction he Colombia U contingent Ecu1id9 contitgent, i oD trai*4xig at time. The total group !as divided into 11 class aectioüi initi*lly combined 4t t) (th b' 'a a a id no aake systeaic use of th Spanish text and are thus omitted 5orn the table). up'Ir div.-edC1uU'*e J.t;o hours 6 sections "of' instruttion the Colorbia (again, the upper two sectione did aud Ecuador group were separated and thenut Coosb* use Moder coptigen wa 4ter a I I !pinlsh on a rgulat basis and *r a omitted fro the table). a ''. ' : ' og sheets are unavaLlable for this soct.on after t± point. a , , a ' =1=itangiN~iffeeer, --qa^ - 11M.ICOM IIMM11MG1=IIMIC,Mr=1,GV:aialarliePaEtta.

nefslammaigginjassmas

It was planed originally to collect thesame types of data on Portuguese language-instruction as were collected forSpanish.. VATious difficulties, however, intettOselie* -for 004:4 44 'ta daily logsof claSSOOM tom rcifeuimeiie-iiittiOttits4In 4ay'case*, turned out that thelitedeOts"0-4 able =to tandiOt 'end-Oftriiluir,ig and1,A-fieiditeSting-withonly one aontingOt'Of trainees iitl'Oitilitteiee'OiadiVII).The remarks in ttiis section will there-foie be "confined-to a"i*Aeief deildikition'iit the kOrtuguese trainingprogcam.

The primary textbook liat. Ititradliction'tO -Brazilian Portuguese (Riccio, 1957).The text consists of 26 lessons:, plus review sections following every fifth lesson. Font each lesson- a reading selettibmof200450'4ordl is 'provided, followed bya Portuguese. - English vocabulary list of about 40-70 words. Agrammar section dis- cussei-lit English) the particular grammatical topics exemplifiedin the reading section, -anethd 1,esso#isconi-Wed with a series'Of -exercises suedas completion ("fill-in-the4lenks"), translation of English sentences into Portuguese,changes of person or verb tense, and directed conversation based onprinted questions ("A que bores chega a casa?").

In addition to the basic text, the Portuguese groups used two reading texts (Lopes, Bom Dig; Hamilton, Lopes, and Walth, Converses Sul-Americanas),as well as locally prepared supplementary materials ptoviding additional exercise materials for each lesson of the Introduction text.

As with the Spanish' contingents, trainees in Portuguese were divided into sections reflecting prior background and observed proficiency in Portuguese.The basic instructional procedure for each lesson involveda preliminary lecture by the director of Portuguese training (Dr. Albert R. Lopes), attended by all sections, followed by individual-section meetings where.a member of the Portuguese. staffanswered questions on the lecture and conducted drills using the lessonmaterials or supplementary sheets. Conversation in Portuguese was encouraged as apart of the section meetings, and additional opportunities for conversationwere provided through required attendance at language tables during the evening meal. Language labbratory materials, such as recorded broadcasts from Brazilian radio stations,were used ou occasion, and the trainees also had access to Brazilian magazines,newspapers, and other materials. -/6-

DescriptiOn -of 'SitaiPlee Studied

_., 4 t.40-- 44140 f4**411:-StUdy,_ it itaz,eXpeCted_thatby testing andobser- _-_..,-...... ___ -,. . _ ..,_. ._ _... . ving.vin& ancces.sivscoatingra i oPeace 'Corm trait:test-4,1:§pinlishor -Portuguese at the 1114*.eilkte7=0.4*sigeP:i* wout:0410.404-41**4404 to- accumulatedata onabout 306:-:4440*._. 0-4444 ,;* ,IiiiOutA-.50--si*le44- titPortuguese._411-11114** turned Gut. rclitiireli.feit..-se 'Ots of tortg are Were 4*.ailahle: .iiirstudy.Thereforeit was 'decided to proiongtheperiod of data collection by UV:trail 'months 2n order to accumu- late A larger number ot.cases 4-?1,Spa llisb than originally planned.,

.. . Samples Of Train ees -in Spanish ,

Sewn suceiesive contingents of-Peace Corpe students of Spanish trained at the University of New Mexico WerfOltu.died. The names of these groups.nuMber of trainees initially enrolled, inmOarLol,sections4.and training dates, are as follows: N No. of Dates Sections Colombia VIII 117 13 June 10 - September 15, 1963 PA= V 39 12 June 10 - September 152.1963 Ecuador V .79 7 July 7- October 11, 1963 Colombia BI 58 6 July 7 - October 12, 1963 Honduras II 55 6 August 8 -.November 10, 1963 Colombia 2111 67 10 September 9 - December.21, 1963 Colombia XV 57 6 October 21 - January 10, 1964 Total 472

Although the original rosters for these contingents supplied by the Peace Corps contained the names of-472 students, 28 students either failed to appear-in Albuquer- que or withdrew within the first few days of training. The sample was thus immediately reduded-to a 44.

Personal data on sex, date of birth4nd marital status were available for 447 of the original enrollees. For this group, men outnumbered women 1.7 to 1, age ranged from 19 to 60 with an average of 23.7 years, and a large majority were single at the time of enlistment in the Peace Corps and had never been married. A more detailed description of the sample is given in Table 3.

Samples of Trainees in Portuguese

During the data-collection period of this study, there were three contingents of students trained in Portuguese at the University of New Mexico. The names of these groups, the number of trainees initially enrolled, and the training dates are as follows: N Dates

Brazil IV 35 May 9, 1963 - August 8, 1963 Brazil V 38 July 12, 1963 - October 12, 1963 Brazil VII 51 November 11, 1963 - February 3, 1964

For administrative and other reasons, it was possible to make detailed studies of only the,Brazil VII contingent, Personal data ars available for the 51 members of that contingent who actually entered training; these data are summarized in Table 4. Ifs eentriit to the Spaniih-training contingents, this PortUguete contingent contained more women-then men, but its age and marital status distributions are roughly cooper- *Otte-these of: the Spanishatraininucontligents. o 7,11.0e1MYRIMPOWIM.../....alOfePOPM,WWWWOOMMONNOraniNOSIWINK. 012,31443100Ma3C3aniNFIE.0111, ;

it N C40% N04p. Oa 2 owarasmaAtillr,mkob o 411 rio , '0 0 0 0 4 rol cn to 4'galei:ett't4 0 8 r444 sir 4. to ra rty-o 111 0.4 0 wit ter ,o .0.--cft ;44. 'o: SL.C1 1% s n e.a .,.g , 42 it.74I 0 , 4-in ov s .... Ao , '0', .41' CIO) VI IC> OD Ch 0% r4 r4 w Cel eare4t rl z C4 N 11,4 art C4 ..4** t.i% 'CO glii i.4. ell , WSI . ';r1 14.ii 0.4:0*1 '

'%/16440 I Ili rsCf cis -11:5,1111, ,c+'; I alsoluivagempazoleoutimaiwoousi",, rrir,7777M911rrIlli AMIN11.11111.1111111111.1111.111MORIMMINIMMI rr-ip qTra'ri477.777Er,r0Rail lavarenearaVelftstmoMM104414MMUlt===.1051210= el=01=315ZWISCIZSCMizzazsalmir---....macer=s.orerraffloss...... u.--_,...,

-19-

Chapter 5

Nature of the Data Collected

A vi variety of data on the trainees was available from Peace Corps records or'from tests and other evaluations conducted by the Peace Corps Training Program at the University of New Mexice.Some of these data however, were "spotter-in the sense that many of the scores for iudivedual trainees were missing or otherwise unavailable.Therefore, this chapter will describe in detail only the sets of measurements from these sources that were found to be sufficiently complete to be usable in this study.,

In addition, a series of evaluation instruments were selected or developed speci- fically to meet the requirements of this project. The selection aad/or constructiou of these inacrumentu will also be described in this chapter in detail.

Measures of Foreign Language Aptitude

Parts 3, 4, and 5 of the Modern Lang. sge Aptitude (Carroll and Sapon, 1958) are routinely given by the Peace Corps to applicants for training, at varietas testing centers throughout the country. The only difference from the commercial version of the-test is that the aaewer sheet is in the format required for the SCRIBE scoring machine at the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N. J.Parts 3, 4, and 5 of the MLA T are paper-and-pencil tests, constituting the "short form" of the test; the MUT gives norm and other data for a total raw score, which is the sum of the raw scores on these three subtexts. As used in the Peace Corps testing program,. these three parts are given by a test administrator who reads the instructions aloud from the materials furnished and times the tests separately (this is in contrast to another procedure, uaually employed for the total test; whereby the test is administered by playing a magnetic tape recording of all insteuctions times, etc.).

Part 3 of the MAT, entitled "Spelling Clues," requires the subject to recognize words "Spelled approximately as they are pronounced", such as luv (love) and erns (earnest) and choose a avicnym for each word from five choices offered (dgmatioa and

ALILIK2Meere the correct responses for these examples). The test contains 50 items,. for which a time-limit of 5 minutes is allowed, and is thus highly speeded. According to the test manual, "scores on this part depend to some extent on the student's English vocabulary knowledge"; however, it "also measures thesame kind of sound- symbol association ability as measured by Part II, Phonetic Script, but to a lesser extent." Part II is a test that must be administered by means ofa tape recorder; in this test, the subject learns to associate particular English sounds with symbols in a special phonemic transcription.]

Part 4 of the MLAT, entitled "Words in Sentences," requires the subject to select elements of sentences that correspond in grammatical function to specified elements in other, "key" sentences., It can be characterized as a test of grammatical analogies. According to the test. anual, "this part is thought to measure sensitivity to gram- mat:Lcal structure, and may be expected to have particular relevance to the student's ebiaty to handle the grammatical aspects .of a foreign language."Fifteen einutes are allowed for the 45 items of the test; for most students, the test is not highly speeded.

Part 5, entitled "Paired Associates," requires the subject to memorize the English meanings of 24 nonsense words labeled as "Kurdish" (they are not really Kurdish); 4 minutes are allowed, for this memorization, after which there is a 4-minute, non-speeded multiple-choice test on the memorization.Maximum score is 24,

maramraziwricwommarxmagmlwrawireawinisiglaiswasiglIMPIONawrilFIZMOC=7ANIERNICKA:2012M1111ROXIM=Pliszwase=11.710Z17 -20-

Scores on the Modern Language Aptitude Test have been shown to be highlypre- dictive of success in foreign language study, particularly in intensivecourses (Carroll, 1962). The Research Division of the Peace Corps has conductedor sponsored nemerous studies showing a satisfactory validity for the test in predicting success in Peace Corps language training programs (Krug, 1962).Hobbs (1963, p. 51) points out that the validity of the test in predicting success in the field "holdsup reasonably well not only for countries where a new language must be learned but for others as well, suggesting the importance of some general ability -to -learn factor." (Indeed, several parts of the MLAT are explicitly learning tasks, particularlyparts 1, 2, and 5.)

As used by the Peace Corps, the tote score for Parts 3, 4, and 5 of the MLAT (here designated EMLAT) is converted to a T-score, whichwe will identify by the symbols. PCMLAT, by a conversion table that amounts to the equation

PCMLAT a .472(EMIAX) 4. 23.03

(Solving this equation for EMLAT we get EMLAT e 2.12(PCMLAT)- 48.74.) This conversion had been established by the Peace Corps on a large number of EMLATscores obtained in the early days of its selection program.

Thus, PCMLAT scores should have been available for all trainees in our study. For various reasonn, however, scores were not available for a substantial proportion of students. In any case, we desired to obtain the part scores themselves, and if possible also to secure scores on Parts 1 and 2.Wherever possible, scores on parts 3, 4, and 5 were obtained through a :re-scoring of the original answer sheets resulting from the routine Peace Corps teeeing; these scores were obtained from Educational Testing Service. By plotting the resulting EMLAT scores against PCMLATscores it was found that a small number of PCMLAT scores were in error, probably through clerical error (a number of PCMLAT scores were incorrect in the ten's digit); for all such cases the PCMLAT ecores were corrected in project records, and the Peace Corps was informed of the errors.

Also, wherever possible, missing scores on Parts 3, 4, and 5 were obtaine by testing at the University of New Mexico under project auspices, as close to the stare of training as possible. Where this was not possible, EMLAT scores were obtained from PCMLAT scores by the conversion equation above.Parts 1 and 2 were administered to as many trainees as possible, whenever in the training program it vas feasible to give these tests, but generally close to the starting date of the training for each group. Despite all efforts to obtain complete sets of sub-test scores on all trainees included in the sample, many scores were still unavailable, as will be seen in the next two chanters.

Because scores on Parts 1 and 2 became available for appreciable ambers of trainees, descriptions of those parts are given here.

Part 1 of-the MLAT, entitled "Number Learning," requires the subject to learn the naves of numbers (1, 2, 3, 4; 10, 20, 30, and 40; and 100, 200, 300, and 400) in an artificial languege. The: learning is done by auditory presentation of appropriate practice materials from a magnetic tape, after which a series of two- and three-digit numbers in the artificial language are presented in fairly rapid succession (again auditorilyfrom the tape). The subject is required to write down these numbers in'Arabic numberals from dictation (later transcribing the answere to - appropriate answer sheet scoring positions) . The maximum score is 43; the total duration of the test is approximately 19 minutes.According to the test menual, the test: "seems to measure one aspect of the memory component of foreign language aptitude, but the part also has2fairly lame specific variance, which one might guess to be a special 'auditory alertness' factor which would play a role in auditory comprehension of a foreign language." ....maw<

-21- I Part 2, entitled "Phonetic Script," requires the subject to learnto associate pm-amiss English sounds with symbols ina special phonemic transcription. Learning is deaotrated by the correct choice fromamong fourepossible_ trans- criptions 2or a given eyllable. The test =Bebe preaented by tape recording; pacing of the presentation is of course determined by the receding, whichlasts about 12 minutes.Maximum score is 30.

I During the period when the trainees in our sample are likely to have been selected for Peace Corps training, the cuttingscore on PCMLAT was quite low.Never- theless there appears to have beensome selectivity, reflected in the fact that the distribution of PCMLAT scores for 372 trainees for whom datawere available both from Peace Corps records and from the rescoring of the answer sheetsat ETS has a mean of 54.5 and a standard deviation of 8..s (as compared with theoreticalvalues of 50 and 10, respectively, for a aon-selected group). The total dl..stributiom of earned and converted EMLAT scores, based on 437 cases (the largest number on which it was . possible to obtain EMLAT scores fromany source), had a mean of 66e3 and a standard deviation of 17.4 (corresponding-to 54.3 and 8.2, resneetiveiygon the PCMLAT scale). This mean has a value between the 55th end 60th percentileson published norms in the Manual of the HIAT for "M la intensive Language Training at the Department of State".The sample may thus be concluded to have been somewhat selectedin terms of language aptitude.

The above data are for cases found among the Spanish trainedcontingents. For 48 students of Portuguese the mean and stazdarddeviation of the PCMLAT distribution were 57.5 and 6.9 respectively, correaponding to values of 73.2 and 14.6on the EMLAT scale.

Measures of Prior Knowledge of thtlansumelipatel

In its selection procedures, the Peace Corps offers the candidatethe opportunity to demonstrate his knowledge of a foreign language by takinga written examination in 1 it. The examinations; offered include one in Spanish.However, none of the trainees in our sample took this examination.

When students destined for Spanish training arrived at the University ofNew Mexico training center, they were given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of Spanish by taking a placement teston the basis of which they would be assigned to one of the more advanced sections.The placement test consisted of two parts. Part One was given to trainees who reported having studied Spanish previously, and it consisted of an aural comprehension section worth 80 points anda reading comprehepsion section worth 20 points. Part Two was given only to the trainee who scored 85 or better on the first part; it consisted ofa taped conversation test in which the student was given a certain period of time to talk about pictures flashed on a movie screen.

I Recanse only a certain proportion of all Spanish trainees tookany part of the placement test (according to cur records, only 276 out ofa total of 452 Spanish )), I training entrantsor 61.I2 and because the placement test itself was not uniform for all who took it, the problem that presented itselfwas how to represent initial proficiency in Spanish on a scale with a common meaning for all trainees.One way in which this was done vets to derive a scale froma correlated variable, namely, the section placement number. As each contingent arrived at the University of New Mexico training center, the Spanish training staff assigned studentsto sections on the basis of not only placement scores, but alsoany other information they had as to the trainee's prior exposure to Spanishor related languages. The section placement 1.171MVIIIMINSINII11.164 1 We haveno assurance that all students with prior training in Spanish actually took the placement test or that our data concerning the placementtests are actually complete.

...mmaommerPoom amslusamawmammdm ,...22NOCINISIMINIAMPLUDINOMIW -22-

number. was correlated with amount of prior knowledge of Spanish; that is, students with the greatest amount of Spanish competence (sometimes native speakers of Spanish) ware assigned to the hisebest-nembered sections.: students with theleast expos :re to Spanish or any other language were assigned to the !.west- sphered section (section 1.) Since contingents varied somewhat in size, the were varying numbers of sections. Therefore, a statistical procedure was employed to convert all section numbers co a common scale. For each contingent, section numbers were converted to T -scores corresponding to the men standard decree for portions of a normal curve hseing the same proportions of cases es the aectionsarranged in numerical order.The resulting T-scor vete then pooled into a single distribution and againsceled in T-score form.

The chief assumption underlying this procedure is that the resulting Section Placement Scores (SPS) carry at least some information -bout tine student's prior knowledge of Spanish that is not reflected in the Spanish placement test scoresalone. Table 5 shows the distribution of SPS scores for 171 cases without Spanish placement test scores and for 271 cases distributed according to Spanishplacement test scores. The mean SPS for cases without Spanish placement test scores was40.83 with a standard deviation of 8.61; for cases with Spanish placement test scores,the mean SPS was 53.80 with a standard devistien of 8.88;clearly these means are different. For the 271 cases with both SPS and Spanish placement test scores, the correlationbetween SPS and test score (the swore being that resulting from part one of thetest) was .68, a very substantial value. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that in Table 5 there are a few outlying cases of traineeswith fairly high Spanish placement test scores who were nevertheless placed in low-numbered sections. The reasons for this are unknown. Likewise, there are a few cases without Spanish placement test scores who were nevertheless placed in fairly advanced sections.

The Section Placement Scores also carry informatics.. 415 to how advancedthe training for a student was. As we have seen in a previous section, the higher- numbered sections tended to get further along than the lower numbered sectionsin the text Modern Spanish.

No placement tests were given to students of Portuguese on theirarrival at the traiaing program in Albuquerque, but they were assigned to sections onthe basis of staff interviews conducted to determine their stage of proficiency. The sections were numbered from high to lowproficiency; i.e.y the most proficient were assigned to section one and the least proficient tosection slit (there being six sectious); consequently, these section scores correlate negatively with proficiency. (They also correlate negatively with MAT to the extent of -.43, N =48, P < ,d1; this fact seeeeste perhaps thnt sectinnipa may have been based to some extent uponknowledge of MAT scores.) In any case, the section placement numbers, ranging from1 to 6. are regarded as measures of prior orinitial knowledge of Portuguese fer the purpose of this study.

ti 'SISslii="217:=1022X1t4.1111, OrMrStratr l'10.0=21/1211042,=404M10400.1.04p ManVIAMIVSOMMUnMalfainglarAtfaratealtiMMISIONMOVM1103010teritneratirj=7ZZOOMAMI ',1St 1:13/7 11101eaSAPIPAI\ s. jv 0 Ss0sWeis \s,se SYS* Frequency. Distributions of Section Placement Scores for Those 1411.thout Table 5 ' ssitIimisKitilesliIllSOMMOsPIssildolispu1sieSTIPIIIIMMISSIDUMMINIMMIIIIMIN.110111018.11tylsIs al Omenis /0~1400.101flowl Wwmossimioss and ft= Different Levels of Score rossmororwanorsOierszoisommoOnssY16111OOlolollWOOSOSSOOOMPOolissm7soorssouswommoroiotowoorsoossoi on the Splut4ett Tlecesiant;legst .S.crtis IOTOISSIVI~0.1~01,1100.01.1110,MIrliSellOrKINITOIMMINSISSIMISSMMIV Test ;134 No PlacementSpanish 00011MISNIMINIPATIMMISIMMIMIIPM.80 SPANISH PLACEMENT 'TEST SCOW 80-$9 ,-t41' 75-q9 'Test Score 0-9 10.19 20-29 30,-39 40-49 50-59 6069 70-79 'alosobsoessommosolmeassIseophooliflorlworommeOos. I/ 2 90-49 100 I Mssmasarlsopsare TOtal 4, All Comm 4 . 4 72 2 18 0 26'1 4 22 3 11 S 11 91 12 39 11 812 11 46 286 3.1 56 16 3 586445 8461346 ,D4:4:4549' 246117 154 18 5 3.7 3 17 41 1 1 1 1652 7769 14 20,-24 25549'3-3.9 27 20 3 I.1 2 I. 057 3231 O. 9. 1111111100000.10 2 .4 .Cl) 'Totals 15-19 171 1.6 26 36 30 ssumbsnissiro20,10,91.11mOVIININNIMN CRit~~MMIIMIMISMIIIMMIT0Mal IMINIWOMMUSHOWAINIMINSIIPMIINVINIATIMIMMOMIIIIIMS32 24 larmootosmossororcommor000mossAwmatoomproastroo0Osamoomo23 ~00.01AISTINMWAIIM4.0101004WeiNs 20 28 33 3 4.1041.11MIsaOtrissm11100NISIriseraleiSmis' isaladosesio ourporosi:seisso271 o '442 I 44,0440,p,--.),,u01;32712:Za\r: cr."! r -24-

Ma! ! of Other Pre-Tr:xi/1*nVariables

For the purpose of obtaining data concerning trainees' background in foreign language study and degree of interest in such study prior to entry into Peace Corps training* the project staff prepared a Foreign Lenguage Questionnaire (Sea Appendix B) that WaS to be administered to both Spanish and Portuguese language trainees at some convenient time during the training period, generally towards the end of training. The questionnaire wts thus largely retrospective.Among the kinds of information sought were:

1) a characterization of the trainee's prior background in foreign languages aside from formal school contacts (e.g., opportunity to hear foreign languages spoken in the home, parents' interest in the foreign language achievement of the trainee.)

2) a detailed inventory of the trainee's formal course work in foreign languages, from grade school up to the time of entry into the Peace Corps program. For each formal course taken, the trainee was asked to fin out a separate sheet asking for infornation on type of school attended (public, private, parochial), class hours per week of foreign language, type of final examination, and so forth.

3) an estimate of the trainee's conception of and interest in foreign language study priorto his entry into the training program.Questions of this type covered the trainees interest in foreign language study compared to other types of echool cork, the relative amount of time he had spent studying foreign languages, his interest in seeing foreign language films, or learning the rudiments of some "out-of-the-way" language, etc.

4) the trainee's self-appraisal of his relative ability in each of is skill areas of listeaing, speaking, reading, and writing in a foreign langeage, again prior to entr y into the Peace Corps program.

This background and interest questionnaire was administered in a preliminary mimeographed form to approximately 40 Peace Corps trainees at Springfield College (Springfield, Massachusetts): and as a resat of this pre - testing, a number of minor changes in format and phraseology were made before the questionnaire was printed in photo-offset form for use with the University of New Mexico contingents.

For the purpose of establishing a limited number of predictor variables, the data from the Foreign Language Questionnaire of from 332 to 368 trainees both in Spanish and in Portuguese were subjected to a series of special factor analyses. Items were classified logically into three sets: (a) items on attitudes towards foreign language study; (b) items coaceraed with preferred modes of foreign language study; and (c) items concerned with exposure to foreign language experiences in the home. Each of therm sets of items was factor-analyzed in order to reveal the weighting of each response that would yield the maxims relative variance in a composite score based on these items. (Thuz, a principal components analysis of the variance-covariance matrix of the item responses was eeployed In each case.)A detailed description of the rationale and computational procedures used will be found in Appendix C.

These analyses resulted sventualli in four factor scores that were computed for each student. Two of the factors, called Interestiaablatimajaagwagesand Compel- alailaa were derived from the set of items on attitudes towards foreign language study. Each of the other factors, Preference for Audiolinaual Instruction (briefly, Audio- lingual Preference) andiposure to Forde_Lattnagitminalatome (briefly, Home Exposure) was derived from the corresponding set of items as classified logically above. The factor scores actually used in the study were arbitrary linear transforms of factor scores expressed in normal deviate form. The items contributing to each factor, and their factor loadings, are indicated in Tables 6, 7* 8, and 9. 4.1WIIMMINSWIMMAraftWW091.7. 111

-25-

Table 6

Items.Xontributing to Factor Interest in Foreign.. languages

Item Number Item Factor -Statdment Loading

6 1 would have enjoyed joininga club whole main Object was to make it possible for students toconverse with one another in .36 a foreign language, hear lecture-Et-in the language,and so forth.. &q I voluntarilyandonmyown (notin'connection with any class) .34 picked up and atteMpted to reada foreign magazine or newspaper. 8 If I had a foreign frieilsi_whowas quite fluent.in English and liked to speak English, I wouldstill rather have had him talk to me in his native tongue. .31 1 4 I voluntarily and entirelyon my on attempted to read one or more playa, novels, or other serious works ina foreign language study. .28 15 In comparison to my othercourses, I was less interested in foreign language study. -.28 17 In comparison to my othercourses, I was very interested in foreign language study. .28 42 If I had-married a person whosenative language was not English, I. would definitely have learned his (her)language even if we both knew F,_slish. .28 21 Outside of class, and when not doinghomework, I used hardly ever to think of words, things, or ideas ina foreign language.

411111, .11111=1111110/111

Table 7

Items Contributing to Factor IIICompulsivity MILIM11101.7.{4=1, =111.PM. .2111(MINIIIMMi..111 Item Number 'Atem Factor Statement Loading .1C... 16 In comparison to my othercourse;, I was equally interested in foreign language study. .39 25 Whenever foreign language homeworkwas assigned, I usually did it more or less willingly alongwith other homework. .31 31 After I had been working at foreignlanguage homework forsome time, I found that Iwas interested enough to get the assignments done. .22

011111MINMPIPM.C40. Militl -26-

Table 8 Item Contributing to Factor III, .--Preferenses for Audiolingual Instruction Item Ninther Item Factor Statement Loadine

-.1111111111. 23 Please rank the four language skills from 1 to 4. Write a "1" opposite the skill you were best at... -Speaking (ranked_ 4th) -.13 Reading (ranked: -1st) -.31 Listening (ranker 3rd) -.29 17 With the knowledge of the foreign language which you had immediately before entering the Peace Corps, -which of the following things could you have done most readily? Please write e."1' opposite the thing you could have done most readily, A) Struck up a conversation-with a fellow traveller (ranked 4th)

6 I would rather have; _ A) studied a foreign language by listening to a recording .22 B) studied a foreign language by reading a book -.22 5 I would rather have taken a foreign language test by: A) having the teacher say the sentence .21 8) having the teacher write the sentences on the board. -.21 23 (See Above) Listening (ranked lst) .21 ilmINIMONON

Table 9 Items Contributing to Factor IV, Exposure to Foreign Languages \Mr 11.11111,...MINC IIIIIIMMININEWMINI .111!:llW

Item ventor Statement Loading

6 I have had the opportunity to hear my father and/or mother conversing with friends in some language other than English...... o ,0 yes .37 no -.37 2 My mother can carry on a reasonably fluent conversation in some language other than English . .. yes .34 no -.34 My father-can carry on a reasonably fluent conversation in some language other than English . y ..... yes .33 no -.33

3 My mother can read booksand magazines ig some language other than English , Yes .29 no -.29 my father can read booksand magazines in some language other than English yes .28 -no Lan e.Prop b the.- Lan Tirttinin -St- r-- _

4 ii 4 r40-

0, 1 wereobtained:

Intermediate Assessment__

Prterittielievel:. bt-fltiency in= Speaking_ RiceptiOnal flizenCy- ,4 More fliteitcy----thn average 3 Abont average :fluency: 2 BeIow-liVerage 1- Little- or, -no--"fIneney- Present' Level bf Doliprelientian 4 -ExCeptional- comprehension '3 -Better than average 2 About average-; 1Little' or no cOMprehension [N.B. the form contained only these four level's, perhaps by error.] Rate of Acquisition, Speaking 5Outstanding 4 High average 3 Average 2 LOWaverage 1 Deficient Rate of Acquisition, Cotprehension 5 Outstanding 4 High average 3 Average 2Loio-average 1 _Deficient Estimate of Adequacy of Language Ability for the. Overseas Job, Speaking 4Sttong 3Satisfactory 2 ftrderline

Estimate of AdeqUacy of Language-Ability for the-Overseas Job, Comprehension "4 Strong -3 Satsifactory 2 Borderline I No

Final Assessment Same as for Intermediate Assessment

It would have been possible also to use data given on the Language Evaluation Form concerning-intermediate and final examinations; these were not used, however, because the teats-were constantly being revised and even completely changed,so that there was no meaningful:cow-on scale on which the analysis could be based. This being:the case, it Lam- _,-decided to rely on standardized language proficiencytests that coUld- be applied uniformly to all trainees in each of the languagegroups and that could also be given, in alternative forms, at the time of the mid-tour follow-up.

= -28-

Objective Language Proficiency Tests

A series of objective language proficiency tests in Spanishor Portuguese was given to all trainees who were still in theprogram at the end of the 12-week train- ingper/oar-whether the trainee "passed" thisprogram or not.These tests (generally, alternate forms of them) ware also aebeteisteredto the trainees studied at the time of the mid-tour follow-up.

Since it was anticipated that the levels of languageproficiency- possessed by the trainees at the end of the 12aweek,trainiugperiod and at the time of the mid-tour follow-up would range over a wide .spectrum, itvats necessary to provide tests to cover a correspondingly wide range of proficiency,Unfortunately, the available proficiency tests in Spanish and Portuguesedid not meet this requirenent as well as might be desired. In the case of Spanish, the MLA-CooperativeForeign Language Tests, which in 1963 were undergoing finalnorming prior to publication by Educational Testing Service, were made availableto this project for research purposes. However, these tests have two separate levels, "L'slevel tests for studentscompleting two years of high schoolor two semesters of college study, and "N" level tests for students completing fouryears of high school or two years of colaege study.Only by giving both levels to all studentswas it possible to insure that each student was tested witha test of the appropriate. level.When this study was conducted there were no procedures available fromEducational. Testing Service for obtaining a single score derived from both tests.'There seemed to be no commercially available standardized tests inPortuguese, and thus it was necessary to create a series of tests parallel to the MLA CooperativeTests.

The principal investigator had constructed severalyears previously a Pictorial Auditory Comprehension Test which could be adaptedfor measuring auditory Compre- hension in any language. Experience with this test (Carroll and Ho, 1959;Carton and Carroll, 1960) has indicated that itcan measure a rather wide range of proficiency in aural comprehension--from none at all to the proficiencyof a native speaker. Therefore, this test was adapted foruse in both Spanish and Portuguese.

The M!.ACooperative teats are described in detailin a Handbook published by Educational Testing Service (1965a).(The Handbook alsocovers the tests available in French, German, Italian, and Russian.) They covet the four skillareas of Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing at tbeetwo levelsof difficulty noted above: Form L tests (available in two forms, LA and LB)are planned for use with students completing two year's ofligh school language study or twosemesters of college study, and Form M tests (Form MA and MB) are designed for studentscompleting four years of high school study or two years of college study.Short descriptions of the MLA Cooperative Tests and of the Pictorial Auditory ComprehensionTest are given below, together with sample items.

An 1 In 1965 EducationalTesting Service published a booklet ofnorms (1965b) in which "converted scores" on acommon scale can be obtained from tests at either level. A single score derivable from the two tests couldtherefore be the average of the converted scores. 141A4Cooperative Tests

Listening., .The: istening_ tests are administered by means of a tape recording to which the student listens through earphones or by loudspeaker (in onr.administra- tioli*, the tapes were played over a loudspeaker). With minor variations depending can the language-and test level* the following types of passages are presented: simple utterances bya single speaker,, conversations between two speakers, the reading of prosy paseages, simulated telephone conversations, and short dramatic scenes enacted among several people.Throughout the test, a number of different male and female voices are heard.After listening to each passage, the student responds to one or more spoken questions by choosing one of four printed alternatives. All questions and answer-options are in the foreign language.

The student's score on the test is the number of items answered correctly.

. For Level L, the maximum score is 45; for Level Mt it is 40.

*Sample item: (Listening LA)

[Student hears following sentence and Chooses-appropriate alternative]

Est& ustedes cansados? [Translation: Are.yon people tired?

A) No, en el centro. A) No, downtown. B) Amigos, nada mds. B) We're just friends. C) Tenemos machos. C) We have a lot. D) St, un poco. D) Yes, a little.]

peaking. The Speaking trete are administered either in a language laboratory situation which allows for the recording of student responses, or by using two_ separate tape recorders one to play the test tape and the other to record the student responses (the latter procedure was used in our administration). The Speaking test is composed of four parts: in the first section, the student listens to short utterances that he repeats aloud, attempting to imitate the model voice as closely as possible. For each utterance, the student is rated on his pronunciation of certain "critical items" (individual sounds or sound sequences), which are judged as either "right" or "wrong ". In this part, the-intonation of certain

utterances is also judged as right or wrong. .

The second section of the Speaking test asks the student to read a short printed passage aloud; again, a number of critical items are judges as right or wrong, and at the end of this section a global rating of reading fluency is made ,along a six-point scale.

-_. In the third section, the student looks at simple line drawings (for example, abo6klyi'ag ona table) and answers a spoken question about each drawing ("Where is thehook ? "). Responses to these questions are rated according to a four-point

scale based on verbal quality-descriptions,

- In ththe final part of the test, the student looks at and "tells a story about' both a. single picture (for example, a wife bringing her husband a cake from the kitchen/and a series of four pictures (for example, a family visiting the zoo). One and two minutes respectively. are. for the responses, which are rated I for extent of vocabulary.used correctness of structure and pronunciation, and general-fluency, each along a six-point scale.

The final score an the Speaking test is the sum of the ratings for all sections, with a maximum possible score of 82.

4. ,...... ,...... [ v. N7mow=wampwas . , Sample*iicemr Opeaing-MA)

AStedent4eeva. dr-totingof a girl washing herhands and is asked the foiloWingYcluestiCA:

ue-hace lakuchaeha? [Translation: What is the girl doing?]

(student's response is judged for fluency, appropriateness,grammatical correotnesa,,itc.] -

ltagn, In the-- ,Reading tests, the student ifi- presented a number ofpassages in the foreign languageranging from short and relatively simplestatements to- lenger-(100.450 word)passages dwell from-newspaper and magazinesources _or from Mere-serious-literature.. For each item, thestudent either cempletes by filling. in a missing the passage word or phrase,or chooses the correct based on the passage'. answer to questions The readingpassages, questions, and are all in the foreign language; answer alternatives all materialsare printed in a test booklet, and the student-markshiv.thoices-:on s standard foUr-alternativescoring sheet. The examiner's score on the test is the numberof items answered correctly. Maximum score for LevslsL and M is 50.

Sample item: (Reading LA)

[Student is asked to choose the alternativewhich appropriately sentence] completes the

Mos dijo mamd que era hora de comer ypor eso ( ). A) fuimos a nadar B) tomamos asiento C) comenzamosa fumar D) nos acostamospronto

(Translation: Mama told us it was time to eat, so we ). A) went swimming B) took ourseats C) began to smoke D) went to bed

Writing,. All stimulus materials for the Writing testare presented in the test booklet, where appropriate spaces are also provided for thestudent's responses. In the early Sections ofthe test the student reads short incompletesentences in the-foreign languageand fills in a single word which appropriatelycompletes the sentence. In anot:ler section the student rewrites sentencesin the foreign language, making required changes in person, number,or verb tense; or replaning nouns by pronouns, and so forth. A final section callsfor a short "free"compo- sition--usually in. dialogue form--based on certain keywords which the student is required to includeinhieeowposition. The test according to fairly detailed scored subjectively, but judging rules. Intraclass correlations as reported-in'the HandboOk,thave among judges, been Shown to besatisfactorily high (.983). Highest possible score on all forms of the test is100. -.3";t2W2WrideZtVACit7..res 4.,i11...... nemearsomemesous arcumErcsradocanomettasvirxemer--"mtrrit15-.

-31-

Sample item: -(iiriting MA)

[Student is asked to rewritesentence, making necessary changes, but not changing the sense or content of the sentence]

La muchacha viene conmigo.

Las_tmudhachas vieneqsmaga .

(Translation: The girlis coming with me.

The kale, are coming with me 3

Picto11411AWEES222ale.BOS11112aIgh62)

The Pictorial Auditory Comprehension Test makesuse of a test tape containing 75 spoken sentences of varying length.and complexity,.and a test booklet showing 75 -panels of four line drawings each; For each of the spoked sentences, the student chooses from among the four drawings theone which corresponds most closely to the material presented in the sentence.The first few sentences are quite short anduse a simple syntax and vocabulary, As the test progresses, the sentences become longer, and incorporate more complicated syntacticpatterns as well as a more difficult vocabulary. The change in difficulty will be apparent from thetwo example items below.

Sample items: (PACT Form A)

[Student hears spoken sentence and chooses appropriate picture]

No hace bier el trabajo. [Translation: He's not doing the work well.]

_ ... , . .,-.. 1 ildolt 1 Jn1",1 74771K), ,i, i ces) ...... _ si. %J...----...... , c/a % 0 A0 Ba

Lee en la novela que su desplacer, aunque niuy grande, no iba haste romper la carta. [Translation: He /she is reading in the novel that his/her displeasure, althoughvery great, did not go so far as to tear up the letter.]

. / A / s \ 05e .1 ' 72

Lpf C

sygalU211121.17SICOMMAMP.7.7...7711~770.07....017~40071WIMAM.7.M10777,711771411g0a11101.17MINNIN--V77~1.117.17MA77.170=77{i7101 -32-

The tests given to our samples of Peace Corps traineesor Volunteers in Spanish were as follows:

At end of traininw

MLA Cooperative FL Test in Spanish,Listening, Form LA (45 items, 25 minutes, bytape recording) MLA Cooperative FL Test in Spanish,Listening, Form MA (40 items, 25 minutes, bytape recording) MLA Cooperative FL Test in Spanish,Reading, Form LA (50 items, 35 minutes) MLA Cooperative FL Teat in Spanish,Reading, Form MA (50 items, 35 minutes) MLA-Cooperative FL Test in Spanish,Speaking, Form MA (3$ items, 10 minutes, bytape recording) Pictorial Auditory ComprehensionTest in Spanis' Form A (75 items, 25 minutes, bytape recording)

At Mid-Tour Folloa22.:

MLA Cooperative FL Test in Spanish,Listening, From BO (40 items, 25 milnites) MLA Cooperative FL Tese in Spanish,Reading, Form MB1 (50 items, 35 minutes) Pictorial Auditory ComprehensionTeet in Spanish, Form (75 items, 25 minutes, bytape recording)

In many of the statistical analyses of end-of-training data,sores on the two levels of the Liatening and Reading tests were combined bya procedure detailed in Appendix E to yield a single score for each type oftest, designated, respectively, EListening and EReading.

Only the M level of the Speaking Test was given at the end oftraining, because the two levels appeared to be essentially similar informat and content; thus, testing time was conserved. No Speaking Test was given to the Spanish-trainedVolunteers at the time of the mid-tour follow-up, because of the difficultiesunder field conditions of administering a test requiring the recording of examinees'spoken responses. The speaking Test tapes collected from the end-of-trainingtesting were scored by native speakers of Spanish employedby this project.Hach test was scored independently by two judges: test tapes for contingents 103 threugii 106were scored by raters "A" and "8', and tapes for contingents 107 through109 were scored byraters "A" and "C". Ali raters were carefully instructed in the proceduresto be followed in scoring the different items (the procedures recommended in thetest booklet). Inter- rater reliability figures for the Speaking Test scoringare relatively high; .82 for raters A and B, and .76 forraters A and C.

None of the Writing tests included in the MLA Cooperative Testseries was utilized, partly because testing time was limited and partlybecause writing skill was not deemed an important objective of the Peace Corps languagetraining program.

Achievement Tests in palnome

The adaptation of the MLA - Cooperative Foreign Language Tests in Spanishfor use in Portuguese was accomplished through ca essentially literaltranslation of the Spanish texts.2

MBLN1110111111011rMMINIIMEMP4110010.. WIMINIMMONNIM. 1 Througherror on the part of the shipper of the tests, Form MA TABS given tosome of the mid-tour groups ratherthan Form MB. 2 Further details on the adaptation of the Spanish tests intoPortuguese are given in a paper by Clark (1965). 111121MINWOOMMgal 1 Twaassosira ...e2MEGOC

-33-

The translations were made intwo stages: first, a trenelator familiar with Lloth Spanish and Portuguese translatedboth the question stems andanswer alternatives into Portuguese, keeping as close as possible to the Spanish original. Second, native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese proofread the translations, leavingunchanged all passages which they considered acceptable in Portuguese, and correcting onlythose words or phrases (usually accidental Hispanisms)which were not good idiomatic :Portuguese.

The spoken texts for the Speaking andListening Comprehension Testswere recorded by native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese,and printed materials were reproduced by photo-offset form using thesame general format as the NIA Spanish versions.

By similar techniques, Brazilian Portugeseversions of the Pictorial Auditory Comprehension Test were prepared and includesin Oe test batteries.

A listing of the objective proficiencytests administered to the }eace Corps trainees or Volunteers in Portuguese Asas follows:

At end of traininm

Portuguese adaptations of MLA-Cooperative FLTests in Spanish: Listening, Form LA(45 items, 25 minutes) Listening, Form Ma (40 items, 25 minutes) Reading, Form LA (50 items, 35 minutes) Reading, Form MA (50 items, 35 minutes) Speaking, Form MA (35 items, 10 minutes) Pictorial Auditory Comprehension Test in Portuguese,Form A (PACT) (75 items; 25 minutes, bytape recording)

At Mied4our Follow-up:

Portuguese adaptations of MLA-Cooperative FLTests in Spanish: Listening, Form MB (40 items, 25 minutes) Reading, Form MB (50 items, 35 minutes) Speaking, Form MB (38 items, 10 minutes) Pictorial Auditory Comprehension Test in Portuguese,Form B (PACT) (75 items, 25 minutes* bytape recording)

Additional information collected at the mid-tourfAlatlal

Besides objective language proficiency tests, PeaceCorps Volunteers at the mid-tour follow-up were given a special questionnaire,called the In-Field Question- naire (See Appendix F), The same questionnaire was given to both theSpanish-trained and the Portuguese-trained Volunteers; since thequestionnaire refers to the Spanish language at various places, the Portuguese-trainedVolunteers were simply asked to read "Portuguese" for "Spanish" in those itemsin which the language was named.

The construction of this questionnairewas based on a series of open-ended interviews with a number of Volunteers who had alreadycompleted their tours of duty and returned to the United States. Names and addresses were obtained from lists of Volunteers who had completed their tours ofduty and were then living in the Boston- Washington-New York area, and letters were sentto nine Volunteers who had served in Latin American countries. Individual meetings were arranged with five of these Volunteers, and a member of the project staff visitedand interviewed each person for a period of about 1 1/2 hours. The conversations were tape recorded, and in addition to answering numbers of specific questions, each Volunteerwas urged to discuss more generally his language experiences in the field, therelationship of language to his job perfoemance, and his ideas for improvement of thelanguage training procedure. qa.

-34-

On the basis of these interviews, the In-Field ; Questionnaire was prepared in considerably more detail and with more specific applicabilitythan would have other.- wise been the case.

The first section of the questionnaire soughta description of the Volunteer's in-field job situation: whether large city, smallertown, or rural area; number of other Volunteers working at the same duty station;extent to which duty requirements involved listening, speaking, reading, and writingin the foreign language. A second section asked for a self-appraisal of the Volunteer'slanguage competence during the first month of in-field experience:degree of difficulty encountered in the reading of materials required by the job; problemsassociated with speaking in a grammatically correct manner or with suitable choice ofvocabulary; difficulties arising out of various differences at variance withthe language as taught in the training center; and so forth. The thire section of the questionnaireinvolved the Volunteer's estimates of how long it had takenhim, after arriving in the field,to overcome va,7ious kinds of language difficultx,*or whether he had still not overcome them.

Questions similar to the &acre were also asked about theVolunteer's language performance at the actual time the questionnairewas being administered. A con- cluding section asked for Volunteers'comments on the adequacy of the trainingprogram and any recommended changes in emphasis. the manner in which the responses to this questionnaire were coded foruse in statistical analyses will be mentioned in connection with the results reported in Chapter 7.

+41-

V. " .'"..,!%.0111.18sray .01.1r -35-

Chapter 6

Parameters of Language Learning in Formal Training

Introduction This chapter is concerned with three basic questions: (1) `That levels of competence in Spanish or Portuguese were attained by the students in the 12,eweek Peace Corps training program at the University of New Mexico? (2) To what extent would it have been possible to predict each student's eventual level of competence from information available-at the start of training? and (3) In view of the results attained in these analyses, what suggestions might be made with regard to the desirable length of the training program and the selection and guidance of individual students through the program?

These questions are approached first through an analysis of the results of various measures of language competence administered either at the mid-point or at the end of the 12-week training progrems, then through analyses of statistical predictions that could have been made from data available at the start of training, and finally through projections of these predictions in order to indicate t..e probable desirable length of training for different categories of individuals.

Because the bulk of the data collected in this study came from the contingents trained in Spanish, the major part of this chapter Ia devoted to the results of a rather detailed analysis of these data. A report on data from the one small contingent of persons trained in Portuguese is reserved until the end of the chapter.

For the most part, the method used in studying the data is that of linear multivariate analysis. It will be shown that this type of analysis enables one to make generalized predictions of the course of learning, taking into account these factors affecting learning that pertait to both characteristics of individuals and conditions common to groups of individuals, One of the advantages of multivariate analysis is that it does not necessitate that data be complete on all individuals etudied, az long as it can be shown that no substantial bias results from the elimination of individuals on whom only partial data are available. This was an important advantage in the present study because there were many instances in which data were missing for administrative and other reasons.The disadvantage of linear multivariate analysis, of course, is that it rests upon certain assumptionof linearity in the relatioaships studied. Such assumptions could have been circumvented by a method of analysis that would study the outcomes of the training course for subdivisions of the total group made eith respect to critical predictor variables;such a method, however would be relatively cumbersome and would encounter various problems ccused by the absence of data. Furthermore, such a method does not lend itself readily to the kinds of statistical significance tests to which we are accustnmed.

ANALYSIS OF THE SPANISH DATA

A note on the samples studied. By combining data from the seven Spanish-trained contingents listed on page 16, we have a total of 472 students who were on the rolls at the start of training.However, according to our records, only 452 cases actually started training. Of these, only 432 cases were complete in having both EMLAT scores and SPS scores, variables which were found to be very important in the prediction of eventual success in language training. This is the basic sample from which other samples were selected for special studies. For the 432 cases, the correlation between EMLAT and SPS was .23; significantly different from zero at the 1% level, but still a very low correlation in absolute magnitude. -36-

A third very critical varieble in the prediction of eventualtraining success was the availability or nos- availability ofa placement test score, and where this score was available, the acteal score itself. As noted in Chapter 5, placement testswere given to students who claimed prior knowledge of Spanishor training in it.Of the 432 students who had both EMLAT and SPSscores, 265 (61.3) had placement test scores available. Of these, 218 (82.3%) were found to have completedata on the four objective tests of Spanish proficiency given at the end of triin1ig.A total of 167 students did not have placement*testscores available and may be presumed net to have had prior knowledge of Spanishor training in it. Of these, only 118 (70.72) were found to have complete data on the ead-cifetraining testsmentioned above. For the most part, students who started training but didnot have end -oftraining tests available may be presumed to have departed from the trainingprogram for one reason or another; in some cases they were separated for "language ineptitude." (More detailed data on attrition are given in Chapter 8.)

Performance on End-of-Training Criterion Tests

For the purposes of this study, a satisfactorily high performanceon the objective tests of Spanish proficiency given at the end of trainingconstituted the objective of the training program. It behooves us, therefore, first to consider thedistribution of scores on these tests and the intercorrelations ofthese scores, and to attempt to use these results in order to characterize the levels of achievement attainedby students in the training program.

The most direct indication of end-of-training achievementcan be had by examining the frequency distributions of the several achievementtest scores and, where possible, comparing them with norms. Several of these frequency distributionsare shown in Fig- ures 2 and 3.No norms are available for the PACTtest, but data gathered in the field (see Chapter 7) indicate thata score of 56 2 on the PACT is the optimal point for separating those who claim they had no problem of languageon arriving in the field from those uho report that lack of adequaee language fluencywas still a problem to them at that time. At the end of training, only 24% of the 336cases studied attained this score on the PACT. For reference purposes, the means and standard deviations for selected predictor and. criterion variables for 336cases at end of training are given in Table 10,

When results on the M Forms of the MLA Cooperative Tests inSpeaking, Listening and Reading are compared withnorms for those 9ho have taken two years of Spanish starting in college, they are quite favorableto the Peace Corps training program. The percentiles attained by the average Peace Corps traineestudied were: ellAeCoop. Speaking, Form M: 64 MLA -Coop. Listening, Form M: 79 MLA-Coop. Reading, Form M: 74 These are, of course, results for allcases studied, including both those who had no Spanish training when they started and those who had alreadyhad some (in many cases a considerable) amount of Spanish training when they started.;

The intercorrelations of the various achievementtest variables presented in Table 11 are quite high, as is generally found to be the case.iorforeign language achievement tests of different akites. EListening and PACT, both auditory comprehension tests, intercorrelated to tee extent of .91, buteven EReading correlated .85 and .86 with these teats, respectively. In view of the range of ability found in the sample studied here, these correlationsare not surprising. Basically, these achievement tests measure general competence with the Spanish language,quite apart from special skills of listening and reading. The correlations of the Speaking test with the other achievement measures are in therange .68 to .78; these correlations are about as high as might be expected in view of the somewhat lower reliability of of the Speaking test as compared with those of the othermeasures. .01IFIYMN,==112' 1See Appendix C for tentative PSI ratingequivalents of MLA Coop. Test scores. -37

Listening Speakimg Reading mon OMMIIINMAINIMM Fore LA For:silk Fore NA Form LA Fore MA

Converted Score 230-221 218-219 216-217 214-215 2124l3 210 -211 208-209 206-207 204-205 202-203 200401 198-199 196-197 194-195 192-193 11141111111 190-191 ikkA.11.41111 I I I 1p 188-189 11111111111 Hemp 186-187 II IIII 184-185 1111111111 1 17111 182-183111111I_I111 111111.1111 l it 10111111111111 180-181 1,111111.1111 11111111 178-179 1111 10111 41;111 11.M110 176-177 111111 11111 111 174-175 111711 1 11111111 172-173 11111111111 1111 170-71 MI 168-169 COMM 166-167 111111411 01(IOC 11111111111M 164-165 11111111 111111 162-163 160-161 111111 150-159 156-157 tt 11111 154-155 1111.11.111 NI trroxat 152-153 II2 150-151Ina 148-149an 146-147 144-145 1412-143 140-141 0 138-1391 136-137 E 134-135 132-133 130-131 128-129 126-127 124-125

Legend: Each 0 represents 2 cues; each [ represents 1 case. MI = Median, First Year College Goner,'Norms R2 = Median, Second Year College GeneralNorms

Figure 2. Frevency Distributions of Scores an MM Cooperative Tests at end of training N se 336 cases with complete data

e .

1 ' 1 -38-

Table 10

Maans*and Standard Deviations of Selected Predictor and End-of-Training Criterion Variably:-

li.336, consisting of all students of Spanish for whim complete data were available for these variables

'20511111= 11cOm=t Variable Mean S.D.

Predictors

, . Placement Score 34.38 34.1 (118 cases with score of 0) EHLAT 67.93 17.7 Sectim Placemeat Score (SPS) 49.86 10.4

End-of-Training Scores EListening (MLA Coop. Tests) 259.86 20.3 IReading (MLA Coop.tests) 260.:00 24.8 PACT Form A 46.17 13.4 MLA Coop..Tests,(Raw Scores): Speaking Form MA 48.67 13.2 Listening Form LA 33.88 8.6 Listening Farm MA 25.01 8.7 Reading Form LA 37.56 9.6 'Reading Form MA 23.82 11.7

twomMOMInOIN4

....."."'" (..'""71""---"777,"7-' 71-77 ,,,-1,/,171rV;P:71-77fr,i/p4-47,, _ 4 01.1 L 117 - -77,7"77-, _ " '16

- i639-

Tagejl

"mtermIrxelations of End-of=lraining,Achievement Test Variables

Pa336 SpaAish.students

MMER AORIOMMWAMMIMW,iMMINIMAMMAMME AMMI=1MtaMK .11.1.1.11117.q1Ml .1MMONEMNI .M1WWWW/101MG. IMMIU.MOMINNIMININIIMMININM Vs riabie 2 3 4 6 7 8 amr. 11111101011111VIONI

Z Listening 1 1.06

I; Reading 2 .85 1.o0 MaForm A 3 .91 .86 1,00 Speaking Form. M 4 .74 .76 .78 1.04 .0 Listening LX .5 .944. .77 .84 .6b 1.00

Listening MA 6 .964. .84 .89 .71 .83 1.00 + Reading LA 7 .79 .90 .18 .70 .77 .77 1.00 + Reading MA 8 .82 .94 .83 .72 .72 .82 .76 1.00

OIMMIIMILIIIMM111.111.110111011111. M1116M1,41111111=101NOMMEN iINIMI...1..0111111IN 11.11111711011.172111

;indicatesa part-I/hole correlation

1,`

, , ,4 ,,, "4"

tlitt _ - 171774,:),7'7%

7 ! 7,7,7-t^7.!7.7...7 7." -40-

of Prediction,of End-of-TrainingPreficitemfromyariables Available at the Staet Training,

One of major purposes of this. research'was toidentify means of predicting the level of Spanish language competence that astudent would attain at the endof the 12-week course of training. Such procedures for prediction, onceidentified, would presumably be generalizable for further groupsof students subjected to similar courses of training.

An examination of the data confirmedthe common-sense prediction that cneof the in a 12-week most important variables inpredicting how far a student would progress training program is whether he had any priorknowledge of Spanish or training in it, the start of training. as indicated bywhether he took a placement test in Spanish at (For details on this placement test, see page2I.)' This can be seen either by examining Table 12, which shows the meansand standard deviations ofend-of-training by criterion test variables for students whodid and eld not take a placement test, or of these noting the strikingly differentfrequency distributions of scores on one 12 criterion tests (PACT` A) for the two groups(Figure 3). Each pair of means in Table for yields a highly significant value_ol: t(this being the customary statistical test the difference between the means of twosamples.)

Since the taking of a placement test is anobjective fact that can be takeninto performed sepa- account of in prediction, thebulk of the analyses in this chapter are rately for those who did and did nottake a placement test.Students who took the placement test are designated as being inGroup A, and those who did nottake the study of placement. test (and thus presumably did notclaim any prior knowledge or Spanish) are designated as being in Group B.

Predictions of End-of-TraininFroficiencyli_GramihiSIEELLIees Who Took the Placement Test be most The variables on which data are mostcomplete and which also turn out to useful for the prediction of end-of-training successfor the group that took the Spanish placement test at the outset oftraining are: Placement Test Score EMLAT (Total Raw Score, Parts 394 and5, Modern Language AptitudeTest) Section Placel4ent Score (SPS) for these pre- There were 218 cases for which completedata were available not only dictor variables but also for the fourchief end-of-training criterionvariables. shown in Data concerning the prediction ofend-of-training proficiency scores are Table 13. that of Since a number of tables in this reportwill have a format similar to The data for Table 13, an explanatory paragraph or two maybe helpful at this point. the predictors are generally atthe left of the table, and for thecriterion variables convenience. being predicted, at the rightof the table. Each variable is numbered, for Next, we have at First the means and standarddeviations of each variable arelisted. the left the intercorrelations ofthe predictor variables. Just below are the validity predictors and coefficients, that Is, the single(zero-order) intercbrrelations of the predictor intercor- the several criterion variables. To the right of the matrix of predictor variables relations is a matrix of beta-weights,with rows corresponding to The beta-weights are the co- and columns corresponding to criterionvariables. of efficients of the standardized predietor scoresin a multiple regression equation the type 9 ' 0114 + 82x2 Oem 9

form, and where 9 is 'she predicted value of thecriterion variable in standard score Each columm of the xm are the predictorvariables in standard score form. xi, found by the beta-weighe matrix implies a multipleregression equation of this type, of prediction errors usual statistical procedure thatminimizes the sum of the squares Sr.

Alimair.acomalIWINsoftyalla

-41-

Table' 12

Means,and Standard Deviations of End-of-Training proficiency Tests for Those Who Did'(Gkoup A) and Did Net (Group B) Take the-SpanishPlacement Test

411=1" .=.10arb aTIWOIMINIdelawImIsawasOMP, IMMO 11T-+

Group A Group B Wm218 Nm118 Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Listening LA -.-36.55 7.58 28.97 8.27 8.6515 <.01 ListningilA ,27.82 8.55 19,84 6.42 8.8464 <.01 !Listening 266.50 19.42 247.60 15.57 9.0748 <.01

Reading MA, _ 41.23 7.16 10.74 9.52 31.2114 <.01 Reading MA 27.73 12.00 16.60 6.71 9.2912 <.01 EReading 269.33 22.28 242.75 19.48 10.8663 <.01 PACT A 50.70 13.13 37.81 9.11 9.4661 <.01 Speaking MA 53.11* 11.95* 40.47 11.28 9.4017 <.01

1MIOINIMMIMMErMI[16 .1.1.4011111.

*N--1217

...... ~..wrante.....fo. formarioaliaarimmor ism aliewomerememostomatmonoreic...... oeasolowwworr.miros. wommg.I.tosomortem,rowigitermootamiermwAW., MMPIWrillarK1111111111P140111,10W42,117affiXPISMI il i If-II!, frAr001110jAMMigginr , t 411%,,4 , , i 12. 4 1 ' I ' -,.. -i ._L... _._11. .4." ,-t- -1: "1 -r.- --;r: .., Z '1 ..,,, . 511. 4,,,..4.,,,..--1....1. .. "A. . ' ..,r!...".r''...".. .7.1.ri :...... ' "...''''' ... %. '.... "."1:":4"," 7 '4'14 4" . . 4" ..." Ch J i.{% lr =4. Al.'.."...... ; * -42-

Group A Group B Total

75 74 0 0 73 1'11111 72 III I I Ifni 71 70 0 69 1] 68 IIMM 67 .111.11 66 0 65 64 MOOD 63(DEO 62 0 pooaa uk 61 60dE° 59 0 58

56 55 5400g0113 53 0 D 52 cocoa MOMOB00MCCOOO 51 00 00 50 49 ill ill II 48 47 OCR 46 ammo 45 =an 44 43 42 41 40 39 30 37 [HOW 36 35 moo 34 00 33 II fli 32 *MU00 31 1 4414coon 30 tiltp 29 28 000000 0013000 27 [Op CO 001110 26 0 2$ 00 24 00 on 23 BO ca 22 DO 00 21 0 0 00 20 00 00 19 Chance 0 level 18

Each 0 represents 1 woe.

Figure 3. Frequency distributions of scores on PACT Form A at end of training, for students who did (Group A) and did not (Group B) take a Spanish PlAcement Test at the outset of training 15,

= 1` lanaasa .7.

-43-

Table 13

Prediction of 8nd-of-Training Proficiency Scores from Three Predictor Variables

N 218 Students (Group A) who took a Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training

.....1.1.111011Memlwass =111INKM17 ....C.M.==m amIIMIamm ......

Predictors Criteria

1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 Mean 53.00 69.(3 54,44 266.50 269.3350.7053.11 S.D. 28.40 16.96 8.62 19.4222.28 13.1311.92

Intercorrelations Bets-Wei;hts

Placement Test 1 1.00 .29 .67 .62** .60** .69** .59**

il EMLAT 2 .29 1.00 ';16 .20** .25** .15** .08

SPS 3 .67 .16 1.00 ,17 ** .20** .13* .13*

Malt. R: .83 .85 .84 .71

Validity Coefficients b.,weights

XListening 4 .80 .41 .62

EReading 5 .80 ,.45 .64 1 .42 .47 .32, .25

PACT A 6 .82 .38 -.62 2 .23 .32 .19 .06

Speaking MA 7 .70 .28 .54 3 :19. .51 .19 .18

Intercept 206.58 194.46 14.95 26.27

crest 10.82 11.79 7.20 8.34

11.0.11,70. .701/...../OreUMS * p < .05 (significance levels given only for 0-weights) ** p < .01

VI, ,,,,...... ,,,,,.., mialfogglmfgrAilWATW,- ,:,',1, I , . . . 5 . - . t .....e , . .1l.1.,,INACYClartalma.,...-...,...... m.....m...... 4.arwrwanocraasftwirsMII.MINO....Z.1.*CaMarii=allial=2" =MeSgt"..."Mtl- -^.... cq,krbiNsa'"I'''

-44-

and thus optimise:: the linear. prediction of the givencriterion variable.Just below each column of the beta- weight matrix is the multiple correlation associated wieh it. In effect, these Multiple correlationsare the correlation0 between the raw criterion variables and the values of those variablesas predicted by the multiple regression equation. The greater these correlations, the betterthe prediction. (Multiple.correlations always have a positive sign.) e,

The significance level of eacnebeiaeweight:-isgiveh-by attaching to it one -"-: asterisk (for'significance'at.the 5Zlevel) Or two asterisks(for-significance at the 12-level).When e-hetaeweight is significant,it may be concluded that the predictor variable in question makes a significant and tn2.11.11e contribution to the predictionof the criterion variable iaquestion-;euniquein the sense that it Makes a.ccutribution' . that is over and above that.made byany of-the other predictor variables used iv the equation. Sometimes a validity,coefficient of a given predictor is quitesignificant, but its beta-- weight not significant because other variablesWith which it is correlated are carrying the.load ofthe, prediction.' .,.

Below the matrix -of-beta- weighs andthe multiple correlations isa matrix of b -weights and associated values of "intercepts" and standarderrors of estimate ( The b- weights are the coefficients -ciest)° of the raw scores of the predictorvariables in an equation of the form Y = 1304 + b2X2 + +bX+a, enm and -theintercept" is the value of a in that equation, 2 is,of course, the predicted value of the criterion in raw score form. aert id the standard error of estimate, that is, the standard deviatiee of the errors Of.piediction thatwould be made by using thie equation. The b-weights are partly a function' of the standard leviittiolis ofthe raw scores of the predictors and camnot be used for any direct interpretation; they are, however, useful in computations involving-the raw scores,as we shall see.

We may now turn to the actual 'Yesultsshown in Table 13. First it may be noted that the overall predictions of each of the four criterionvariables are quite accurate, as represented by multiple correlations that range from .71 to .85. All three predictor variables make significant contributions (as shown by the beta- weights) to the prediction of the criteria, with the possible exception of EicATas a predictor of the score on the Speaking Test. The Placement Testscore is clearly the bestpredictOr; that is, the initial level of proficiency shownwas the best predictor of the final level of proficiency at the end of the 12-week training. We would probably not expect a 12eweek training course to do a great deal in altering the relativeinitial.proe ficiency of a group f people who had probably had, in many cases,years of. training and experiende with the Spanishlanguage.

The fact that MAT makes a significant contribution, however,demonstrates that language aptitude can still be a factor in the rate of progress insecend language. acquisition despite the fact that the individualmay start with a relatively high level of proficiency.

1 The relatively low hetaeweightsfor Section Placementscore may reflect the fact that most of the Group A individuals were in the high-numberedsections, but in view of the fact that thea for SPS in Group A w n ahtallye higher (8.62) than itwas in Group B ( it probably means that most of the predictive variancewas carried by the Spanish Placement Test score, with which it wet hIghly correlated (r= .67). Both of the listening test scores (variables 4 and 6)inthe table and the EReading score arc all about equally 1 predictable; the lower multiple correlationfor the 1peaking test isprobably due to the known i lower reliability of thesescores. .,ter

... vor-,...- 71. .

.-...-7W210.1stmeMetVy4s4repCor434!3,Wollor-3345.3

r.-

-4G-

Prediction of End-of-;'raining cien:GrouBDidNatTakePlacementTest)

There were 118 cases comparable to the 218 cases in Group A except for the fact that these students did not take the Placement Test, and thus this score could not be used as L predictor variable. Data concerning the prediction of end-of-training pro- fickeney for this group (Group B) are shawa in Table 14.Eere, the multiple cor- relation6lare not quite as higa ds they are in Group A, but since the standard errors I Of estimate me roughly comparable across theetwo groups, one may conclude that pie- I diction is comparably effective in them. In Group-B,.the 1MLAT.scere (the aptitude meesuee) is clearly the best predictor, and it. '.as larger beweighte. In the prediction equation than, it had for Group A. Evidently L esuage.aptitudels more critical for those who have never had Spanish training than.it is for those who already possess. some knOleege of Spanish. As in Graup-A, all end -of- -training scores are AbOut equally 1 predictable, With the exception of the Speaking test score.

. Combination of GieUes A and B into a'SineleRe ression S stem

For the purpose of developing a single prediction equation for all trainees regardless Of whether or not they took the Spanish Placement Test, it is possible, by making certain assumptians,to combine the data from the two groups. The assumptions that are necessary to make are (1) that the regression system-found for Group A (who took the Spanish Placement. Test) can be applied to the typical person in Group b (Who did not take the Spanish Placement Test).in order to find the Spanish Placement Test 4 score that such a person would have obtained if he had takeneit, and (2) that a common regression system is appropriate for the-cotbined groups using a constant value of the-

.Spanidh Placement Test score for every member of Group B.By using the ra-i score re- 'gression data for Group A as given in Table 13, it cane be determined that a, person in 1 Group B Who had the mean EMLAT score` and the mean Section Placement Score for that group (65.89 and 41.83, respectively) would, if considered as a member of Group A, have to have made a Spanish placement score of 2245 if he were to be_predicted to make the mean PACT From A score.for Group B (37.81). We then assume that the average person.in Group B would have made a scdre of 21.45 on the Spanish Placement Test if he had taken 3 it. This is, of course, a rather low score, although it is not zero. Asaigning that score to every person in Group B and combining the data from Groups A and B, we compute the regression System for the combined group of 336 persons.This is shown in Table /5.

The main advantage of the regression system in Table 15 is that thia single system is simpler to use than two separate systems for Groups A and B respectively. It.remains true that the generality of. this regression system is limited by the fact that it uses a particular Spanish placement test employed at the University of dew Mexico Peace Corps training course, and also the system of Section Placement numbers that were derived from the particular set of trainees that were studied.

gaphicalepepresentations of Predictions for Groups-A and

The data in Tables 13 and 14 can be used to construct a graph (Figure 4) showing- the probable end-of-training Spanish proficiency for individuals with selected combinations of predictor variables.

In the construction of this graph, some assumptions had to be made about the equating of the Spanish Placement Test, given at the outset of training, and the PACT Form A, given at the end of training. (If an alternate equivalent form of the PACT had been given at the outset of training this problem would not have arisen.) It was reasoned that one could be reasonably sure about the equivalence of scores representing the performance of individuals with virtually no competence in Spanish.Let us assume that a score of 100 on the Spanish Placement Test represents the performance of a highly competent speaker of Spanish.From our prediction data, a person who gets such a score, who has average language aptitude fer his group (mean of EMLAT for Group A s 69.03), and who is placed in a section commensurate with this performance (as predicted from the correlation of .67 between Spanish Placement score and SPS) is expected to obtain a score of 67.39 on PACT Form A. This is not, to be sure, a perfect score (the

.333o33.23=533agavonzemsr.313116233140163t1 --.tahle

Prediction o End r!of!-Training proficiency Scores Imp Predictor Variables

- . 118 SitidOitilt{Group 9ho did not take. Test ti.!,out!Elet-af- . ttaining _

..1111111PIILIMAIIMMIIMMI4/11,PM.V ANIENsoa. .AMMAMIN.plAPINIMME=111MMO.,

Predictors Criteria 2 3 4 6 7

Man 65.89 41.83 .-247:60 242.75. 37.81 40..47

-SA). 18.74 . 6.84 .15.57 19.48 9.11 11.28

. Intercorrelations Beta-Weights ".

DUI 2 -.1.00 . .21 2 .53** -.53** .50** .33**

SPS 3 .21 1.00 3 .32** - .31.** ,36** .26**

R: ,63 ,66 .68, .46

Validity Coefficients !,- Weights

4iptening 4 .60 .43'

needing 5 .59 .41.

-... PACT-A 6 .58 .41 2 .44 .55 .24

kleiiingMA 7 .39 .33 .72 .87 .48

Intercept 188.07 170.47' 1.59 9.22 a est 11.44 14.57 6.70 9.96

`101111MIIDiONNI.11110,11MMEMIIIIIMIM..-

** . p < .01 (significance levels giVen only of fiweights) 4%."4.1 kataritlMU13%.14r1rYWOMVP!"IntriW 4 ikm rosvervorttrelt,"..-mqvsnr.treenm.ranwommtvariaittzraso,,,..vi iumnnteammve yo.turovaresnwtrvatoo mrewx.r.-.,wenowmottostittraYMIVIltatinIVINALMCCISittlefaralltillg-IPIIIVIIMMICEREDNISIE:=111100Alitinet5S

-7

t efts, trt 0 41) .4 i g g74 ..%

O§.13 $4 CI %or 2,a3 ia i s4-4.. a . .0. r° 4,164 PI 4,.S:ti" ' OM' 4J 0 . 2 .1%,.0 : V: !ciller. .1 fra 4,.. .,4,?..,...-1.a 0..., ,Nao 141' .i.c....4:,0. 9 S.* 444, i IN 111'g1 14w 44R 0 . 44

.1.116111111 ) ti trt

rrnrralai 4.44141,64bk 0040/1=1.'"XlWagt,M=OICS==uidraig44Cazrawzzazmuaturazation. -48=-

maximum score, is 75), but in view ofthe unreliability of the test and the errors of prediction, it can be regarded tentatively asequivalent to the Spanish Placement Test

score of 100. .

A Chance-score on PACT A is75/4 = 18,75.Let us assume that this le equivalent in to .tote score on theSpanish Placement-Test_thateweJonnd the average indiVidual tifken_the'test, namely) 21.45. (This assumes that Group ,B would -. have made if he had 3 4roup B waa-comiosed of ibtlividuale-whokneW no _Spanishariewoild,therefore. have made if they had taken it at theoutset ef training; . a chance score on-PACT A there is reason to believe that at least afew individuals in Group B had some marginal' acquaintance with Spanish eeen though.they did not take the Spanish Placement Test.)

In depicting the pregeess e5Tectedfor individuals-in Group Al.weassured various levels of scores on the Spanishplacement-test. For each level, the SPS score was assigned in accordance with the regressionof SPS on Spanish Placement Test.The pre- 13,- dicted PACT.Form Ascore. was then. computed using the regression system'of Table with various levels of EMLAT score.

'As the "qualifying level" in Figure 4, we used ascOreof 56.35 on PACT Form A, which as will be explained in Chapter7, seems to represent a level of language pro ficiency that is minimally qualifying toenable the individual to feel that he has no . problem with language fluency on arrival inthe field."

What, actually, does. Figure 4 show? First, it shows that an individual whoclaims some prior knowledge ofSpanish must have a fairly high score onthe Spanish Placement training Test if he Is to attain a qualifyinglevel of proficiency by the end of the enhanced_ considerably if he hes a high course. His chances of attaining this level are degree of language aptitude asmeasured by EMLAT. B of For individuals with no priorknowledge of Spanish (i.e. individuals in Group . of eventual proficieficy our study), languageaptitude is a very significant determiner language aptitude (as represented by, say, attained. Such an individual who'has high proficiency that is well on a score that is2a above the mean for Group B) can attain aptitude (e.g., the way to a qualifying level,while an individual with low language level of with a score that is 2a below the meanfor Group B) shows an end-of-course test: proficiency that is not very far above achande level on the PACT proficiency

it is extremely It must be pointed out, however,that according to our predictions before the be- unlikely that any individual whoclaims no prior knowledge of Spanish the ginning of training will make anythinglike a qualifying level of proficiency at end of the 12 -week training course..This is to be expected.Learning a foreign language necessarily takes a great amountof intensive effort, and 12 weeks is farshort fluency, If of what it would take the averageindividual to attain a level of minimal in Figure 4 we assume that learning progresses.linearly, we can project the line drawn detirmine that the for the individual of averagelanguage aptitude in Group B and specified qualifying level would not be met untilafter the 24th week oftraining. (Tdis should be regarded as only anorder-of-magnitude figure since it is arrived at by a series of rathershaky;assumptions.) Spanish Placement It will be noticed that individualsin Group A who obtained low somewhat faster progrees, other scores at the outsetof training nevertheless make It is possible that this things being equal, than individualswith no prior training. Spanish may be explained by a"refresher" effect; that is, individuals who had studied expected to make fast progress at some -time in the pastbut had forgotten it would be iterecovering their competence.

Other Predictor andCriterion-Variables findings that were The preceding section has dealtwith simply the most clear-cut variables obtained using a spatnumber of highly valid predictors and the criterion As noted in that seemed best to represent thegoals of Spanish language trairing. Vs..., :-....--,- L.-... 'r_T.-Ix-- 2.,-.".^fif -.....-- -. . ----. 't1,-...7,.....,..-- --"...t -77--'1*--_'''---,,,-,--..),.___ -,".-...,,.....e.,,_--":A7,!-.1....,-7,: i--,....7._,,.- . -..- ,...- -'., .. -.,"." .....',-_ t-.," -"'"'" -A.--4,--.`," ei-,''.v.:t ., .7.- ;-= 4., - -J.= -_..,:. ,--_-_...-_------;--4-t... .----7--.7r--...., - . ---,,.....,,,-_-,- --.-r-1,. ----y... -.;,-.44-.7----,."- ..;,--1 ---..- __ .- -:....-; 14_ . . -, - , z, ..,. \;, ..,,. ------. ;:k - ."..r. - '. ".'" -C,:i..., ,...- Ng-. Y ...- -% "-'.A . .---,_7-.. :.,.; ..+.:_ .-` ..., .;_'.4..., .2-...., . --, , ., f '....i !".. '; 1 ,f,.24:7% --"' _,17. -.-.'":.'"?...=;"',,,-,-- .. ; - ',.. .Z :,- - ...... r.._- -, _.-..... 'A -. '.-1 -:- "- --''--._. --- Z,- . -;--- ..- - 7 ":;-: 7:' ,,, _..t .4 - - ;,.:-...'-'3,77 , ;,"- ".. --_- _IC....., ..- 'se-- :,.. .., ----,' -..--, ..,,,..f'. . '---- .----.-..:. ..._ k --_, ._ ..- -:;_;:filegiiilia444.044kiftgl _ .,- -- - -.11Ai"11011011Kriblihe-4..i",-_ ...Itiab...r....Megir-minvibeicastzzadar.uatrsrsisatti"-...... 11*4.11, 0 -. - -'- -'-i- ',:.,,t,"?.--., - :- 7 --- T---;:, -.;". :i^i: -7. .. - -- --" - ' .', :.* --- - -S. *-- = ";

--. 1 -.._... _ _ - - ___ ... . - . . ...- -.

pOdietiOn"04114=iof-TOining Proficiency Scoresfrcm Th tee Predictor Variibles, _ AOrg-. ., fa-Crouti.-4 &Ina to 21.4467...... - .

- " ---. ..-; , s:-, _ . Iii-...aw ---.3.36"-,' t.omprisit.ii CroupEF-A" en B ziatabined , . . ...- . Winara6re CMWmaliaNAMIONI~ ,M111=11:.

. "Prediet..-6-ra . Criteria - . . . :1 2 .3- 4_ 5- 6 7 . e - . 41.92 67.9.3 .- . . 259;86_260.00 *46.1748.67 ".- ' 27.39'17.67 10404 20.28 24.83 "13.3713.17 Intercorielations- Beta-Weights

Placement Test -- 1.00- .24 .72 51** 47**57**.46** MAT 2. .24 1.00 .19 .29**..30**.24**.17** SPS : 3 ,72 .19: 1.00 .26**-.31**.24 .26** Mult. ..83 .93 .72

Validity Coefficients b-Weights EListening -4 .76 .46 468 .38 .43 .28 .22 EReading 5 .76 .47 .70 .33 .42 .18 .12 PACT A 6 .79 .42 .69 .52. .76 ,32 .34 Speaking MA 7 .68 .32 (.61

Intercept 195.73 175.58 6.2414.25 crest 11.2913.20 7.12 9.12

4.....13 ** . p 4 )01" (siguificanze levels given only for 8-wef.ghtu).

. }

6''',"Sji;flii710:lierbil'!"..1.1," -.,18'..-'1=3TC`r:,'",, i""" ..'-..'"r"-".'171_:7,',",_,!7".,!.. ".., rrn,"4,7rr, ,7,4r4er?,--.. -----,-.,,,,...27- '',./.,_-',`1, ",./,-.:'-'"--::: '':'.''6,...`"^-:,' "'"' `..'' '**'-' s'4.:',-',":.i,,. , :: 1,...,4'.,,,1,,,.. z ..1,-- 1 -'-'- ."-- '--,..<''' Ilf.:-," ' ". .= """-...45,7.,*:3;,:.;-,',1 ' ;1741 :`,4''..-4.,./,-- -'..it,i;y !1- :.--1";-.0c-1- ,....- , f + .. - _.,,,,-,------, t ;...-.4 -4,-,.- --.)-tr- ,...2%.,...-, 7,--,..._-.--,.:---'e, 4-,./..--,:;1-,;--1.,-.7;i.-.-,.....i- .:-..' *, ;,-..1.-4, ....".,,"- '..7"---,4--_,----" ---'2.,-;/_.c-, - -,- ,.,..-t'"."--,;.:::;:_,-1. '----,..::--":" - - 1 i ,',-a' " ;%, a % !41-70.1. ' - -r.:, -^", j,,CL...... , -C,' '''`''' .a.,,,A, /..',,,,,,x, -, . ,, 1c- ...I ,3 " - 4f.; ' ,....., 1%, "%'.. A . . '-' .1.- '' :1;- -.'f7 --,-_,--. -.:,--...Ne...--...c-y- ,-,-`-' . ----:_.'-,,"-'-', , , .- d's.,.....-.75010._ . .+.,.., ,^,:.; - / ;,t-':,... 1 ..-.',7,-,A l'..!...2 (,47-:-:77,:,,,,,' r: ,,',,,,X.7: .., . ,;:_-(....-. f,...... ,_,-, ,.. ', .. '. ..., -,..- - .. ...- .- - . 01, . 4,-,? '..-''''.ri.....4,,,, e 1.:, ,T,',-;,....% -":7- - , -,:' ,,,,..,,,Z'b -....,t.b.....".-r.,..- ., SP 7 -50-

Chapter 5, however, a number of other predictorand criterion variables were available, although not consistentlyon all trainees studied.

Tables 16 and 17 show regression Analyses, respectively,for 113 students in Group A (who took the Placement Test) and for 51students in Grcup B (who -did not take.the Placement Test), with, several added predictor andcriterion variables.

With respect io the major predictor viiiediles (SpanishPlacement, Test, ZAAT and Settion Placement Store), these tables confirm thepreviously presented results,` In-- deed, the added predictor variables seemto :make very little tontribution. If Tables 13 and 16 (for Group A) and Tables 14-and 17 (forGroup B) -are cothpaied With respect to

the multiple.correlations for predicting the fourachievement. test criterion variables - we see that most of the differences, if any, are to be accounted for bysampling vari-, gtions in the validity coefiicients for the major predictors, ratherthan by contributions from the added predictors. Ainlk in Group Adowe find any statistically nificant contributions from additional predictors-- mainly from the Interest factor scores-and secondarily, in the case of justene of the. criterion variablest'from the Audiolingual Preference score. Perhaps it is not without significance that this last result is for the PACT Form A!---ad audiolingual testpar With regard to the predictive contribtuion of the Interestscore, it should be pointed out that this score was derived from a retrospective report of the individual'sinterest in foreign language before entering the Peace Corps trainingprogram.No attempt was made to measure motivation during the PC language trainingprogram; it may be assumed that nearly all trainees were highly motivated inthe sense that they wished to pass the language training aspects of theprogram.

The:failure of the additional predictors'to makestatistically significant contributions in the Group.B.data may beas much due to the small size of the sample (N la 51) as toany inherent property of the predictors. Interest, Compulsivity, and Audiolingual Preference each had appreciable beta-,weightswith one or more of the test criterion variables. But Home Exposure and Age had no beta-weights thatapproached statistical significance anywhere. The age range for this samplewas, of course, highly restricted.

Tables 16 and 17 also show regression analyses fora series of criterion variables that were collected from the language trainingstaff both at the end of training and at an earlier, intermediate stage. These are various types of assessments of language competence made by staff instructional personnel.The multiple correlations for predicting. these assessments are all in the statisticallysignificant range: .30 to .47 for Group A and .34 to .66'for Group B. In the case of Group A, the variables most often making significant contrE)utions (as shown bybeta-weights) are Section Placement Score; Interest, and Age. Instructors tended to assign the higher ratings to those in the most advanced sections, those who (wemay presume) exhibited greater interest in foreign language learning, and those whowere relatively older and more mature. In Group B, however, the high ratings went to individualswith high.EHLAT scores and with high scores Cu the AndiolingualPreferencefactor.

The intermediate and final language assessments showedonly moderate intercorrelations with the final achievement test criteria. It is probably not worthwhile to exhibit here the complete tables of intercorrelations.instead, we include here Table 18, which shows the average intercorrelations withinand between these groups of variables, separately for Groups A and B.

Use of MUT SUktest Scores in Prediction

For most of the members of Group -A and B, subtestscores were available not only on the three parts of the HUT that are regularly given by the Peace Corps in itsse- lection program, but also on Farts I and II. Regression analyses were performed to see which parts of the test are most useful in prediction, with resultsshown in Tables 19 and 20. I 0..6. 4 D.M3WeiTIRMIVERTIMMEMMet,Itsei5MMSZMITib SMWeergatacMgranYNEWAr Mr/,4%qriVITMV4"1PglaMatilat, 54 5 5' 14 14 "'t," 4 c'r!"' Pablo 16 , 1 4 Prediction of.End-of-Trainitkg Proficiency Scores from Eight Predictor Variables .4' et 7, vvi N - 113 Students (Croup A) vho took a Placement Test at the Oucuot ofTraAeiag 5. 4 ' 4 e/ .1414411 . 4; .4.; Fredietors . . . ' . ' '4'';; . . Criteria . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 10 11 22 .. , :-..------13 34 1'5 1§ 17 3.6' . . ! 23. , :, .44G ..- 1.-ri- " . ''' 4i_ , NWan 52.6 70.3 55'.0 297.5 211.3 291.4 95.3 22.7 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.7' 3.2 3.4 .3.4 .2.8 3.7 3.7 la.., 201 22 270.4. , , .' -.-, ... 3.D. 27.6 17.5 0,3 135.2 92.6 123.1 148.1 2.9 .7 .6 '.6 .6 .5 .5 3.3_3.4 ..6 470, 51.1 53.0 . *!4.: Intercorrelations . . .9 -.7 .8 .7 .6 47.4. .. c 21.5. . ' 12.1' v:10.9'. ,',4 '! :' # Bats Ueighks , - Placement Test 21 1.00 .26 1.00 .26 .08.70 .25.53 -.23-.24 -.10 .33 -:09 .33 -.0V-.20 -.09 .21 -.05-.14 -.19 .06 -.04-.16 .08 .12 .11. .10 .27 .24 .04 .26*...01 459** 59** 34** '44* ' - . J., CoInteiestMTSeS A iii ivit 543 -.24 .53 -.23 .25.08 -.211.00 .39 -.141.00 .39 1.00 .14.21 .07.32.31 .L.03, .21.28 -.22-.03 .20 -.04 .25*.08 -.01 .20.36* *..24 -.04 .40** -.07 .1537*A -.08-.05 .04.23* -.02-,14 .7.5*.18 ..14 "W. '..10.01105 .28.03 09.03.23* ..I3 ....01 :01.19 -.01 -.09 .18.15 .,..12 611.14..18. atm.'.1.3*'.21*** a 16** ..,01 * ,,. -,.(m c ,"1.170 :', -. ,: ,, 1...J. , Andiolingus2Ageliqme..Smposure Preference 876 -.20 .33.33 -.09-.10-.09 -.03 ,28.31 -.22 .21.32 -.03 .20.07 -.091.00 .33 -.011.00 .33 1.00-.01-.09 «.01-.05 .14 -.14 .10.15 -.2U-.02 .20* -.10-.04 .13 -.07 .03.13 -.04A;15 .12 ,06.19.03 .20*.13.02 We ..04 .02 .19.91 -..o1 .97.08 ..li.D3.15 . .4.40 .-.0t -.03-..08v.401 .02 -.09 *-.11-.0A,42*. . . , .04y %.10 IntermediatePresent Asseisment, Speaking 10 9 .19.35 .04 -32 Validity. Coefficients .34 .-.10 .13 .14 Halt. RI .04 .43 .41 .47 .37' .30 .40 .42 b-Weights .42 .46 .41 ..30 .37 43 .66 .70 .33 .22 .04 .20 .09 . Present Comprehension -.02_ , BeteRita Acquisition Acquisition Speaking Comprehension 12 .11. 12 .01.14 .29.21 .15.33 -.10-.07-.0 .02.05 -.13..02 .11.13 12 -.00 9.01 -AU -.U0 -.00 10 .0011 -.00-.UU 12 -.00 13.U0 -.00 14.00 15.01:OD .0016'.00 .01L7 .01I.8, 19.00.04 4 : 20.01 " 21 .. .10 22.26 23.11.2A 2\44 I - -411'.19 .AdequacyAdequatylieerseas °Versus Speaking Comprehension 1413 .26.20 -.02 .05 .29.18 .27.24 -.07.-.11 .02.04. .06.10 ,06.06 43 .00.01 .00.03 ,02.00 .00.03 .00 ,u0.01 .00'.00 14...90.00 .00 ..00 .U0 -.00 -740. .01 .01.. ' .36 - .47.02 .01.21. .0144 11A*1 AssessmentPresent ComprehensionSpeaking 1615 .29.32 .A7.21 .25 ..30 .28 -.15-.07 .13.17 .21.2b -.01 .11 6-.O05 -.00 -.00 .00 -.00 -.00 -.00 -.00 -.00 .00 -.00'.00 -.00 .00 -.OD -600 .00 .00 -.01 -.01 , ere, Rate Acquialtion'Comprehension.Acquisition Speaking 1817 .30.38 .26.33 .21.27 .25.28 -.07-.15 .08.06 .10.05 -.02 7 .10 8 .03.00 ..02 .00 -.00 .04 -.00 .03 .02.00 -.00 .02 .02 .05.00' .02.00 -.00 .05 -.00 Oh .00 .00 ..01-.94 -.01 .01ap.00 -.00 .38.01 5, 19 . 23 .15 .25 . .11 -.09 .14 .13 -.031 E.1; ReadingListeningAdequacy OverseasOverseas SpeakingComprehension 20 2221 .81.80.23 .43.31.23 .63.23 .54.$3.16 -.26-.28-.14 .18.30 .20.24.17 -.15-.18 .02 1.01_ .94 Intercept ;etimete, 1.22' 1.76 2.51 2.37 1,57 .76 1.92 1.58 2:24 2.04,.222.00 197.06 10:75-.27.49 ' yr. SpeakingPACT A H 2423 .82.67 * p < .05 .18.35 .54.65 (significance levels given for only Beta .47.57weight) -.27-.29 .24.37 ..30 :30 -.06-.14 .63 .54 .57 .60 .48 .45 .77 .66 .64 .67 .53 .51' . 11.17 6.01 .7.64"

1 4.4 r . , . Table H. 51 Students (GroupPrediction 8) who did of notteke a Placement End-of:-TryiningProficiency Scores from Eight Predtctor Variables 17 Text at the Outtatoof Training 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 34 15 Lori! 3.7 111 ' ' , 'Si , lissa 16,371.8 .7.141.7 132.4243.7 223.1 94.9 277.8109.0 130.3 68.4 22.0 4.2 2.6 .6 3.4, .7 , ' : 19 0 ' r 22 23 u -;; 4%, 3.3 '3.6 .2.7, 251.1- ' , Intereorreistions .7 ' .6 3.1 .3 3.3 .5 3,4. Beta Weighty .6 ,3.4 ...3.6 .7 1 .7' ' 3./ 3.3 L4.7 248,.7 .$9.8 . ,434. . .,'.tre,, -' ,5- ;J.' ".":i. f , ,' .43 .6. .5 . / 1.00 .31 .25 .04 '3,4,4,., , , EHLAT -.09 .65** 8.3 , . ' ' ;.' 34* 57** .4. ,, 42** ' .10 3.14 ' 55 ,.. S .43 '1.00 -.06 .05 -.01, .21 .10 . '*:' SPS, , 3 .13 .06 , .03 ...kV: ;:.2:71/0, Va.," ,.07 .326 -.27 ...$5*0 .39w r.15 .5511'1..47ft* -.13 ...32 .. .31 -.05 ...0* . .27, .27 83.',',;u: ,':, ",'' ' --..-.:. Interest 4 .10 1.00 .26 -.07 .11 -.05 -.13 -.11 -.07 .22 .00' .07 , .5Gfe* ...:58, 'w.01,, - .....07 ;:a1 ow*. ,,,,a3.c.,-.., ...t;05.,:1,..,.41'' .7%,'". , ' ir -.01 .01 .-.02 ' ,,,,,' COmpulaivitY 5 .25 -.06 .26 1.00 -.05 -.31 .10 .11 .04 -.01 ...24* -.30. .08 .e.10, '-.10 v.13 -.07 ,!, .17 4.21 ,..'',,' , ' -,08 -.04--.13. -.42' ''', , , ' Audiolingual Preference 6 -.09 -.01 -.07 -.05 1.00 -.21 -.25 .21 -.09 .24* .34** 41** .16* .33 -.U4 .04'. -.05 v07 -.01' :.12' ,-,.04, 7.07 . *, ,,,1i, UomeEMposure 87 -.05 .04 -.01 .05 -.05 .11 -.31' -.25-.21 1.00 .07 1.00. .07 .21 .24 .04 .21 .18 ' .19 -.06 .06 -.03 . .15 -.11', H.16 _ -405' ./5.,',:o!, 31,5 , , ; ,, . 5 . .:01- -.13 -.05 .07' ' -.07 " .04 ' ' '" -.00 -.02 .07' .04 .08 .04 .08 .. .07 .26 " a/. _ ' ' i,", Mult. Kt .64 .56 A.66 .60 -.09 .49 .61 .50 .37 .55' .06 , .20 -.95 '.72 ,! .00 ": .- . '.,: '.75.05, ' ' ...44'.' : 't . ' ' '' 5' .; ; I .45.: ..34' '471 ..) ' ',I ' ' . .37 ' ' 0,14 . . ,50 " .' ''' .-;.,1,71.I'71,0:r".: - j i Validity COufficients , 0-Weight* . , . . IneemparliiteePresent 'assessment Speaking 9 .55 .17 .14 .13 , . . . ',...',11/.'', Present Comprehension- 10 .36 .35 .02.00 -.11 , .21 .22.12 -.01' 2 .03 .px .02 .02, .01 .01 .02 .01,. .02 .02 .01 .49 .32 .... I' ''' ..".t1 ': WA. 'Or ,t':',1''-,;,,*!:'id:""s;k: _Rste Acquisition Speaking 11 ,55 .33 .04 .12 .28 -.03 -.06 3 -.01 .01 .01. ' '455 , :12' 1%1-1,1 .., .02 .01 .00 .00 e .55 ' ., ... ,12 .40 .30 -.02' -.01, 1, .00 -:01 -.01 -..02 .59 .24 .36 '''I, : :/.; - :::,71.,:.;1;: . 4 Este Acisisitien Comprehension .01 -.03 .32 .14 -.U3 4-.CC -.00 -,)0 -.00 -.00 .00 ,. ' dequiey, Overseas Speaking .27 .22 -:03. .14 .22 -.16' 5 .00 .00 . .00. -.00 .00 ',.....00, .00 ,..00,....00 '' -.00e ...00:1 .-.01 .r..00 .. '4 " ..i ' '';",',' I'. !lull Assessment PresentAdequacy Speaking Overseas Cenprshension 151413 .41.32 -.04 .,2:; .12.24 -.24 .14 .26 .25 -.12 76 .00 -.00 .0d .00".00 «.00 ^000 .00 -.011 -.00.00, -.00 .00 -.00 »40. -.ou'...00 00 -.0m ' ,..oi.-.,03 .02 . .qn2 Ul , .01 .:01... -;'46 -00 '....01 -?)'-, livsent Comprehension 16 .32 .02 .0S .15' -.06 .01. -.11 .02 .06.00 8 -.00 .00 .01.00 .00.00 .01.00 -.01 ..00 .00 -.00 .01.00 ,.0X-.00 .01 -.00 .02. .02%.00. .02 .0/.00' ,.01 .07 ' Rats Acquisition .18 17 .53 .26 .15 .06 -.09 . .02 .04 Intercept .00 .00 AdequacyAdequacyRate ,Acquisition Overseas Overseis Comprehension ComprehenaionSpeaking Speaking 2019 .08.14.41 -.20-.03 .13 -.05-.10 .11 -.06 .03.00 4.12 .01 -.06 .09.13 .19.23.04 1.32 .56 0 Estimate ..68 :46 .49.78 1.19 2.69 .30 2.16 .35 2.98 .55 1.44 .5X 1.7i .2.61 .55 .59 2.64 3.48 10.78', 108.e9 3.13, 21.48' , E Listening - 21 .63 .48 .03 .17 .06 .08 .41 .46. '10.18. 40e7'1 15.48 7.21 SpeakingPACTt ReadingA 14 242322 .33.68.65 ' .40 .48.52 .04.14.11 -.00 .01 -.01 .15.06 .03.19.06 -.01-.05-.07 ' 1, ' o" " ' me p p < .05 (significance4 levels givon'for Beta.01 weights only) -.03 -.19 .....:roor , o o

&eine Interiorrelations Within and Between cioups of .Criterion Variables

_N e 151 (Gtotif.1.1 wiletookPlacciciant-Teit) B;.":who takePlacement Test:4' .. . . (Niiiabir.s:in:,parenthe:aes-3ndicate thethe numbe# of Correlation r-eoe.ffiCients averaged in each case). -

0,111110n1 '41...... 31or MAIIW

- Intermediate finf.4. Achievement

- 1 Assessments Aisessbehis Tests Variable Set Group

MI6

6Internediaie A .658(15). ASgessment : Ratings - .732 (15)

6 Final Assessment A .386 (36) .693 (15) R4tinis

B .388 (36) .569 (15) .

4Achievement Test A .402 (24) .436 (24) .788 (4) Variables

B .583 (24) .480 (24) . .643(6)

1 agIEMMEMEMMS=MECtrnalMINVIRUXtilerrermilirowarrIVOFettrtrii~orniMIViirWrIompares. worrarrriEramartrrrrNItiwitrArirrgyerrtriPagroortrrotorrr or }1101M,Y1 *1.0 Tible 19 N m 188 Students (from Group A) who took Prediction of End-of-Training. Proficiency Scores from.M10AT Subeste.; a Spanish Placement Test at theAutiet of Training 1 2 Predictors 4 6 .Criteria rommeralmuirrirtmranr4trsre77.71-mmarrm7t,; , S.D.Mean 1 32.59 8.54" 24.66 3.85 23.35 9.56 27.51 7.36 18.54 5.42 266.17 19.72 269.34 22.00 .;`,124 !50.62 31.9353:14..; Intercom-40.0:1ms Beta-Uctights .1 MAT 1 21 1.00 .18 .32 .39 .30 -.01 -.03 -.03 -.08 . MLATNLAT 432 43 .39.32.18 1.00 .37.43 1.00 .45.43 1.00 .45.37 .41.24.31 .13.11.26** .18*.12.29** .04.24**.18* 1 .07.08.27** MLAT 5 5 .30 .31 .24 .41 Muit..R1.00 : .47.16* .54.15* .44 .35 EListening 6 .17 Validity Coefficients.40 .31 .33 .31 1 -.03 -.07 b-Weights -.04 -.11 1 PACTSpeakingEReading A M 987 .03.13.18 .33.37.45 .22.33.35 .19.26.40 .15.36.34 432 1.31 .58.23 1.66 .63.27 .34.25.82 .10.10..83 Intercept: 209.40 varmurckrwargrrovrrorrwrrrrorrr 197.42 17.78 28.89 mourrerrom p < .05; . 11.11 .4.* < .01 (significance levels given only for 0 ';sights) .11 =ro.amerrer-vorrorrr . 4 VItittramm. nstrtm ZrwAFM! 11T . towrvirlronkktIgtornIr --'S Table 20 L;i, 1R4;0:96 Students (from Group B) Prediction of End-'of-Training Proficiency Scores from MUT Subtests who did not take a Spanish Placement Test at the outset of training 111111116.1.111111611.1111Nr VIIIIIIMMOINIMMIIMIMMI1111011.11111111, 41110101lYle Mean 32.70 1 24.41 2 Predictors 22.95 3 26.44 4 17.28 5 248.56 6 243.74 Criteria 7 38.28 8 41.34 9 WILAT 1 S.D. 1 1.008.16 Intereorrelations4.11 .42 9.90 .18 7.89 .29 5.85 .43 15.35, .04 20.23 Beta-Weights.10 -.089.21 10.89 .00 MLAT; 2 3 2 .18.42 1.00 .43 1.00 .43 .44.38 .36.39 .35**.32** .27**.24** .32**.37** 55** '1 , MItkr,MAT 45 543 .43.29 .36.38 .39.44 1.00 .28 1.00 .28 .17*.09 .17*.29** .13.19* .05.0649* Ln Itietening 6 .33 Validity Coefficients.59 .60 .48 Mult R: .41 1 .08:73 .24.76 b-Weights -.09 .73 .01.71 7. . , PACTEReading .'A 8 .25.40 .59.57 .60.59 ,49.58 *41.48 32 1.20 .54 1.19 .55 .30.83 1.47 .21 Speaking. M 9 .31 .68 .48 .36 Intercept: .34 54 191.45 .25.34 164.55 .58.75 4.62 .20.23 -3.04 .09.08 * p < .05; INIIIMINIONOW111**p < .01 (significance levels given only for 0-weights) yorirtu...-mewamallaall111.111.1MMIONIIi1111.,m11000.70RWOMWAMPAIMMSMIXO. "R I ciagial===1=0=ZASIAMOVM:a1X3g=uusaraeva wasamarioarawou.amaumommusvauumosazamawsatamvaiouliSOMMXIMEIVOIOYM=24 =-56-

First consider the multiple correlations for the five subtests as compared with the zero-order validity coefficients for the EMLAT Score (the sum of the raw scores oa Parts 3, 4 and 5 only), found in Tables 13 and 14.For convenience, these data are grouped here:

Group A Group B

Criterion - EMLAT Mult..R EMLAT Mult. Variable (N=218) (N=188) (N=118) (N=96)

EListening .41 .47 .60 .73

EReading .45 .54 .59 .76

PACT A .38 .44 .58 .73

Speaking M .28 .35 .39 .71

EVen without tests of significance, it is evident that the multiple regression systems based on five subtests of the MLAT yield substantially better prediction than the simple sum of the raw scores on threw parts of the MLAT, particularly in the case of Group B. (Actually, if we assume that the N's for the EMLAT validity coefficients are reduced to the same size as the Ws for the Multiple II's, all of the multiple correlations above are significantly different from the zero-order correlations paired with-them, with pea of <.01.) Inspection of the beta-weights in Tables 19 and 20 shows at once that this is primarily due to the presence of Part 2, Phonetic Script, in the multiple regressioa eystemp.Part 2 has clearly the greatest unique contribution to make. to the prediction. This accords_with many other findings concerning the superior validity of the Phonetic Script subtest (Carroll, 1962). It seems to measure a unique ability that is highly relevant to successful language learning. It is unfortunate that this part can be administered only by a tape recording, since its general use in Peace Corps selection would significantly enhance the prediction afforded by the MLAT.

Nevertheless, all the other parts of the MLAT, with the exception of Part 1, Num- ber Learning, make a significant contribution to at least one of the criterion variables in at least one of the groups. There dote not seem to be any particular pattern whereby one of the criterion variables is predicted better than the others; on the whole, it would seem that the MLAT subtests predict success in all three skills tested- - listening, readite, and speaking.

ANALYSIS OF THE PORTUGUESE DATA

As stated in..Chapfer 4, our study of Portuguese language training had to be confined to what we could glean from the material collected. from the Brazil VII contingent, containing originally 51 cases. But data were available for no more than 48 cases, and were complete (with respect to the predictor and criterion variables that we were using) for only 27 cases.

Predictor variables

EMLAT scores were.Used as a measure of language aptitude, but separate scores on the three parts of the test, which ordinarily ere-summed to obtain EMLAT, were not available. Only PCMLAT scores were availablefromPeace Corps records. EMLAT.scores were therefore obtained by conversion from PCNLAT scores, uzing the equation specified on page 20. The mean and standard deviation of the PCMLAT distribution for 48 students Of Portuguese were"57.5 and 6.9 respectively; the same statistics for the derived EMLAT scores were therefore 73.2 and 14.6. The Portuguese studente had a slightly higher mean language aptitude than-the Spanish studetna as a whole, with mean 20 66.3 and o = 17.4 (t = 2.65, p < .01).

./04144,47, 017 Ks ler eKT

-57-

N placement test scores were available for the Portuguese student's, but as they bad been divided into sections on the basis of instructors' estimates of prior knowledge of Portuguese, the section numbers tie used asa predictor variable.The section pm- berg range from one to six, one being assigned to the most proficieut section and si to the least proficient; thus, we would expect negative validity cooffieiente for this variable.- For 48 students, the correlation betwein MAT end section emberwoos -.43 (p < .01).

Factor scores on interest in Foreign Lamguages, COmpulsivitys Audio in Prefer- ence and Home Exposure were also available for some cases.

end -of- Training Achievement Measures

The and-of-teeining adhieeelftnt cures consisted oftwo derived-scores, 2:Lis- tening and EReading, from the project-prodeced Portuguese versionsof the MLA Cooper- ative Listening and Reading Tests (the scoree fry theto levels being combined by the procedure described in-Appendix E)s the Speakingscore from FormMA.ef the MIA Tests, and' the score on the Portuguese version of the Pictorial AuditoryComprehension Test, Form A.

Results

Table 21 presents the comaete regression analysis for 27cases for whom predictor rid criterion data were complete.Because of the relatively small number ofceoeso the correlations and other statistics must be appraisednot only in terms of statistical significance but also in terms of absolute magnitude.

The pattern of eesuits is rather similar to whatwas obtained for the Spanish- students.Both ma and Section Number make significant'contributions to the prediction of end-of-training proficiency, particularlythe measures of auditorycomprehension. The Interest factor score, also, showsup as a significant predictor.The multiple correlations for the auditorycomprehension tests are quite high, and significant at the 12 level even for the smallsample studied here.

The aval.leble records of 48 students ofPortuguese Were examined for evidence of any knowledge of that language prior to enlistment inthe-Peace Corps. None of the students reported that their parents hadany knowledge of the languages but twenty -one (43.8%) of them reported thatthey had taken one or morecourses in Portuguese.Con- sequently the students were divided intotwo groups; Group X, students who had had no previous training in Portuguese; and Group Y, students who had studiedPortuguese before enlisting in the Peace Corps.

The number of courses taken by the studentsin Group Y ranged from 1 to 4.The average number of courses was 2.3.

The significance of the differencebetween the means of Group X and Group Yon the predictor and achievement variablesvas tested. The results appear in Table 22. Among the predictor variables, the onlysignificant difference between thetwo groups occurs in interest in foriign languages.Students in Group Y weremore interested in foreign languages than those in Group R. s Data on predictor and end-of-training achievementvariables were complete for only 11 cases in Group X and 16canes in Group Y.Means and standard deviations for these cases are reported in Table 23;predictorecriterion correlationsare given in Table 24. In general, the pattern of resultsis similar for the twogroups and for the various criterion variables. EMT has appreciablevalidity coefficients (ranging from .38to .65) for both groups and all threecriteria. Section Placement correlates highly in all instances except for EReading In GroupX.The Interest score correlateshighly with the two measures of listening ability (PACT A and EListening) but not withEReading.The Audiclingual Preference score correlates highly only with the two listeningscores for 46. tt.mtt, , ViriMOWOOMiOnEWOMOMirmetzwrimageoroatelMwarRuizou ximmoriugvallpfra intooMMISZIOCIVEM101000MagftW: . - '4 Table '21 Prediction of End -of- Training Proficiency Scorelfroa Six Predittorifleahles Nis 27 StudentS of Portuguese 01446110114111141.1011.1.411111%IMOR 41M* 'PredietOrs Criteria Wean 73.85 1 3c30 2 234.96 249:30 205.86 .1411Mt 75.63 245.4 264.33 .8 42.96: 1,1046';'. ,s; EMLAT S.D. 1 16.75 1.00 -.501.66 Inearcorrelations/26.67 .10 95.37 .11 98.77 .20 122.66 .36 10.93 18.05 Bata-Weight*.11 9.4 :07 11:25, InterestSection' NO. 32 -.50 .10 -.221.00 -.221.00 :20.09 -.09 .08 -.15 .05 -.51* 15.30 -.33 .19 -.3$ .6i** . -.61*- ix'. AUdioi4ugualcampu401-14tY 54 .20.11 -.09 .09 .08.20 1.00 .4.10 1.00 .10 .12.07 -.05 .13 -.05 .21 -.04-.27 :20' 10. 44 tat' Roue Exposure Preference 6 .36 -.15 .05 .07 .12 (shrunken)Mult. R: 1.00 .72**.16 .11.31 .79**.07 .56 ** CO 1 EListening 7 .51** Validity Coefficients .43** .00 .24 .31 1 .10 h-weights.11 .07 -.01 ! ' PACTSpeakingEReading A 10 98 .24.36.34 .25.65**.2 -.17-.12 .23 .04.05.30 .18.22.04 432 .3.35-.01 .03 -3.60 .04.03 -1.95 -.01 .05 -4,,U -.01 .01 Intercept: 65 240.51 252.52 .01.02 x.01 .02 40.47 .01.00 63.62 .03.00 *p <.05; **p 4.01 (significance levels given only for Ni86==1,1.114. vest d-Weights) 6.61 14.98 5.02 -8.21 I in Portuguese) AiffeignceS-Betilvin . foto-0 Oro

TrediCto-f :ind='End=of-Training lultr r1.M16 ra ii ng tiongieae `boa

Group Y' MIlb.. X S.D...... amlital

Predictor_ Variables 27 75.3 1444 21 70.7 13.9 -1.09 SiOlonlitmber 27 3.8 1.7 21 2.9 1.5 -1.97 Interett 12 190.4 125.7 19 304.8 121.8 2.43* .26, Colipulsiyity 12 241.2., 92.1 19 231.5 100.9 Audiaingual Preference13 214.0 83.3 19 216.2- 110.9 Mee Exposure 13 113.4 124.6 19 89.3 147.f. -.47

Achievementlitiriablei PACT Fora 16 34.6 19.5 21 41.6 9,4 EListening 16 233.8 19.7 21 248.6 11.6 2.79** 2.85** EEeading lb '244.3 36.2 21 271.1 18.3

* p. < .05 Grp < .01 VrtrO_;,

114 S D 79.6 17.2 -69.9 15.7 SeCtiOn- .3.8 1.8 2.9 1.5. Interest 162.9 94.7 284.5 124.5 daigiulSktity 254.2 89.1 245.9 102.2 Audio lingual:Preference 210.6- 94.4 200.4 104.5 HOse Iftposure 86.6 115.2 68.1 130.7 PACT A 39.9 9.5 45.1 8.8 3 Listening 242,6 11.4 246.9 10.6 Matting 258.6 15.8 268.3 18.9

Table 24

Correlations Between Predictor and Endinof-Training Aichievesent Variables For Groups I and YI (Portuguese Students)

PACT A ELiotening EReading

X T Grou X Cr T

EMLAT .42 .52* .65** Section -.55 -.56 -.10 -.56* 060*. .63** .40 .40 .18 .25 C9*01144101 ±1 -45 _02_ .00 004 .ts .65* .02 .09 .22 .41 I Grotp -4; 1100 Eattio*Ore tend* 'to terrelate with the three criteria more highlyfor Y that fetGtoupE. I Because- of theitigiunumbers of Cases, it is not worthwhile to report multiple regression 'analyses of thete date.

Discussion'

The progress of learners in any educational program is preoumably.amentble to description interne of certain parameters. Some of the parameters will refer to, and measure, the actual rate of progress of liernera as they proceed through the program. In conventional terMinologyo these parameters will be incorporated in the analysis in the form of criterion measures. Other parameters have to do with variables affecting learners' rates of progress; some of these variables concern the nature of the instruction, while others stem from characteristics of the learners themselves.

The management of any educational program requires information concerning these parameters that 14 a precise as possible, for dependent upon such information arede- cisions concerning the necessary length of the program, the selection or sectioningof the learners, the formulation of the program's content or curriculum, and similar matters.

In previous writings (Carroll,(196341 have proposed a "model of the school learning process" that purports to provide a framework for analyses of learning programs.

In brief, the model considers a learning program as a specifiable task that will require learners varying amounts of time to master depending upon certain charte teristics of the learners themselves and also upon certain characteristics of the process by which the task is presented to then. The degree to which the task is mastered is in turn regarded as further dependent upon certain parameters arising both from the instructional process and from the confrontation of the learner with the learning presentation.

One of the basic parameters of the node/ is a function of thelearner's aptitude, regarded as measurable in terms of the amount of time it will take him to master the task to a specified standard, under optimum conditions of instruction.Aptitude, thus, may be considered as fundamentally a matter of required learning time; the observation that individuals differ in learning rate supports the inference that they differ in aptitude.

Not every individual will take the amount of time he needs to learn. For another parameter in the model is what may be called perseverance, that is, the amountof time the individual is willing to spend in learning, Which may be more or less than the time 1 required. Still another parameter may be called "opportunity to learn," which is measured in rents oftheamount of time allowed by the school for learning. Again, this time ellowed may be either more or less than the amount of time the learner needs, or May perchanCe be equal to it.

the learner may set forth on his learning task. with an advantage seastemming_frma '1 the fact that he has already had prior experience with it.To the degree that hebes had such prior experience, the time he will need to master the task on the Preit04 occasion will tend to be shortened..

1,i7h41 section, is44apted from an address given before Division C, American Educe- tioaal *earth AspeCiatioh,. at its February, 1966 convention in Chicago. -62-

Tvo other variables included in the model-areregarded as interacting in sucha way as to affect the amount of time the leatner will require to master the task. These two variables are: (1) the learner's generalintelligence of ability to profit from instruction generally, and (2) the qualityof instruction. It is postulated that the lower the quality of instruction, themore any lack of general intelligence will tend to extend the amount of time required for task mastery beyond thatamount of tine that is required in any case as & function of the learner's specificaptitude for the task.

In the analysis of the degreeto which a given learnermasters a task, the measure of task mastery is some direct function of the ratio of theamount of time the learner takes or is able to spend on the task, to the amount he would needin the light of his aptitude, his prior learning, hisintelligence, and the qualityof the instruction.

There are many respects in which thePeace Corps trainingprogram studied in this report lends itself to analysis in terms of the learning model describedabove. First, the learning task that was the objective of the trainingprogram may be defined as competence in spoken aspects of the Spanish or Portugueselanguages sufficient to enable the Peace Corps Volunteer to function effectively in the field.This was measured, it will be remembered, in terms of a certain qualifyinglevel on one of the end-of-training proficiencytests.

Aptitude was measured initially,by means of the Modern Language AptitudeTest. But the study has also shown that scores on the ModernLanguage Aptitude Testsare rather highly correlated with achievement at the end of thetraining program.In Figure 4, one can see how much atteinmeat can be expected ofindividuals with various degrees of language aptitude, and by projecting theprogress lines in that figure one can estimate the amount of time an individual with a given degree oflanguage aptitude might be expected to require in order to reach thespecified qualifying level. Such a projection, of course, is based on the assumption that progress towardthe criterion is linear. In the case of foreign language learning this is not as uureasonableas it may seem.Figure 1 (p. 13) implies that new vocabulary and gramme., materials"re presented at an approximately constant rate in the trainingprogram, and there is reason to believe that they are also acquired at an approximatelyconstant rate.

The placement scare given to the students of Spanish, and thesection numbers assigned to both the Spanish and Portuguese students may both be regardedas measures reflecting the amount of prior training the students may have hadin the respective languages.Figure 4 shows how individuals with various amounts of priortraining, measured in this way, may be expected to progress toward thequalifying level of Spanish language proficiency. Obviously, those who start theprogram with an initially high level of proficiency will not take long to reachthe qualifying level, if they have not already reached it.

Section Placement Score is not only a reflection of priorknowledge of Spanish; it is also a reflection of the fact that the learners in thedifferent sections were presented with learning tasks of different degrees ofadvancement. In the various regression analyses, that fact makes a significantcontribution to predictionover and above that afforded by the Placement Score. An individual witha given amount of prior training and with a given amount of language aptitude tendedto make a higher achievement test score when he was assigned to a relativelymore advanced section than when he was assigned to a relatively less advanced section. It is possible that this means that it is desirable to assign result students to the most advancedsection for which they are ready, for under these conditions the learningtask is richer and lenging to them. more chal-

In ternis of the learning model, "opportunity to learn"was relatively constant for the trainees, in the sense that there was roughlya fixed amount of time allowed for learning, uniform for all trainees.That is to say, the trainingperiod was fixed at 12 weeks, and the time in the trainingprogram was tightly scheduled--onlya certain portion being allocated tolanguage training. -63-

in the learning model, what is ordinarily regarded 33motivation is represented as "pert-eve-ranee," the amount of time the learner is willing to spend onlearning.The group of trainees studied here can be regarded ashighly motivated. Nearly all were very eager, indeed anxious, to completethe training program satisfactorily and to get assigned to field service.Nevertheless, It is difficult to believe that an were motivated to exactly the same extent, or that all spentexactly the same amount of time on learning. At least three of the factor score variables derivedfrom the questionnaire may be said to have some relevance to motivation: the Interest score, the Com- pulsivity score, and the Audiolingual Preference score. Regression analysis showed that the Interest score was nearly always a significant, positive predictorof and-oftraining performance. It will be remembered that this was a measure ofinterest in foreign languages prior to entering the Peace Corps.It may be inferred that students with higher Interest scores worked harder and longer at the task offoreign language learning during the Peace Corps training program.In terms of the graphical depiction of progress in Figure 4 (p. 47), this means thatthe slope of any given progress line would be increased (by an amount that is given by theb-weight for the Interest factor score) for an individual who has relatively high interest in foreignlanguage learning, or decreased for an individual withrelatively low interest in foreign language learning. In other words, the individual with high interest islikely to progress toward the qualifying level of language proficiency faster thanthe average of his class-cates.

Similar remarks can be made for the Audiolingual Preference factor scorewhen it appears significantly in the regressionanalyses. That is, a person who likes learning to speak and understand a language, as opposed toreading and writing it, is likely to make somewhat faster progress toward the qualifying level.

We had no way of measuring quality of instructionin this Peace Corps training program;we may assume that it was generallyof a high level of quality. for did, we have any measure of general intelligence that was available for anysignificant number of trainees, and therefore we could not make a study of thepostulated way in which the quality of instruction interacts with general intelligence.The array of data available to us was therefore not sufficient to make anydefinitive test of ,ie Carroll model of school learning, but the limited results obtained at leastdo not controvert that model.

Summary

This chapter has shown that the two basic variables that, whentaken together, are highly predictive of the level of foreign language proficiency the traineewill attain at the end of the training program are: (1) language aptitude, and (2) amount of prior training, as revealed either by a placement test or by thesectioning of the students by the instructors. The only other variable that contributes with any con- sistency to the criterion variables is an Interest score, whichreflects the amount of positive attitude toward foreign language learning possessed by thestudent prior to entry into the Peace Corps.

For individuals who enter the training program with some priorknowledge of the language they study, their chances of attaining a comfortable degree offluency in that language by the end of the training are related chiefly tothe amount of prior knowledge they possess and to their aptitude for foreign language learning. In general, only persons with a considerable amount of prior knowledge of thelanguage can be expected to attain a level of language competence that willimmediately qualify them for effective performance in a foreign country where use ofthe foreign language is critical.

It is extremely unlikely that a person with no prior knowledgeof the foreign language can attain a qualifying level of language competence in a12-week training period, although a person can progress a considerable way toward that goal, particul, larlyif he has a high language aptitude and a positive degree of interest inforeign anguage learning. It is estimated that such an individual, with an average amount titifaiugto, attainlevel 10_.#0;f0faii#14 inthe

.,...... _. . ,,t1Ook=gooTee stud1-04 *-,)20Vectit.74* _ ---.O640054124k..404*. r-A.t.402,- co-,, otillOo_ke W0*-,04;tAliOlit4:0::g1-...!ii!ii,ri$,-,:,04144 ii-_,01:.-jiiiii:_ty:c.*It..- -0-4iiiii*-e-ii be deieribed --t....., ;.-x.0,-v;.0:::,,AelfoJectic$0,40.44ifeeir4.;0445 it--4-iffi-.00.- :7.-014.-ii**040*f_11401Pit .regard =to:.o.-n *Ii0, ofweeks, 4i:Tciri:4.,.,_,,,5. 4 -'--*..,--- co- 7.ite, eleising: , Ii.:--- istom4debuOtSitsiP:liel-ti104,P*411*tO .--27,-4:-., =:--,'.64-2-1--..::_ ,._,. -,',--,.:7,:...!%::, -::=

-.: -65-

Chapter 7

Parameters of Foreign Language Learning in the Field

Introduction ,

As we have seen, only a relatively small number of graduates from the 12- -week training program- -about 24%could really be consideredto have attained, by the end of that program, a level of foreign language competence that would enablethem immediately to perform their work in the host country with a comfortable degree oflanguage fluency. Nevertheless, when placed in the foreign language milieu, thePeace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) could be assumed to have much opportunityto improve their ability to understand, speak, read and write the foreign language.How rapidly this ability would approach a level of "comfortable fluency" would dependupon many factors, but basically it might be expected to be a matter of time. From some anecdotal accounts, it appears that there might be a certain period of what might be called "latent learning"during which the PCV would not show any great amount of progress, but that thisperiod would be followed by a period of rapid acquisition of fluency.

This chapter is concerned with an analysis of data collected in thefield that was designed to shown how rapidly PCVs, in fact, acquire facilityin the language of the host country, and to indicate what factors determine therate of progress in acquiring- this facility.

Data collection

Staff members visited several countries in Central andSouth America during the summer of 1964 to administer tests and collect other data from PCVs whohad been assigned to field duty in those countries. In most eases, the data collectionwas accomplished during periods in which the PCVs had been assembledat some central point within the country for rest and re-orientation. Table 25 shows the contingents tested, the original training dates and inputs, the dates of fieldtesting, the approximate number of months in the field at the time-of testing and thenumber of cases from whom any data at all were collected. Ey the time of the mid-term followeup the sample available for study had shriveled from an originalcount of 472 (in Spanish) and 51 (in Portu- guese) to a group of 176 (in Spanish) and 31 (inPortuguese). This loss in number can be accounted for by "deselection," resignations fromtraining, and other forms of attrition, and by the inaccessibility ofsome of the Volunteers while in the field. In the case of the Spanish Group, normal attrition had accountedfor 169 (35.8%) of the cases, with an additional 127 (26.9%) being in the field as PCVs but inaccessiblefor testing.

Unless otherwise noted, the :ollowing sections pertainto the data collected concerning the language learning experiences of the PCVsassigned to Spanish-speaking countries.

Thellasuatlegraing_environment in the hostsgatm_

To understand the factors that might accelerateor retard the PCVs progress tewerd fluency in the language of the host country,we ought first to become acquainted with- the language learning environments in whichthe PCVs found themselves.

Cur research obtained information about these environmentsthrough the responses of the PCVs to a questionnaire (the In-FieldQuestionnaire, Appendix F) that passer out for completion during the mid-tour follow-up testing.These environments were', quite varied, of course, but they fell intoa number of types, depending partly on the

I dury assignments of the Volunteers. PCVs were asked,to indicate the nature of these duty assignments; based on their responses, the follaing job-descriptioncategories were evolved:

04,... 0, '6"w".71""tragusgw"14r4144123131"1"r#451451g16-4' --,- - * tefteilletStreggravAca...... -

-66-

Table 25

Pa-Contingents Tested in the Field

Ai3ptOk'.- No. 1

. . of 120., . Oitisit Training Dates of Field at Time Total N Contingent Field Testing_ of Testing Tested* _

DAOMIlia- VIII 117 6/10 -9/15, 1963 6/6.8/64 8 -23**

Peru V.-- 39 6/10-9/150963, 8/18/64 10 10 EcuadorT 79 7/7-10/11, 1963. 8/11/64- 9 35 CAOMbia XI 58 7/1-10/11,":1963.i -081(4 7 38 Honduras II 55 8/8- 11/10, 1963 8/5/64 8 28 Coloihia XIII 67 4/9-12/21, 1963 6/6/64 5 42 ColoMbid-XV .57 10/2163-1/10/64 (not tested) 0 011.1 Total for Spanish: 176

Brazil VII 51 11/11/632/3/64 7/9-10/64 4 31

Number from whom any aita.at as1. were, collected; data were'not necessarily complete_beciuie of ilIngies stragglers, etc. Anadditional 13 people in an-EMpart of this contingent were tested in Bogotar but are not included in our-study because they had been transferred from U. New Mexico before-being given end-of-training proficiency tests.

-7,"; , , n

.4" 1**,. ,67-

1. Community development.Work generally in Email towns, villages, or slum areas to help the inhabitants "help themselvei° in develing the resources of their community.. The nature of this work has been amply delcribed in a book by Morris Stein (1966). A majority of community development worki:.rs in our samples were engaged in school construction.-

2. Teaching. Usually this involved either basic literacy teaching, or teaching

English.' _

3. AgricultUre. This usually involved instruction in the estabiishtent and care of home, school and-community gardens; reforestation projects; and supervision of 4H or 45 Clubs.

4. Community health.Health education of the local inhabitantsWhether children or adultswas the chief job of those engaged in community health. Many were concerned with the organization of women's clubs to further community education.

5. Cooperatives. Work here involved establishing and advising cooperative ven- tures in the following areas: credit unions, woodcutting, agriculture, fishing and sewing.

6. Educational television. This involved a variety of activities in a_large program to promote the use of educational television, chiefly around major urban.areas. Some PCVs worked in the television studios helping to produce educational television programs; others spent mose of their tine visiting local schools in order to show teachers how to use educational television; still others were technicians concerned with the sending and receiving of television programs and the maintenance of equipment.

7. Host country organizations.PCVs in this category worked with and/or under organizations such as the Institute of Columbia, Department of Cooperatives;National Social Welfare; Foster Family Care Program, Food for Peace Program, and Rehabilitation Institute.

Inasmuch as the questionnaire were filled out after about five to ten months on the job and the respondents were asked to indicate any change in their-duties since their original assignments, it was possible to identify "primary" and "secondary" jobs for the PCVs. The-job that the respondent listed first in his description of his duties has been called his "primary" job; that listed second has been called his " secondary job. Table 26 gives the numbers and percentages of students of Spanish whose job assignments fall. into the above-mentioned categories.

A series of five questions on the In-Field questionnaire was designed to reveal whether the Volunteer's duty station was of an urban or-a rural character, the degrea of his-isolation from-Americans, the number of-his co-Workers who were host-nationals, the extent of his job-required contact with native speakers, and the extent of his job- required language skills.Tabulations of the responses to these questions yield the fella!dng,descriptions of -the field assignments of the- PCVs:

Slightly over one-third were assigned to duty stations in small towns where they worked alone or with one other American.Few of these had host country national co- workers and they almost never came into contact with welleducated native speakers who preferred to speak English. At least once a day" they met with well-educated native speakers who spoke no English or who preferred to speak Spanish;however, the majority epeit,Most,of every day with native speakers of moderate or little education who had ne.naeful-knoWiedge of English. Many of them spent 208t of every day with children under tWeIVe: They were required-to speak and understand Spanish "very much ", to read "soMe°,and.to-Write-"very little" ,or (occasienallY) "some" Spanish. .

Another third -of the,saMpIe were assigned to duty in rural areas. As compared with these *irked in-tmma4 contacts with well - educated natives were generally rarer, and

theii with natives With.,little education more abundant. Such job requirements put more ' ,. : T ±i±±11iiLIiIij :±':'L : ( \ \ EE I' c N k f \ ' L i I ' - ; T h \ ' .\ \ ( ' ' I' ' ' 4 : : I / \ : ) I : ; - '. * ", , it ." 4 - : t , % k;:(.:, $. , \ ' .$ t ' .. 4 t ) H ' ' ( ' 'I k ' " , J k ti c, , ; ! '': ; \ , c 4, ' , ,:± I i ,: 'T ;, k \ '\ L4 ' - ' , g41 '4 ' ; a ' '.. : ' - ' < ( r ' :;: I, f' ' f; ) . .." ' s',, t \ \ 4_J ,' \ I J ? 'f ! Ij t j Ij. ,,_, . ::, % . .' r a (p \ ; L I . 4 p ) \ t ! * .4 t ' I c .t \ , \ 4\ _4 - t,, i. ft ,j \ \ \ \4_ '\', t $ k4 0 ;; ' i1 f 4 l () ' ( I 1 ' \ . ' ,. ' ' 4 \ \ ( \\ \ '. I ¶ I ? $.. ( t' 1 \ -! ' \'- s J f ' t p , h . ,., k I 4 r :: r ','. \ ' 1 \ ' r' l ' t , rt I / I ' I . " ' ' ,. I I , , t ? ( , ( . -- I - fr ¶ . . i- . \ t t / ' 4 \ \ '. t 4 t ' \ \ -' 4 , t t , .. c k ' ) " t ' :: . ' pi4 , ' \'- kc \ , \ .' ' . ) I "-' .' '':f .' ' , . ;' ' ", '.." - ' . .) , \ s-,. ; .,.. '. ' ,, . : I i I : : : : I , : (i3 ' , ;: : 4 :' ; i ' . 4 I 1 \ V : 'i I t ' , ' ' L ' ' . . : '. . :' : :, ; I t' 4. 'I ,' : y 4 ...o,' I :, 3 : p I 4 l,\ U) ' 4" 5- - '5 5 I S S S S I (4 1, " '4 , - N I - '. '- '4' " '5 0 'S I .4 UIA' .. Ui '4 :'."' -1 U 'J It '' ' ' " ' * " , ' ' - 5 r Ii;. : ' , '5 , " - 4. 41'''44. 1 4. -4. 4.4. 4. 4.1 5 , . II '''4 i ' ' 5 ,_ _ 'i . *5' ' ' 4 ", 4' .4 - A ' 1, , Is ,, ''t' ' 4. :45.s' ' 5 " .: ,'. '4 4 '4 4 t '' 4. I I t 5' - 44 ,;.. *4. I 4 5' - 5 S ' ' It 5 4 ' 4.'' 5' 4, ,t ." . 5 ' 5 41, '' ' . . ' 5 5 ,s4 '1 S , 1 '' , 5., - 5 5 ' ..4 I '' , ,.. 'I' S t t ' S 0 ' ' 5 '' ,' 't' ,. ''-. S , ,,fCI3 p ' 1 ' '' UI ' ,-' I 4 4. .4 4*' 4 4. ' ' 5 5 ',_,I, I 4 & 4' ,, 5 5 - 5 5 .4.1. 5 4 4 ' '' 5', 5 4 '' H Q ,41 ''' 4,. 5' 4' 5 1 - S 5 4. ' ' 5 '' 4 4 5 .5" 5 _ 5 .,. t *. 5- t " 55 5 5 5 / ), .1 *4 4 4 ' 5 -' 5 - 5' 4 5.- 5 5 .5' -' 5 5 5 5 ,, .' T'.s 14'S5S _. ,.- .___-__,______. ....-. - I.'._...., . ** *W.4.I44..lI*P*I**.I' '*"Q S..4pJ954 4..sl*' * ':,: -

...... ---...... , emeee.a.,=_e_e...im.--aeaaat-.. _ea:. I i

. -69-

emphasis on speaking and comprehending and less on reading and writing Spanish.

The gel:mit-lain third of the sample were assigned to duty in urban areas or at least near anon to urban areas to have. fairly frequent contact with well-educated natives, and the jab-required language skills were more evenly spread between oral and written forms of the language.The PCV might have as many as ten American co-workers, and he might occasionally have contact with native speakers who could speak English. There were a few jobs, e.g. in writing educational television programs, or in teaching literacy, where the emphasis.= reading and writing was considerable. .

On the whole, the language learning environment zan be characterized as one fa- wring the development of speaking and auditory comprehension skills.Furthermore, most PCVs in these Latin American countries definitely depended upon their competence in Spanish to work effectively, since only a few reported that their jobs allowed them to "get along in English". Onthe other head, one gets the impression that the actual level of linguistic competence required in many of the jobs was fairly low, since com- munication had to do with everyday activities and involved contact with natives who on the whole had little education. It was relatively rare that the PCV was on his mettle to use only grammatically "correct" Spanish;in fact, as Stein writes (1966, p. 198): "In rural Colombia perfect Spanish was not absolutely necessary.When the volunteers made Mistakes or did not know certain words, it gave the villagers an opportunity to be helpful by correcting them -a circumstance that also allowed the villagers to feel, at least.momentarily, they were in higher status positions." Stein continues, however: "We can, however, imagine other situations--e.a.,"those involving frequent contact with high government officials -where a knowledge of correct grammar would be most

critical. . . ."

One also gets the impression from the questionnaire responses that the PCVs had little time to study or otherwise perfect their Spanish through conscious effort. Very few reported doing any such study, yet many indicated that they would like to have done it. Some recommended that further'training in Spanish should be organized for PCVs while in the host country.

Jeng__ge_ems during first month in the host country

One of the items in Part II of the In-Field Questionnaire asked each PCV to indicate the extent to which his job performance during the first month in the fieldwas affected by any linguistic difficulties he experienced.The responses made by 167 PCVs responding to the itea can be diVided into three general categories: .14 (8%) reported either that they were Ole to get by with English,or, that other PCVs did the communicating with heat country natives; thus, these PCVs did not attempt to use Spanish. 41 (25%)-reported that their competencewas either."equal to the demand" -(16%) or "superior to the demand" (92). 112 (672) reported that their competence at that timewas such that it either had a "small" adverse effect (80, or 482) or a "considerable" adverse effect (32, or 19%) on their job performance.

The PCVs' responses to this itemwere used as a basis for determining what level of score on EListening (given at the end of training) could be regardedas "qualifying" for field performance that would be relatively free ofany adverse effects due to lack of language competence. Table 27 shows frequency distributions of scoreson EListening for groups of PCVs depending _on how they answered this item.-It can be seen that a score o2 275 on nisteningrather sharply 4_ivi40..stbosewho reported _that their lagguage competence wag equal or- superior -to the-demandalioa-those-who'reported that their. language competence had-eithera small. or a considerable adverse effect on their work, and those who reported, ih effect, that they didnot use the,Spanish language in their work. In ianuMber of the subsequent tabulations iu thisresearch report, therefore, we have divided the PUS into twogroups on the basis of whether they exceeded this quell.- ',{row ' 1.4147,c5;-m{2iIL,4,:,:.4.:4:1,4x{n....124,412VM;ZAi:$ ...ter{grserZleitgirran41r.V.grit=1/13=UVIDAMMNIMIRMMIWIMMIMIMISCCOPMAY -.1ftentmuuswaratiMACH

1 coal A. M M r.11 g ' "

INEDNIMAINONOMM**0 " CO N N N rl

rir-i'EV 1'1,in $Eit %.0,

I ," r{'

.01 '

;0', 'tn. :0 , tY,. A-, . 3trt.,,.0 \.,`tri`4: Ancz uti,o.tr%0 In 6 *,',,cA'at,lcOioe l . r.....An..,cy.oIAtn...T.,1st "'4.2'),- -51,c4it`i 1-I' , "'CV- ',CO. cii. N N ,N1, N; ,j'iNcm AsiN' -'61,,,,,N ie., ,,',.4,4, ..- ,0- ,,,,;1..(1.11eii,,,l' '7""Ak1;41) I I I' 1 '..!1 :I..i;,,1 ,I.."14,*.' v,t. '1; ';t0,-.1tOtit. r-C ;'.''7 .pil',40...2..' I-I l'.0'., 4 ry : mg ",q1-4','', ,g) 4-1 ,0.r4 VD' 4-142,r4 No: "..,,,,1",%.cA 4-41 Its-A ,C): trt , It % 00 ..,. '00 '1%;,' '., 1%. Acf,'VNO\',').nin..*.1.,cn,'''snN. cqpi yr44 C),, ,-C)" ",;k7P" ,',. tl ,N :,N N N ,N'1 1 NN, ,4V.N N N N N 'NN N", 'N N" N' ' Nt -1.1.\

{ 10

, ' .

1 Alii,t0;540215,0p.Waii*Aleiet6MIZZ141:6.' Fa=a)lafttletli h , , .04 0.=1./ ..- ..e11.111.1111....M11,071.1!

-71-

fying score of-275 on the EListening variable.Those who scored above 275 are called "qualified"; those who score 275 or below are designated as "non-qualified".Of the 167 PCVs, 49 (29.4%) were designated as "qualified" (in Spanish on arrival in the field).

Although EListening was the variable that seemed to show the clearest separation between "qualified" and "unqualified" PCVs upon arrival in the field, the score on PACT Form A was going to be more useful for tracing progress from end of training to the mid- tour followup because no score exactly comparable to EListening (based on a combination of the LAandMA levels of the MLA Cooperative Tests) was available for the lid -tour folrowup*(since-only the HS form was /Omen at that time), and a score on an alternate form of PACT, Form B, was available for the ildtour followup.Therefore it was desirable to find the score on PACT A that was equivalent to a score of 275 on EListening. By using data from the 336 cases having scores on both EListening and PACT Fora A at the end of training, it was, found that a score of.56.2 on PACT A is equivalent to a score M of 275 on EListening in the sense that both these scores have the same normal deviate score. The equation for the line of equivalence between EListening and PACT Foss A is

(PACT A Raw Score) = .6604 (EListening Raw Score) - 125.4389

The score of 56.2 on PACT Al was therefore used as the "qualifying level" defining the competence in Spanish that was sought in the 12-week training course (see Chapter 6, pp.48-56 and Figure4).1

Self - Ratings of Spanish Ian e c etence during the first son h in the field

On a retrospective basis, PCVs responding to the In-Field Questionnaire at the mid- tour followup rated their abilities to speak, understand, read and write Spanish during the first month in the field.The distributions of ratings, broken down by whether the cases fell in the "qualified" or the "non-qualified" groups ao the basis of their ELis- tening scores, are shown in Table 28. For the group as a whole, the modal response was "some" [ability in the skill in question]. Only 40 (22.9%) reported "a lot" or "very much" ability in speaking, 28 (16.1%) at similar levels in understanding spoken Spanish, 38 (21.8%) in reading, and 29 (16:6%) in writing.The "qualified" and "non-qualified" groups vere very significantly different with respect to each of the dimensions of rated ability.Most of the people in the "qualified" groups reported "a lot" or "very much" ability in the four skills during the first month in the field, and very few of the "non-qualified" reported such levels of ability at that time.

Re orted duration of 1 ua e difficulties during the course of the field experience

The In -Field Questionnaire sought to determine how long the PCVs experienced difficulties with language problems during the course of their experiencein the field. Each respondent was asked, first, to indicate how many months he had been in the field, and then to make his best guess of the number of months after his arrival that he continued to-have difficulty with various aspects of his use of.Spenish in the host country. He was allowed, of course, to report that he was still having difficulty with.a particular aspect of language use even at the time of reporting. Table 29 shows the results-of this. inquiry, broken down, as before, by "qualified" and "non-qualified" groups. The various types of language.diZ:lculties are arranged in the order in which, according-, to thesesu/cs,for the group as_a whole, the difficulties_ disappear., For example, the:first-difficulty to disappear is that of -not being-Ale to separate the Words of :native- speakers when listening 'to Spanish. Few of the "qualified" group have any difficulty with this at all even in the first month in the field, and even the "non- qUalifiee'group ire able to Overcome it after an average of -2'.3 months in the field. The-Aast_.difficul#y to disappear, if at all, is that of writing Spanish without con- eideribie:reiert to a dictionary.Quite a nuMber of even the "qualified" group report diffteuIty- with this even,at the mid -tour follow-up, and probably the majority of.the "naii4i4aliged" greup, report some difficulty-with-it at that ,tine. 111100, -suggested in Appendix -C, this is approximately equivalent to an S-2 rating on thi;l1Sl Scale. -

=.7.77777777-77777-77------", - -

! : : ' I 1-4 t; \ 1 H .: .. o S 0 C''O-IO'cM3'S'I ,S bci P4OC1CI.O. ,* S S 1.-4I-4OS 0 ' " .. : , , g : i oi - " . , coj ' : ; ; , - . c-I I-i . - ' .) ,4 . \ rl4 ' ,\ ' . ' " - . k r . ,' ,, :' ' " .& ' , , . . S : t , . S I ' 5S S S. SS , ' S .5 gt . ( -.5 S S 5S S S S \' ' S 5 S ' 4 S S S 5 . S S S ci ' , 5, S S S t SS t 4. VS ' S 41 I , t .5 SI S . . S o'ooeci I,.i S S S S * . S / : ' ' .: f. : ': oóøoe o eooec a . S. ' 000&b;ø ' S\ ! I : -: ' 1 \S. :: ' S S . S : ('1 5, i-1 S : , ,: ': S , S S S S . ;g S .- . SI S , . 5 S S \' S , S t' ' s . ,, SCS\ 5S s 4 ,# 4 ' . :' : . % S? S 5 ' ) .. S S S. ;' 'S 55 1t !S S S I t , ' ) S S 55 S. S ', .4t \,\ . ; lr , :; j : : ;4 S.S Co. , ': : '1i i:' t r(I a : ' O -' Cql ;. S. : : ; ! -' S :j ';:; 5 S S /S, '' 5' ': : S ' ' ' ' , 4 : :. : ,S.. : : :, : , '':t .;. 5' . ? , f$ ;' '' 'S \. ' . S S4 \k S 5 \ i' . . JF

;43-

Table: 29

-length of Time- in tht-, Field and Duration of

-, Reported Language Difficulties

ns.ciii=qualifted" 30; -(N"(N

S.D. ..Ron,ge. I S.D. .

Total no -Of*antisin the field 6-li 6.9 '1.8 3.45 Nuber

-40114 10t_ivitOrda-- of 5.39 natikie-apeekera; . 0-5 .6 :1.2 glii#4 of ipeech twoit imythtng. 0-8 1.6 4.25 sent ikt4-#1-40-11744t.t, 6.69 43iitiCUltY: liaking self .61414ii.44 -OP $144.111 0-5 .8 1.3 8.53 CoulCnot 'Understand- cosagete- ':*eadint.--of-.-natiVeyspeacc#: 0-5 1.5 2.0 7.24 Aitt0.4,t9:i44414 Spniab without ,004.4iitithIS:Uai cf diionary 0-7 .7 1.6 10.18 Noticeably, halting and nett-fluent inlepwakingl Spanish 0-7 1.7 2.0 8.10 DifficUlti*riting, Spanish without 000.144'.0iab_Xe *1:100:t to dictionary 040 2.1 2.8 7.98 ,Ihicoofortably ilov- Spanish, reading speed 0-10 1.4 2.5 8.36

treroramPoPol,imorn, All values Of p < .01

= - z

- 7 ,t . - .

_ -

A A;., ,;" : -74-

The data of Table 29 are somewhat limited by the factthat they are based on cases that vary considerably in the length of time they had been inthe field, roughly from five to ten months (some cases reported they had been in the fieldeleven months). Nevertheless, it has not been thought worthwhile to analyse the data with acontrol for the length of the time the.PCV had been in the field.

It should be pointed out that for some unknown reasons, thosePCVs in our sample whom we classified as "non-qualified" happened to have been in the-field, atthe time of responding to the mid-tour questionnaire, significantly longer ou the average than the " qualified" students. (Possibly there was some chance integaction between the average after-training achievement of the variouscontingents and the times when those contingents, happened to be surveyed'at mid-tour.) Thus, to acme extent the differences between the groups with respect to the durations of languagedifficulties are inflated.' It is obvious, however, that the differences would probably remainsignificant even if length of field experience were statistically controlled.

The average durations of various types of language difficulties are ofchief interest. For PCVa who arrive in the field already "qualified", i.e. already with a satisfactory command of the Spanish language, most difficulties disappear veryrapidly, usually within a. month, on the average. Difficulties in producinst Spanish orally and in written form persist longest, but even then, only about two months on the average. Overcoming language problems is not so easy for those who arrive in the field"non- qualified", i.e. without a satisfactory command of the language, but for these people, the major difficulties in auditory comprehension clear up after four or five months. The stages-in this process are noticeably distinct according to our results: after 2.3 months, on the average, the PCV no longer felt either that "the speetrof native speech.made it impossible to understand anything" or that he "could not separate words of native speakers." After 2.8 months, on the average, the Volunteer nolonger felt that he "could not grasp complete sentences of native speakers," but it tookhim another couple of months (up to 4.5 months after arrival in the field, onthe average) before he to longer felt that he "could not understand the complete meaning ofnative speech."It was at about the 4- or 5-month stage that the Volunteer overcame major difficulties in making hitself understood and in being sufficiently fluent, Comfort- table reading and writing proficiency came only after about 5 or 6 months offield ex- perieuce for the average PCV who arrived in the field without adequate commandof Spanish. All these figures should have three months added to them if one is to consider the *mount of time it takes to attain various stages of mastery"from scratch", i.e. from the start of training. One must also consider the variation in the data: many PCVs in the "non-qualified" group reportedthey were having considerable amounts of difficulty with the language even at the time of filling out thequestionnaire.

Our data do not furnish any directevidence on the hypothesis that language learning in the foreign language milieu goes through a period of slow,"latent" learning followed by a sudden sense of mastery. Indirect evidence on this points, however, is furnished by the very fact that the PClis were able toindicate a fairly de- finite length of time during which they experienced difficulties of various sorts, e.g. "noticeably halting and non fluent" speaking of Spanish.Whether language learning under field conditions is gradual or saltatory is a question that needsfurther investigation.

Self-ratings and reports of Seapigh lanimgeat the mid-tour follow-up

By means of the In-Field Questionnaire administered at the mid-tourfollow -up, a considerable amount of information was gathered from the PCVs concerningtheir own ap- praiaals of their competence in Spanish and the various problems they metin using that language.

Table 30 presents tabulations of self-ratings in the fourskills of speaking, understanding, reading and writing at the time of the mid-tour followup. (It will be remembered that the length of time the PCVs studied had been in thefield varied considerably, from 5 to 11 months with a mean of 7.7 months.)The data are broken down, --.7-'-litItfigeacseris;:etsiikedearsigiAmemer." .1x=ogivvirl;rosagsssers

$e1f141t4tings,,,of 814;494 Language :Competence

-t110,-;11,14-q)6,#_-P419w4fp

, c

"qualified" -'Group -- Group Cases Rating N N N Z

S0e0C:= SvPI=little 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 BMW:* 7- 5.7 0- 0.0 7 4.0 Oita -Sbit" 39 -31.4 5 10.0 44 25.3 .1 Tot 58 46.8-. 10 20.0 68 39.1 :.very*eh -20 -16.1 35 70.0 55 31.6 44 .100.0 50 100.0 174 100.0

Understand 0.0 0 0.0 'vs y little- 0 0.0,, 0 6 4.0 o 0.0 6 3.4 (tithe abit 35 28.2 6 12.0 41 23.6 JOOt 59 47.6 9 18.0 68 39.0 Iforyi,ntuo 24 19.4 35 70.0 59 33.9 :Totter 124'- 100.0 50- 100.0 174 99.9

YRead 1' .8 0 0.0 1 .6 7=some 13 10.5: 0 0.0 13 7.4

-47- 37.9 6 12.0 53 . 30.4 10t 46 37.1 12 24.0 58. 33.4 Very =much 17" 13.7 32 64.0 49 28.2 Total 124, 100.0 50 100.0 174 100.0 Write 'very little 7 5.6 0 0.0 7 4.0 some 34 27.4 2 4.0 36 20.7 quite abit 45- 10 20.0, 55 31.6 a. lot. 31 _25,0 19 38.0 50 28.7 ,vety.:muOh 19- 38.0 26 14,9 -7-. ry kpt 124' 100.0 50 100.0 174 99.9' -76-

as before, by "qualified" and "non-qualified" groups on the basis of statusat the time of entry into the field.

As might be expected, at the time of the. mid -tour follow-up the majorityof the "qualified" group still reported theywere able to understand, speak and read Spanish "very much ". Their opinion of their ability to write the languagewas split about evenly between the "a lot" and "very much"responses.From their responses to several .related questions in this part of the questionnaire,we can infer that they felt they had completely adapted to the way in which the sounds, vocabularyand idloci, and grammar of the speech of the native speakers differed from what they had been taught,but they still had "some" difficulty in expressing complex ideasand being at a loss for particular words on occasion.

Even when we turn'to the group that accordingto tests was "non-qualified" linguistically upon assignment to the fieldswe find that by the time of the mid-tour follow-up the majority of these PCVs rated their abilitiesto speak and understand Spanish at "a lot" or "very much" and they ratedthemselves as being able to read and write the language fairly well.They felt that they had completely adapted to theway in which sounds made and grammar used by native speakersdiffered from what they had been taught, but vocabulary and idiom stillgave them "some" trouble.They were still having "some" difficulty in: being at a loss for particular words, being restrictedto a very limited vocabulary, speaking with sufficient gramiaticalcorr.:lc:tile-a-a, and expressing complex ideas.

It is. of interest to compare the PCVs' reports about theeffect of language problems on job performance for the first month in the fieldand at the time of the mid- tour follow-up.As can be found from Table 31: For the umillifile group, language problems hadno adverse effect on job performance for 69% during the first month in the field andfor 90% at the time of the mid-tour testing.Only 10Z reported any adverse effect at all, and this was "small". For the "scostsmailite group, language problems hadno adverse effect on job performance for only 6% during the first month in thefield, and for 502 at the time of the mid-tour testing.Even for this group, the percentage reporting that language problems had a "considerable" adverseeffect on job performance decreased from 26% at thefirst month in the field to 9% at the mid-tour testing. Still,, there were a few in thisgroup who were not using Spanish at all, and one may be somewhat concernedabout the fact that at the mid-tour testing 40% reported "some"adverse effect of language problems, in addition to the 9% already notedreporting "considerable" adverse effect.

PCVs' recommendations concerni the lan: e trainin: ro ram

Although it is not exactly germane to the title ofthe present chapter, an account of the. recommendations that the PCVs made concerning possiblechanges in the Peace Corps language training program is not whollyout of place at this point,These recommendations were elicited by Part V of the In-FieldQuestionnaire, which contained several multiple- choice attitude questions (whichalso provided space for additional comments) and two open-ended items calling forgeneral comments.

The first multiple-choice item asked the respondentto express his opinion of the length of the program, and the second asked forany recommendations the PCV might have for improving certain aspects of language training ifthe time involved were to remain the same (12 weeks). In Table 32, the percentages makingany recommendations at all, based on the total numbers filling out the questionnaire,give an indication of the amount of concern with each of the areas of training.

If we consider the results as a whole, the majority ofthe students4of Spanish (72.8%) felt that the language trainingprogram was of the proper length. e-The next most popular opinion (23.1%) was that the program should be longer,and a wary few sow,. Allormwayie

,Ts.b1c-, 31

COMpari. slop.ort*por*ed,Efficii Ok CCiguigerabJ.eaa oi3.44terformance in the First Mouth

in the ne***-4t the Time of the.- Hid -Teui:FOIliiiiTUp (Cell Values a,.-EsFrequencies) ..-, A, " Qualified"Group .110111111MIIIMMICA/MilMC,..O.I.O, .0 At Hid -Tai i (Did not use Spanish) No adverse -effect. Adverse-effect Topal Month, (a): 0) (c) (e),

.. - , (Did- not use4paiiiiiii)- (a) Get, by.Mith English 1 . 1 (b) Others:c..011runiCate , .. -.- . . No adverie,OffSct . ..1 (c) COmpetenee equal . to demand 16 2 18 (d) CompetenCe superior to demand Z 13 . 15

.. . Adverse effect- (e) Small 8 5 13 (f) Considerable 1 1 ...- ...... 1 Total: 28 15 5

B. "Non-Qualified" Group AminaMINrjiliMINE.ImpflfINIIMMEIMMISOYIIINZIEN1 .1=.1. gar .1=immmImICAII At Mid-TouTollOw-Up (Did :not use Spanish) No adverse effect Adverse -- effect Total First Month (a) (b) (c) -(d) (e) (f)

. (Did not use:Spanish) (i) Getbar with English 3 4 . 1 1 9 (b) Othertif_coutuni este -1 2 7 _: :-,- ... ..

No AidVeiise effect -- . 10 cp*Otlince .es-uil , t o d e m a n d , 6":-,. 1- 7 . f..4) C0000WP0,-:41_1_ . -parii# iii dmiand'

...... : ....,....-....-...,... :...-... :.4...... ;4...... , 5..:;.... 5-w ...... i.. ,...... ,...- , Adiii4:-eitIOY: , , . ,, (0)-i:SMalt:. '''; i. i. t31 ,,2',) 67

' -Ciyastil,Le, 31._ -,-.,..- .... ,....,...... -'- =----' -;78-

Table.-32-

44:40-:k4 04,14#23usafe-Trainini Prftiala - -

"WOn;Q#alified" "Qualified"

sqrcittP Total (1t*'124) (H - =49 ) (W,a173)

N._ Z .N m 2

.Receineide&br...-gth...of.progrems., - 4o 23:1-

ssae 87. 70.1- 39 79.6 126 72.11 Shorter .5, 2 4.1 7 4,0

= . 124 49- 100.0 173 99.9 RecomaendediiproveAents: ;.9rammaranitfclglls 1. 16o**Ailig 31 25.4. // 22.5 42 24.2 - -iim-p11/111 14 11.3 8 16.3 22 12.7 -3. improved quality 12 9.7 9 18.3 21 JUL 57 46.0 28 57.1 85 49.1 Vocabulary 1. more emphasis so 64.5 27 55.1 107 61.8 2. lei emphasis 3 2.4 2 4,1 5 2.9 -3. improved quality 2.4 3 6,1 6 3.5 (1 and 3) 2 1.6 2.0 3 1.7 88 70.9 33 67.3 121 70.0 Pronunciation -1. more esphasis 40 32.3 28 57.1 68 39.3 2. less emphaols' 9 7.2 9 5.2 3. improved quality 4 3.2 1 2.0 5 2.9 (1 and 3) 2 1.6 2 1.2 (2 and 3) 1 .8 1 .6 56 45.1 29 59.1 85 49.1 tisteting training -11. more emphasis 71 57.2 35 71.4 106 61.3 2. less esphrsts 7 5.6 1 2.0 8 4.6 3. isProved quality 5 4.0 1 2.0 6 3.5 (1-ina 3) 2 1.6 1 2.0 3 1.7 85 68,4 38 77.4 223 71.2 Reading 1. sore emphasii 31 25.0 12 24.5 43 24.9 2. less emphasis 23 18.5 16 32.6 39 22.6 3. improved quality 7 5.6 1 2.0 8 4.6 61 49.1 29 59.1 90 52.0 Writing' 1. more emphasis 35 .18,2 15 30.6 50 28.9 2. less emphasis 19 15.3 13 26.5 32 18.5 3.rap_roved quality 4 3.2 1 2.0 5 2.9 1 and-3) 1 .8 1 .6 59 47.5 29 59.1 88 50.9 Language study during field Study

I. more emphasis 56 . 45.1 18 36.7 74 42.7 2. less emphasis 9 7.2 5 10.2 14 8.1 3, improved quality 6 448 6 12.2 12 6.9

(1 and-3) = - 9' .7.2 2 4,1 11 6.5 80. 64.5 31 63.2 111 64.2 Speaking and conversation I. more-emphasis 89 71.8 39 79.7 128 -74.0 '2. leis emphasis :3. improved quality 4 .3.2 4 2.3 (1 and 3) 7 5.6 2 4.1 9 5.2 41 83.8 14" aP.6- 141 81.5 011itySectioning 1. pore emphasis 33__4.6 15' 30.6 48 27.8

2. lets emphasis' 13 10.5 - 4 8.2 17 9.8 3..impreved quality 5 4.0 5 2.9 -

(1 and - ._ . 1 -2.0- ,I. . .6 51 41.1 20 40.8 71 41.1

Perceatages4i*baial on the total group or,suirouplesponding.--Waethat :some vilues:arsgiven,-for.ceMbinations-of'responses;pereeetagea-for such cos- 'binatious-lavlbe'ld'e4 -14:-'dialredto those for indilividual response categories. -79-

(4.0%) thought that it should be shorter.The same pattern of responses held for both the "qualified" _anti "non-qualified" groups with a somewhat greater proportion of the "non-qualified" group than of the " qualified" greap indicating that they thought that the program should be longer.

Speaking awl conversation was the aspect of language tra4n4ng that received the greatest number of replies (81.5%) when recommendations for improvements were re- quested. There was agreement among both the "non-qualified" and "qualified" groups that speating- and conversation should receive more emphasis; this was the only aspect of language training that no one thought should receive less emphasis.A few people in each group remarked that the quality of instruction in oral work should be improved.

The next greatest number of replies (71.2%) dealt with listening emprehansion training. The majority of both groups (61.3% in all) felt that this, too, shou'A receive more emphasis, and a few people felt that the quality of instruction should be imprcved. A few people felt that listening training should receive less emphasis.

Vocabulary, the third most frequently responded to aspect of language training, was felt to need more emphasis by the majority of the respondents fromboth groups (70.0% in all). A few of them felt that the quality of instruction should be improved, and even fewer felt that it should receive less emphasis.

A considerable number of the responding trainees (42.7%) felt that language study during field training should receive more emphasis, and scveral felt that thequality of instruction during this period should be improved. At the same time, a few (8.1Z) felt that language study during field training should receive less emphasis.

Only 52.0% of the respondents made any recommendatic6 about the teaching of reading, and those were about evenly divided in their opinloa of whether reading should receive more or less emphasis. A few (4.6Z) felt that the quality. of instruction should be improved in this area.° L1 slightly larger proportion of the"qualified" group than of the "non-qualified" group felt that reading should receive less emphasis.

About two-sevenths of the total sample felt that writing shmild receive more emphasis, and about one-sixth felt that it should receive less.Proportionately more 'qualified" people than "non-qualified" people felt that it had received too much emphasis. A few people felt that the quality of writing instttntion should be improved.

About 40% of the total sample felt that pronunciation elould receive more emphasigi, some of the "qualified" and none of,the"non-qualified" people felt that it should receive less. A few felt that the quality of instruction in pronunciation should beim- proved, and the majority of those had been classified as being"nom-qualified".

Approximately a quarter of the total sample (24.2%, actudly) felt that grammar and drill should receive more emphasis; they-were proportionately distributed among the "qualified" and "non-qualified" groups. An appreciable number, again proportionately distributed between the "non-qualified" and the "qualified" PCVs, feltthat grammar and drill had been overemphasized, and a similarnumber felt that the quality of instruction should have been improved.

Ability sectioning drew the fewest responses (41.1%) from the students.The majority of those who responded (27.8%) felt that it should have bad"wore emphasis".

It is ironic that although a minority of the PCVs recommended an increase in the length of the training program, almost all wanted "more emphasis" on each aspectoi language training. -80-

Three hundred fourteen con ents about thelanguage training program were made by the students of Spanish.They tinged from praise for thelanguage training they had undergone to-cOademnaticiri of language study duringfield training.Praise for the existing program accounted for approximatelyeleven percent of the comments.Typical phraseology of this type of comment is, "Thetraining program was good and should be the same length of time."

The most frequent criticism of thecourse concerned field training in the U.S. (at Taos,for this group). Seven percent of the comments,none of which were complimentary, involved this aspect of theprogram. Nine comments called foran improvement in the Taos program, twelve called the four weekssprat there "a waste", and one suggested that the Taos program be eliminated.

Eight comments noted that speaking,. listeningand conversation were the most important aspects of Peace Corps language training,and this is borne out by specific suggestions for improving thecourse. Eleven percent of the comments suggestedthat more time be devoted to speaking Spanish, several of themsuggesting that more emphasis be given to regional variations inpronunciation and to dialects.Nine percent of the comments indicated that vocabulary, particularlyidiomatic expressions, should receive more emphasis.More listening training, more recordings,more native songs, more me- ,phasis on social formalities, theuse of complete sentences in class, and smaller classes were the topics of other comments.

Eleven percent of the comments suggesteda week or more of training in the country to which the Peace Corps Volunteer is assigned. Such training was envisionedas containing a review of grammar and of the country'sliterature, practice conversatious with native speakers, and technicalvocabulary for each Soh assignment. It was also suggested that more books be included in eachPeace Corps Volunteer's book locker and that each Volunteer should havea Spanish-English dictionary.

e Proficien Test Performance of /TVs at Mid-TourS h

Frequency distributions ofscores on the three tests given at the mid-tour follow- up, together with frequency distributions for thesame individuals and for comparable tests at end of training are shown in Table. 33. The means, standard deviations, and intercorreletions are to be found in Table34. In both tables, the dataare shows separately for "qualified" and "non-qualified"groups because It is of particular interest to note what progress theinitially "non- qualified"group made in the course of the field experience. Table 34 also contains dataon the groups combined.These data are for all cases for which complete sets of scores on these testsare available. (Only 2 eases from the totalnumber studied at aid-tourwere lost in this way.)

In interpreting these dates, there isa problem as to the comparability of the tests used at the end of training and at themid-tour follow-up.In the case of the Cooperative Tests, converted scores given in norms tables published byEducational Test- ing Service (1955) were used to effectthe equating of the A and Bforms of these tests. However, since some caseswere given Form A instead of Form Bat the mid-tour follow-up, there is possibly a small amount of practice effect--probablynegligible in view of the long timeeitetorval between test administrationsinherent in theresults. There are no data to support the comparability of Foram A. and B of the PACT;they were, however, constructed simultaneouslyand according to thesame guidelines and may be presumed to be approximately comparable.

The "qualified" group maintained aboutthe same level of performanceat the end of training and at the mid-touron the two tests of listening; there was a slight amount of ireprovement (t = 3.26,p <.01) on the HIA Coop. Reading Test. A fewpeople seem to have coat ground. There is, of course, a possible regressioneffect involved in this comparison inasmuch as the "qualified"group was selected on the basis of per-

z . _ alb,/ ate -Of, Language, PlofiCiener Test :Seq#ca at ..-til.d..Tonn -011) 00tpared -,git-tok-:tif 0-91`)4

_.**- SO;Otilei-litefor "A" go#1-of Teata-iy.t end of training, antgeheialt "B".

%eve'. -Coop. Reacting (teveVis) PACT-

0070.00:!t BQ COltverted 0 Rw Q rAt Scorn ZOT' Score ROT 1:0T7' Sdoie: SOT- HT . "SOT MT

205--20%- 1 7244 '9' 200-404 200-204 3 4 2 69-71 6 11

195459 195-199 19 26 6 -6649 11 13 5

190-194 16 16, 4 140-194 11 12 2 10 63-65 7 14 5

10489 0 25 1 28 185-189 7 5 1 28 60-62 2 4 12

180 -184 7 6 14 42 180-184 2 2 s .25 57=59 6 5 -2 13 "----Nualifying level"------175479 1 2. 26 22 175-179 7 1 17 27 54-56 7 4 12

-1701474 20 11 170-174 1 21 16- 51?53 2 1 15 26

-165469 _1 16 5 165-169 20 3 48-!0 13 10

1fitm64 19 5 160-164 19 3 45-47 2 17 12

:-- 155159 7 1 155-159 - 13 0 42 -44 13 8

1504.54 7 V 150454 ---142,-----i.,12 5 39-41 11 6

3.45=149 6 1 145-149 9 2 -3438 9 7

1O144 3 2 140-144- 3 33-35 8 3 -M439!- 2 135-139 0 30-32 27 0 I0444: 0 130-134 1 2729- 4 1 4254291 1 1256429 24.26 2 1

6 2

-51 --.:2224- 122 50 50, 14 122: , 1914-194.47 Oil- 50-9 1.01P----1k07 10 --94,

.1-) -ter0t*Iiiilon$44_ *-t.azia34anii $144 tour :9 s

AllerMIr,

PACT** MT

7 a,: Tt:. =-' 1 44s 1914-- 7'.5 494.45.064.4 6.664.4 5.4 701.1-160;:5---10,..6 47960 13-.0 40.7 9.3 50.99.2 'I04,.4 18L.28.9173.4 15.1 483:5 13.447.6 13.8 54.9 10.3 Ustonlik -30T_ .40 .70 .18 .78 .22 1.00 .68 .58 .65 .78 .55 1.00 .73 :79 .75 .88 .71 .40 1.00 .35 .19 .41 .58 1.00 .43 .68 .64 .71 .73 1.00 .57 .72 .68 .76

:70 .35 1.00 .49 .78 .43 .58 .43 1.00 .59 .58 .37 .79 ..57 1.00 .71 .84 .65 .18 .19 .49 1.00 .20 .55

4-65 _ .68 .59 1.00 .64 .60 .75 .72 .71 1.00 .72 .7

78 .41 .78 .20 1.00 .36 .78 .64 .5 .64 1.00 .58 48. .68 .84 .72 1.00 .74 '22 .58 .43 .55, .36 1.00 45, -.71. .37. ... ,.60 40 1.00 1.00

0,6:***.:: ro*-A-1/18:404, O. tot- Faro. s giVert -14- ***A I*44-7;a- -83-

formance on EListeningt highly correlated with all three variables used in theoompar- ison.Nevertheless, one would not expect the group that was already "qualified" at the end of training to make great gains during.a few months of field service in Latin America; even if there had been such gains, the tests used in this studyto measure proficiencymay be relatively insensitive to changes at theupper end of the scale.

On all the tests, the group that was classifiedas linguistically "nos-qualified" for field service at the end of training made largeaverage gains, all signifi-ant well beyond the 1% level.Nevertheless, even at the mid-tour follow-up there were many individuals who tested at relatively low levels,. The correlations shown in Table 34 indicate that the relative rankings of individuals In the "non-qualified" group remained similar (r ranging from .58 to .68) from end-of-training to mid-tour follow-up. If we take a score of 56.2 as representing a "qualifying level" of perform,- anca cn PACT Form Bs we may note that whereas only 1.6% of the "non-qualified" group exceeded this score at the end-of-training point, 28.7% were able tosurpass it at the mid-tour follow-up. A majority of the group, however, were not far from attaining this qualifying score at the aid -tour point. If we examine the scores of the "non- qualified" group on the MIA Cooperative Tests at the mid-tour,we see that 96% exceeded the median for second year college general norms on the Listening test, and about 94% exceeded the median for these norms on the Reading test. Even if not all the "non-qualified" group attained the rather high qualifying level seton the PACT test, most of them were clearly far ahead of the performance of the typical graduate of a two -year college course in Spanish.

The reader may rightfully be concerned about the propriety of setting a qualifying score at the score level of 56.2 on PACT B, in view of the fact-that the original basis for setting a qualifying score was on the score called EListening, derived from a non- linear composite of tests given at the end of training.Since the qualifying score level on EListenine had been set on the basis of.its ability to discriminate between those who reported "no adverse effect" of language problems on job performance et the beginning of the field service period and those who reported "some" or "considerable" adverse effect, it seems useful to indicate to what extent the qualifying score of 56.2 on PACT IS is able to make a similar discrimination with respect to PCVsi reports of the effects of language problems on job performance at mid-tour.Table 35 has been prepared with this in mind. It shows that in the "qualified" group, all those who reported even a "small" adverse effect had scores above 56.2-- a result that does not favor the test's ability to identify people who would report trouble with language problems at mid-tour. Furthermore, the three individuals who did not attain the qualifying score all reported no adverse effect of language problems on job performance.Never- theless, test scores and subjective reports agreed for the 41 people (84% of 49) who made the qualifying score and also reported no adverse effects.

In the case of the initially "non-qualified" group, the test shows only slight differences between those who reported "no adverse effect," on the one hand, and those who reported "some" or "considerable" adverse effect or those few who reported that, in effect, they did not use Spanish in their work, on the other.Nineteen (35* of the 54 in the former category attained the qualifying score, while 16 (24%) of the 67 in the latter categories made the qualifying score. Of all 35 cases making a qualifying score, 19 (54%) reported no adverse effects of language perforce on job performance, while of the remaining 86, not attaining a qualifying score,, 35 (412) reported no such effects= The association between test score and subjective report is not significant (X -1.85;11, >.05) for this group; the test does not clearly identify those who report language problems at mid-tour. It is only when we consider the combined group ("qualified" and "non-qualified" together) that the.test fairly clearly identified such people. Of the 81 attaining the qualifying score, E0 (74%) report no adverse effects of language problems, while of the 89 not attaining the qualifying score, only 38 (432) resort no such effects. For the combined group, this association is highly significant (X2 a 17.11, p<.001) but it actually reflects mainly the initial classification of the group at the end of training.

444+6400151111811"1115M'15141WW:'1'."."...... V t ':, : * , : \I, F I ' 4 In 1 i-I ' r4 1 t VV , u "V V 0 C 0 VV --:-; V VV:V.: °° l :. ' I; , , V4 ( - lfl O% C ' {1 C ri , 0 r4 l1 ' Ii4 ? 4 j $ d O I t\ ¶ 0 . (V i-I (V .4 '4 m4 .I ', . c :. , frO HFI IW '! 3 1 : , 0 0 V V ' V t, qø ,4 m4 r.4 4 I CO V V ' 1$ ' : . . ; 1 E j . : ' I k) t r) 0 0 0 0 0 0 L V t V ' * 4J , , . . ' rr ' . V V V k I I . VV V ., ;\ V -,' ö) 4a) VVV -I _V V , 9 \::V V VV V. 0 ' , ' V , , . i 0 , p \ , , cI l f'ui C'4 C) 4 \ t ig1 j. d. ' 0 !I I fri V cl ° VV V j '?' :, i:± , !V ": V1 !;;:V VTVV V;T ;V.:, ': IjV.::V:: : '' ' (V) 4 C'b i-I i-4 ' ; 1 : , :' ° I ;: V b\ \ , ': V ud Z . ' , I: ; :' LcO rVV,J\ L k :: VVV VV x'V-H V.: O 9 V '. :V :V* ?S : : V:: ': - ]L $ t . . ;: ;. 4 \ '-4 -I V1 V: " \ \ I :, I V. I '?; t ø4 .4 I ' .o %, \ VV i:V: \ +' LV V 0 0 I-I aak ': :c ;::$ ;' V 0 g : ¶; I 4 ( I 'V ::' c: I ;: *4 lJ \ ' 1 ci ' ,. * ' ' VVJ k ' \ $ ' 0 i\.. ) ' , 2 - ,.; b ( V \ \c\ :: "I' # V p a I ' : c v:' , i' \ Va , ! / , , ' I ! ' , VV : ! Itd ,..Vk V k ,k L , I ..\ \ - I .j ,' II V5 V\\ I V V V S I t! ! LI' ;: V ' \ cV I ' VV;V o ?V : r '' t - ' ' . : ' V \ ' i ' : I V V V V' i f 1 : : ' ( VV* \ \ - V - \ V M lR1 ' U IU . ': V* I 'qfl %;I I; \\ : SV '' VI ;., V I 8 : - , V - I V V' VV LVV I : I ftIlV 4) 1 I 1 Il '1 I 4 4 \ '\ \ H 14 I 14 I 4 V 4 4 V 4 4 I A 4 4 k 444 4 'I'4 I I 4 44 4 \ V4 I 4 44 I / 4 V 7 V 44 V V V V I . V TIP.. V V -- SS V V V -- VVVVV LII, - 4 malleinommonf +=. Zagrvreaa I

-85-

The report of any adverse effects oflanguage problems is, ofcourse, a notably subjective matter. It say depend not so suchupon absolute language proficiency as upon the individual's perception of the linguisticdesands of his job or upon the actual variation in those demands fromindividual to individual, partly.asa function of the inherent =trim of the job andits setting.In setting a qualifyingscore on the PACT Fora B in themanner that we have, we are in effect assuming that thedemands of Peace Corps jobs in the fieldare such as to require that they be filled bypersons who are quite competent in Spanish,say, at the level that would be expected ofse individual who had studied Spanish forat least three or four years in college.This level say in point of fact be quite abovethelevel actually desanded bymany jobs performed successfully by PCVs in the field. Nevertheless, it is a target that is worthwhile aiming at in Peace Corps languagetraining because many Peace Corps jobs undoubt- edly exist Where a high level ofcompetence is desirable, and in anycase it may be said that the higher the competence inSpanish; the greater the probability that language problems will not interfere with job performance.

From this point of view, the chart drawnin Figure 5 say be of interest anduse. It is derived from the information in Table 35and shows an estimated (smoothed)curve for the probability that aperson with a given score on PACT Form B will reportno adverse effects of language problems on his job larformance. It will be noted that for a score of 49, this probability is only 50%, while fora score of 68, for =ample, the probability is 90%. In setting objectives for Pesee Corps languagetraining* an administrator could use this figure to selectan appropriate level of PACT Form B score.

Prediction of Mid-Tour Langm1fL_,eProficenomDataAvailable at the Start of Training

It would be pf use to know to whatextent it is possible to predict the PCV's level of language performance at mid-tour2rom data available at the start of training, for on this basis it sight be possibleto improve selection and/or training procedures so as to increase the chances that a PCV at the time ofa mid-tour follow-up would have a eatisfactory level of foreign languagecompetence.

In Chapter 6 we showed how itwas possible to'predict end-of-training language proficiency from start-of-training data in thecase of two dietinct groups: Group 4, those who claimed some prior knowledge of Spanish andtherefore took a Spanish placement test, and Group 3, those who did not takea Spanish placement test and who therefore probably had little ifany prior knowledge of Spanish. We will follow a similar strategy here; that is*.we will sake the analysisseparately for groups that did and did not take the Spanish placementtest. Because of the normal attrition that occurred at the end of training and the inaccessibility ofsome of the PCVs that were assigned to the field, the numbers of cases available for the studyof predictions of old-tour language proficiency are smaller thanwas the case for predictions of end-of-training . proficiency. Whereas Group A in the end-of-trainingpredictions had 218 cases, the largest sample- available for prediction of mid-tour proficiency had 117 cases. Similarly;, Group I was reduced from 118to 55 cases.Comparative data on the predictor variables for the two sets of samplesare shown in Table 36. It is evident that there is very little, ifany, selective bias with respect to the predictors.Al- though the means of the mid-tour templesare slightly higher than those for the end- of-training samplee,the differencesare so slight in relation to the standard deVia- tions that significance tests (which would beaccomplished by the special formulas for sampling from a finite population)were not deemed worthwhile to obtain.While some restriction of range sight have been expectedto occur through selection, the standard.deviationsof the mid-tour samples are-inevery case slightly larger than those for the end-of-training samples. Wemay therefore use the data from the mid-tour samples as if it representeda satisfactory sample of persons finishing the training course. In fact* as may be seen from Table 36,it is not too far from representing the sample of persona availableat the start of training. VT111(V kc,1: --,...... -ratienumungramasuesuwasurarnmamp- .m.a(siummssar ;reporting,` nc. adviorsa. effects of language' training at midl-tour, ... niniusszintomMOSIMI 1 1 :Mr YY ' Irk 11 I A' r' 3 trA Ih lArr, al ;I I i rl!ItilullprinknalMUMNIMONNiwomamontsanciansunesimemittemeaasammatuarAumumeamturfiNfisosisamanalVignika=====spar." '14,4=LICZi*V4,4=4,4=4,49 lop;r=6144E,seir""`'' .It 0 M*t'e * v.,4,

41 r r

' ,I, . I .41; .i.

Ir 7' 4. .,., iiml4- l' i . 0, i,' _,.'-,,, .. ::

, ..,,, I I I i$44' 7 '', 4,..:, 1'ilk

, -.,-,:';:,:k*.-: -... .44; ;F:sic,:,

. .:-. s;'.-4 14i '... 44 %,

4 L ''' L' ,s '11F4r,-,.. 'IrM," 44 771,?'t.,.`.,.(5,,) : . ''t -7.',, 44 45 ;, :..., ,'''. N ' ,..,, ,-, L''';', f:04"4 i 1,,,,,,,,,,; r.,,, 1.,;,...,.,,42,...... :' ,...;1 A 0,, ,' ,,N,.. . v10111111_ xv; .,, ;, 4,,.,,, I I ,&? 710'.',".' I* 4 ., .L) 41 ''' ' -Pt , el ,,. ' I' .4. : 4. ,4 , iiI ',.7(''Ill ''', " :I, ':/41 t0

'''''I.ill*';"rt1, °'

.. ,. L A 0", . ., 4'!

'"' If -' , t 4 v , .v.' ,It., 01 i'v, 't, V", ,i111.4 "::'' .1.4. .' I: 1.411.' kk ' A '.." 440' (%.1. '.t''9ii i ,Vd, . ., , 4' ... ", .., --F,F** 4 ,,,,,. , ,, .0:1 , .,440;'' '* 7'

' *'3).; ' _.1' "'' \\,*), `.'. ''"- si , 4%-r, ,`":'Os. 4, " '' ." 1 ' "., , ,, . 1- ,1' . ' 4,";,',' , '.-o"i',.r? ' v -, .1 ' ,'''''' ik , - ,1 ' }'I' '4' 'A..,C;4) 4, L4;' t-dr,11;'4,.,.., ',. : A : ,, , . A3 I. I t.t" Y 't', 1 1 , ,''''n''' ''1 ''' 44 I , 1 I'... 4 i.',. :,' ,,, II , ,,,,, 41 ' t\ \ ''',.:6,d . 4' ' ; 1* - ' v ." '' V '.v p 4 - 't'": 'v.' ,, .',.) :' : s s '''' . LL. , 44. .., . ' ;.*tcI' *`" ,`, '*4):i'- L /:; \ . ,!,t,:,.,:,,,.:,',,i, ,, ,s. : - . I , , , ':,',.,.' ,, 11714 :,,',;.'. 641 :1, :,,. i:,','.'

)44; ; ,;--,, ',s- %; :',-,.,,,''-, ,,:,,),.),, . '4" 'it ' ' : I :'2-, ',:::;,,';,, 4. , s*,, i-:t\,:;'",,',, 11:,L,,: ,- ,r,.; :*\:..' 4, , t:4 4 ;,'* . .;.,* 4s '"/1`'::"..,7''*,'.ii., '4:v 1,., , '-, --,, -*,-?;:' 'r 44. , kat,. "),

7 Plikrir,4,,i,""rjr,r77,7,777", 7,7-777 "Mi.% *t'a2A 'N411.4.7 "ItZat".tIMPNIP" 1 The predictor variables of chief snterest are, of course, the Spanish placement score, the sum of scores on the Modern Language-Aptitude Test (Short Form), and the Section Placement Score. For some cases, data are also available on factor scores derived from the questionnaire given during training:Interest in Foreign Langusaeso Compulsivity, Audiolingual Preference,-and Home Exposure [to the foreign language].The criterion variables include the four self-ratings of language competence at mid -tour and scores on three language proficiency tests given at the mid -tower follow-up, Listening Form HO, Resding,Formai, and PACT Form B. In addition, a gain score based on the difference between the score on PACT Form B (at aid -tour) and the score on PACT Form AL (given at end of training) is used as a criterion variable to see whether data available at the start of training could predict the relative amount of improvement in Spanish auditory comprehension that would occur during the course of the field experience.

The regression systems for the two groups (A and B) using only the three major predictor variables are shown in Tables 37 and 38.There are some notable differences between the two regression systems, quite apart from the fact that one predictor variable is lacking for Group B:

1) In Group A, the two predictors that make significant unique contributions to the prediction of mid-tour self-ratings of language proficiency are the placement test and the section placement score (SPS), even though these predictors are rather highly csrtelated.MLAT makes no significant contribution to the prediction of any of the self-ratings.In contrast, in Group B, MLAT shows significant beta-weights for the prediction of at least two of the self -ratings, 'while the section placement score has insignificant betaeeights.

2) The mid-tour self-ratings are much more predictable in Group A than they are in Group B; that is, the multiple correlations are higher in that Group.

3) MAT makes a much greater contribution to the prediction of the proficiency test scores in Group B than it does in Group A.The section placement score also tends to have higher beta - weights in Group B than it does in Group A.

4) The PACT Gain score is much more predictable in Group A than in Group B; it should be noted, however, that the beta-weight of the placement test is negative, signifying probably that gain is largely a function of .how far the student was from a qualifying level of.proficiency at the outset of training.

Despite these differences, the data from Group A and Group B are agreed in showing that aid -tour proficiency can be rather well predicted from data .available at the start of training. For students who have already acquired some knowledge of Spanish before the start of training, the critical variable is their level of mastery of Spanish, while for students who have little knowledge of Spanish, the critical variable associated with mid -tour perforuance is foreign language aptitude as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude Test.The section in which the student is placed during training has some role in determining the level of mastery he will reach./f we measure level of mastery at mid-tour in terms of the PCVs' self-ratings, the section placement score is an important variable, either because it reflects the stendard of performance to which the student is held in training or because it determines the student's confidence in his mastery of the foreign language. This is especially true for students who already have some knowledge of Spanish shen they start training. Section placement is less important for students without prior knowledge of Spanish, partly because these students are usually placed in the lower numbered sections in any case.

wpassrpwwwilhallMOINOwrawwwwm MNIIIMIMMMIIMI-411111111:411110

1As noted previously, because of a shipper's error some cases were given Form MA of the Listening and Reading tests at the mid-tour follow-up.Although the two forms are not exactly equivalent, the scores on the MA forms were used asif they were MB form scores. ETS Converted Scores have been used in many of the tabulations in this report, in order to make the scores on the two forms more nearly comparable. *rorrsimolIMINIVAOMMININDKIrfOr3mmeor oraurmnareworroborrourrsoorralwrammoar*Wonoroltre IIIIIMOVZIPm."4.....rw ...... * ItatraingWeir Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Test Score from Three Predictor Variables, N = 117 PCVs (Group Tat''. 37 A) Mao Took Variable".. r: a Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training .11.Z111111111MIONIMMIKROM.4111111MMIMIIM Predictor Variables I AllMNIAIIMInimIlarrIMINBIIININIMMINMlommoloOPONIMPOnoloas1101.114 2 3 4 5 6 Criterion Variables 7 11111111111111111 8"rinommormor 16 11 Mean:S.D.: 55.0529.12 70.8417.12 ..9.045.1.14 .0.844.12 0.864.11 0.973.91 1.043.41 32.54 7.49 56.17 9,96. ,10.84 33.83 ' 3440 6.42 1,,PArAimNFO-Test 1 1.00Intercorrelations .29 .65 1 .15 .22** .32** Beta-Weights .45** .41** .40 ** ,m)** ..67 ** 'r -44tSection PlaCeaant Score 32 Validity Coefficients Mult. N4 .61- .65.29 1.00 .15 1.00 .15 32 .51**.00 .61.44**.02 -.06 ,36**..60 .56.15.00 .53..00.210 .28**.68.20* .33** -.7; .06 .03;..61.09 SelfSelf-Rating:Self- - Rating:Rating: UnderstandingSpeakingResiding 654 .51.48.54 .15.12.09 .60.56.59 21 .00 .00.01 .00.01 iris/eights.00.02 .09.10 .16.14 .21.19 .01. Self-Listening Rating: FormAVM F3 (or _ILO Writing, 87 .55.47 .33.15 .30.44 Inter- 3 .05 .04 .04 .02 .00 42 607 PACTGainReading' Farm Score BForm (PACT) MB forma 1011 9 -.60 .64.61 -.16 .43.49 -.34 .50.44 cept 1.40 1.47 1.53 1.62 20.26 25.33 4.69 40.22 011111Milr **p 4%01*p c .05 (significance levels given only for beta - SIVIINMNMIII" 4aMmlMormWMal.aftwormaloraftamislOIENONi%.,01Ora1111Onler gromoolorilarinimm arV .weights) "1110.1111111141.11111.11.1111110=11.111 arrraul arwororormarstriarreitallitafialagglati=2:41a Table 38 Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficiency Self-Ratings and Testfrom TwoScore Predictor Variables Variables, H sit 35 PCVs (Group B) Who Did Not Take a Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training .11101111101-1.111011/ Predictor Variables VNuMmrafalainITIONWAVOI01111/10~1N1~1 ANININ/Pa;MI.Criterion Variables t"a.".A..""an" 11.11101111111.11111MMINIIIMJNONIMI.Mean: 66.36 2 42.93 3 6401.1MO3.65 4 3.84 5 3.55 6 3.00 7 30.27' 51.47 8 . 27.47 10, 42.09 11. fammANIO10.00 EMIAT S.D.: 2Intercorrelations 21.15 1.00 7.20 .02 2 0.79 .45** 0.78 .32* 0.65 .16 Beta Weights1.08 .08. 7.65 .64** 10.10 .50** 10.27 .63** ,8e74 .03, Section Placement Score 3 Coefficients.02 Validity 1.00 Malt. 3 .49.19 .32.00 .16.01 -.04 .09 .68.22 .28*.58 .24*.68 -.21, 21 Self-Rating: UnderstandingSpeaking 45 .32.46 .00.20 2 ,,02 .01 .01 b-Weights .00 .23 .24 .30 .01 ListeningSelf-Rating:Self - Rating' Form MB (or MA) WritingReading 687 .65.08.16 -.04 .23.01 Inter- 3 1.64 .02 3.06 .00 3.09 .00 -.01 .23 .39 .35 -.26 PACTSamReading Form FormB MB (or MA) Score (PACT) 1110 9 +03.50.03 -.21 .25.28 cept 2.96 4.92 18.99 -7.59 52.21 gmANIIIIRK1111..*p <.05; **p <.01 (significance levels given only for beta weights), IMMIII111111.astlMINIVAIIII 4111011=111 ANIIMMIIft. IBIONNOVIVIIIIIMMONIMINIMNIMMOMMIL. IMO 7nr"15".'"-" "Ir..4,2151SagfarkinainatlataNZOnianWeglIalabln *.s-_ - -

-91-

Figure 6 is an attempt to depict the relationships in Tables 37 and 38 geaphicallye The left-hand half of the figure is identical to Figure 4 (page 47) that was drawn to show predictions of end-of-training language proficiency for individuals with elected combinations of predictor variable scores. In the right-hand half, the progreeelints of the left-hand half are continued to show the predicted levels of language peceLciency at the aidtour follow-up.Again, the "qualifying le el" is set at a score of 56.t on PACT Fora B, which for the purposes of this chart is assumed to be equivalent to °ACT Form A.

One advantage of such a graphical representation is that- it gives- some idea the relative amounts of gain during thetraining period and during the-field experience. It is evident that during the field experience the PCVs do not gain as rapidly in Spst.leh coupetence as they do during formal training.In fact, the rate of growth is not &City- ally as great as the chart may imply because the abscissa does not accurately show t;Lt length of time in the field (actually from 5 to 10 months).The smaller rate of ptoexees during the field experience can probably be ascribed partly to the fact thee the PC' eo net in genera/ devote much time to any concentrated stuffy of Spanish during this pereoit, what progress they sake being based on purely informal learning. Also, the smaller of growth in this later period corresponds to what would be expected for a aegatively accelerated learning curve.

Beyond this, the chart indicates that it is only those PCVs who had relatively hiee Spanish placement scores and/or relatively high language aptitude who can be predicted to attain the qualifying score level on PACT Form B at the midtour follow-up.

The interpretation of the data in Tables 37 and 38 is aided by a consideration of the intercorrelations of the criterion variables; the intercorrelation matrices are given in Tables 39 and 40.These tables show that the self-ratings of language proficiency tend to correlate fairly highly among themselves, but that they do not correlate highly with objective tests of language proficiency. Particularly notable are the intercorrelations of the self-ratings of speaking and understanding, which are .82 in Group A and .70 in Group B.Yet, these self-ratings correlate only moderately with-objective tests of listening comprehension.

At the same time, the objective measures of language proficiency at add-tour correlate quite highly among themselves. Evidently the objective measures and the self- ratings measure somewhat different aspects of proficiency. There is even a question as to which of these types of measure is more valid.It might be argued that the high intercorrelations between the Spanish placement score and the language aptitude test, on the one hand, and the objective proficiency tests, on the others; reflect a "method" rather than a "trait" variable, in the sense discussed by Campbell and Fiske (1959). That is, these intercorrelations could be regarded as arising out of the fact that they are correlaticns between patterns of behavior that are similar mainly because they are objective tests. It is difficult to believe, however, that performance on these objective tests is not to a substantial degree dependent on actual Spanish language competence. One is inclined to put more stock in the validity of thele objective tests than is that of the self- ratings, which are notoriously subject to various sources of bias.

If we add the questionnaire factor scores as predictors, it is possible to enhance the prediction of mid-tout language proficiency to a considerable extent.Tables 41 and 42 show the relevant data. For Group A, Interest in Foreign Languages makes a significant contribution to the prediction of the self-ratings of language proficiency.Perhaps this result is not particularly remarkable inasmuch as both types of variables involved ele self-reports.Nevertheless, the self-reports were made at widely spaced points of time, relatively speaking, and therefore cannot have very much spurious correlation. What is surprising is that Interest in Foreign Languages makes no significant contribution to the prediction of any of the objective proficiency variables, for either Group. What is more surprising is that it makes no significant contribution to the prediction of the Gain score (a measure of amount of gain from the end of training to the mid-tour ego

alit

001,

1.*

4**43 tinft

4.110.1. 4411 OM ...... OW

owe

ONO MMj

*01, allair S.

.110 iirt4i4147''.- ow.

OM or Ilea a. OM

gym

tor

ow.

Iwo 44441°21411707,4"tar(440.14..Ctioni.41.44

40. 01. 484%

Ow AIM "

ism ONO

a ono ...... MO t040, .....111.1.410.1.1.MI.110.1

4).0114,,fizi "1437% M43,4 mil.

...we rams (4) 0.... WI 10

1111* te-1741170444 ...... 0 iso ".. Om

.. Imo .1153 Nam O.*

toa9N ....111

...... I*... awl... '111a .. eamo 0010 xj 4319 wow

mom ...II."141 ."" ..... a ...... 4,41. ....4 le'lle"

,,,..."'I:S. iill

of 1 -93-

Table- -39:,.

Inti*OititlatlOnt Vaal in Table 37

O (N: GintsP':,-7i0b1 Took _a SPatilah

Test at the--Ottteet of TriiiMitiii)

.Criterion Sari bles

.Vitrisrile. 3 4

Self-Rating: Speik44 1 1.00 " Underntanding 2 .82 1.00

: Reading 3 .59 .63 1.00 _ 4 .59 .60 .78 1.00

Xis .x Pore Na, or EA 5 .29 .38 .34 .35 1.00

PACT MusD 6 .49 .57 .48 .50 .72 1.00

Reading 7 .40 .42 .49 .49 .73 .70 1.00 Gain Scorn (PACT) 8 -.35 -.26 -.29 -.34"-.13 -.09 -.32 1.00

Table 40

Intercorrelations of Criterion Variables Used in Table 38 (N - 55 ITV's, Group B1 Who Did Not Takea Spanish Placement Test at the Outset of Training)

111101111111M111==IMINIMI.111011110111111111iIIIMEM.

Criterion Variables

Criterion VariOle 1 2 4 5 6 7 8

Self-Rating:Speaking 1 1.00 n n : Understanding 2 .70 1.00 n : Reading 3 .47 .44 1.00 n n : Writing 4 .51 .37 .69 1.00 notating Tama MB or MA 5 .46- .34 .34 1.00

PACT Fora 3 6 .48 .43 .38 .32 .73 1.00

Reading 7 .41 .30 .43 .27 .75 .65 1.00 Gain Score (PACT) 8 .14 .29 .14 .11 .09 .50 -.02 1.00

rImIN9SW:eIsciNse: realdr)-01"..1.1CmgrOwcro

131651513040Milia- -94-

Tablit 41

RigrettiOn System Anilogoua to that of Table 37 but stith the.Additiett,-,of Questionnaire _Tagro*,_ Score* as Predietirre: 4104.Group A) NorAmirammrmmiAPitS

Variables1

7-- 8 10 11

40[6- 4.20 3.94 3.41:32.8957.0234.1434.78 S.D.: 0.86 0.82 1.00 1.04 7.52 9.7911.15 8.42

Predictor Variables Beta Weights

Placement Test Score 1 .03 .09 .26 .40** .34* .37** .45**-.65** MAT 2 -.09 -.06 -.16 -.16 .14 .26** .22* .06 Section Placement Score 3 .41**.44** .37*i .17 .05 .22* .11 .18

Interact in For. Langs. 32 .21* .16 .25* .25* -.02 -.07 .20 -.09

Compulsivity /3 -.13 -.17 -.09 -.02 -.08 -7%15 -.04 -.02 Andiuliugual Preference 14 .18 .15 .03 -.03 .1/ .17* Home Exposure 15 -.01 -.02 -.12 -.02 -.25*-.23**-.22**-.12

Milt. R.: .69** .73**.72** .64** .51** .75**.77** .66**

IE S.D. b-Heights

57.76 28.39 1 ..00 .00 .01 .01 .09 .13 .18 -.19

71.04 16.66 2 .00 -.00 -.01 -.01 .06 .15 .15 .03

54.10 8.53 3 .04 .04 .04 .02 .05 .26 .14 .17 325.88 140.29 12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 .02 -.01 210.76 100.01 13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 -.01 .00 .00

310.84 117.35 14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 -.01 111.88 145.49 15 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.01

Intercept 1.60 1.66 1.35 1.7321.4626.76 2.9639.80

*p < .05; **p < .01

1Criterion Variables: 1.Self-RatIng: Speaking to 2. : Understanding tt tt 3. : Reading tt 4. a Writing 5.ListeningForma (or MA) 6. PACT Form B 7. Reading Form MB (or HA) 8. Caiu Score (PACT) 95 o

eitiO: tci,ttifiet- iof-TabiO18:- lizt:.iltk.the: Addition Of_lhieeticinualre Victor 4c0704140'iSitittli-±Wil!

--Criterion,Veritbles 7 S 9 =

3.77 3.94 3.66 3.14 31.8953.20 29.57- -43.14

-P. 0.76 0.79,. 0.86 1.02 3.1.5 840 8.99 8.89

Bets4eigiits Prial4otittlablell -MAT 2 .33* :12 -.604 -.0(i .51** .:26 .43** -.13

BeCtion flacesient Score 3 .27 .05 .09 .00 AO .28 . .34* -.12 Intettet in For., Lenge: 12 .12 -.12 --417 -615 -.04 -.10 .03 7 ' CP11-0410iVitY 13 -.19 400 -.14 .15 ..11 ,17 -.06 Audiolingual Preference 14 .05 -.OS -.11 .19 .25 .23 .18 .07

Rieureiimosure 15 .01 -.26 -.23 -.33* -.31* -.17 -.25

Molt. R.: .56 .24 .29 .37 .75** .62* .68**.31

S.D. b4Teights 71.54 20.66 2 .01 .00 .00 .00 .13 .11 .19 -.06

41.29 7.41 3 .03 .01 .01 .00 .3.2 .33 .41 -.15 239.43 194.36 12 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 .00 -.01 .00 213.14 87.92 13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .02 -.01

280.29 99.92 14 .00 .00. .00 .00 .01 .02 .02 .01 83.46 148.89 15 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.01

1atercept 1.93 2.87 3.75 2.89 14.56 -26.40-6.3253.89

ICriterica Variables: 4. Self-PAting: 'Speaking 5. " " lkderitileding 6, " " : -Reeding .7. " " :Writing 8. Listening' Fors- -et' MA 9. PACT Font B 10.Res4ing _Para,m3(or M) Giii 5-64 (PACT) -96-

follow-up). One might have expected that thenwho reported particular interestin foreign language learning prior to PeaceCarps training would be thosewho would make nest progress in language learning when presented with the admirableopportunity to do so afforded by the experience in the hostcountry, but such is not thecase.

Prediction of Mid-Tour Lan_te_e Proficien from Start-of-Traini Data s .lemeeted b End-of-Traieel To Data

Considerable interest attachesto how well it would be possibleto predict mid-tour language proficiency from data that becomes available at the end oftraining. Such data in zany instances may have been crucial in determining whether thePeace Corps trainee is ready to be assigned to the field; there is a problem as to whetherthese Cate are valid for such use.

Relevant results from this study are given in Tables 43 (for Group A, thattook the Spanish placement-test) and 44 (forGroup B, that did not take theSpanish placement test). It should be noted, however, that in the construction of these tablesthere was a further loss of cases due to incomplete dataon some ofthe.predictor variables used, particularly the intermediate and final assessments.Therefore, only the validityco- efficients and multiple correlationsare *hewn, rather than the complete regression system (beta weights and b-weights). From these otatistics it isat least possible to gain an impression of the usefulness of the various predictor variables. Particular interest attaches to the usefulness of the end-of-training variablesbecause the valid,. ity of the start-of-training variables has already been thoroughly examinedabove. For Group A (students who took a Spanish placement test, Table 43), theIntermedi- ate Assessments (made by Spanish instructors halfway through the training)showed very low validity in predicting PCVs' self-ratings of competence af themid-tour follow-up. They did, however, fairly well predict test scores in auditorycomprehension at mid- tour, with validity coefficients rangingfrom .22 to .56. Ratings of fluency in make imatended to show higher validities than ratings of comprehension,and assessments of "rate of progress" tended to be leas valid than out-and-outratings of level of competence.

. Again for Group A, the Final Assessments showed very little validityin predicting mid-tour competence, either as self-rated or as tested objectively. Indeed, some of the correlations were negative.One can only speculateon why these Final Asecesaents by the language training staff were so invalid. (We have alreadyseen, in Chapter 6, that they had low intercorrelations with end-of-training objective tests.) In any case, these reel:Ate tend to raisea question about any use of FinalAssessment, in determining trainee/19 fitness for overseas duty with respect to languagecompetence.

The results for Group B (Table 44) are rather different,however. Both Intermedi- ate and Final Assessments were fairly valid predictors of mid-tourlanguage competence. It is difficult to account for the differences betweenGroup A and Group B in thisre- spect.Examination of the means and standard deviations for theassessment variables scotches the obvious hypothesis that there was a highermean assessment in Group A anda consequent restricted variance in these assessments. In fact, Groups A and B donot differ significantly en any of the assessment variablemeans, and the variances are quite comparable.

End-of-training objective proficiency tests were good predictors ofmid-tour tested language proficiency, in both groups A and R. If we ignore the possibilitythat the high correlations are simply an artifact of the methodof measurement, the magnitude of the correlations is probably best interpretedas indicating simply that within thespan of some five to ten monthe in the field, there is not enoughtime for the relative positions of the PCVs to change very much in their language competence.Although, as we have seen, considerable improvement in language competence takesplace during the field tour, the rate of improvement is embizthe same for all PCVs. The only possible exception to this statement comes when we consider the correlationsof the end-of-training proficiency tests with the amount of min that occurred whenmeasured by the PACT (Pic- Vlaitanimintmas lanum14mmawoommmalwregroMinowl1WfWorte1amMIGVOPWW111.106%....01C74.111111W1M7Nwsimemas 0 Table: 43 - ' . N Prediction of Kid-Tour 89from PCVs Various (Croup 'Start-Of AY.WhO Training., .Tott..a.SpanWPlatementr.Test at the Outaet OkCir:10,14, Mu 52 for last pOur,..Pred.tctare. in Table)/amylase Prafi4imitylsii-;Iitinge End4p,araining.: and ItorlY Met 84:0!Vati Vari\ki*: is `;,',Predittors IMMO.57 , Appolivameramesulalliongedamisievasmsesum. scSizetionflacament.1411*±,'",' ?Llamas= Test Score 32 .60.08.46 .14.60.53 .59.99.56 .43.17.56 .35 r. ;45.60 .444 c!,1.29 . Sate-izerimadiate :skf: Trogssmas.' Assessments: -Speaking n 41 ComprehenalonApsaking 7654 .04.i9.09.23 .09.24024.27 -.01 .18.05.28 .02.12.27.35 .14.46.36.52 .25.38.41 :.19.23.30 -!.3.5-.27 . Adequacy MI'Ur:Overseas* Speaking . MI 41 tc 9 :Comprehension p 'Comprehension 98 .16.20 .31.28 .18 .30 .51.56 .36.45 ..14;28 , -.13 13 -Final..,-i- Amsessments;., Rate -,of Leval4fclauency, -Progress*, , 'Speaking SpeakingIt" ., It" et 9 Comprehension 121110 *06.13.07 -.01 .06.04 *10.04.06 .10.12.10 ..28. .22.16 :. -.16 ;07.0I3 ..08 014.14 ..m..11-.23-*17 Adequacy 'forn -Oveiseas, 'Speaking " , " ".,,Cospreherinion . Comprehens ion 2514.23 -.03 .11.10 -.07 .03.02 -.01 .04.03 -402-.04 .01 .18.16.19 .16.13.06 ,.12.10.16 ''..;..05..r.107.06 ;Proficiency Tests (End.IEReading'PACT ofSpeakingEListeningA ,-. Train:We N . l281716 .52.55.50.58 .44.57.53.60 .39.$3.60.54 .56.59.50.52 .50.72.69.13 .76.56.76.71 .79.53.74.77 .t.;.50-.66-.54 Self-Ratings. First-Speaking Monti:ReadingUnderstanding in Field: 212220 .41.64 .66.44 .59.57 .62.59 .54 .58 .51 -.43-.47 ONENIALIUSILMOMtlMultiple II fres boy 23 variables 23 .64.83 .69.82 .57.77 .75.61 .48.46.56.82 152.4w,;*.w.83.53.62 -.41 ',.65 .58.56 -.39-.44 .76 IMMNINOWIIMIIMMD BScMultiple' R from AudiolingualCompulsivityInterest in PreferenceForeign Languages 2"2....32...... 3).3262524 -.40 .44.47 -.42 .43.49 -.44 .35.52 -.35 .20.50 .15.40 04 -.44- .24.44 .57.14 -.28-.35 .26 eovti' 27 variables e....ftoura...... ;...... 87 .89 1111111111.11111111.1011 .90 .84 .86 .82 %11111111W .94 .84

-99-

torial Auditory Comprehension Test). In Group A, these correlations are all significantly negative. It is possible that this means there is a ceiling effect in the measurement of linguistic Competence by the PACT, for evidently those who are initially high on the PACT gain least, while those who are initially low on the PACT (at the end of training) gain most during the field experience.If the PACT test were a better measuring instrument for discriminating among levels of ability at the top. end of the scale, these negative correlations might not have occurred.In Group B, very little such effect is to be noticed.There, only PACT A shows any noticeable negative correlation with the gain score, and this is barely significant at the 5Z level.This is probably because members of Group B approached the ceiling of the PACT B test. For Group B, then, the amount of gain in competence during the field experience is not very predictable from end -oftraining language proficiency scores. Relative standing in language competence remains approximately the same from the end of training to the mid- tour point, but the actual amount of gain the PCV will make, within broad limits, is not predictable from end-of-training data except in the case of Group A, where the crucial element is hoe far from the ceiling of the PACT test the individual is at the end Of training. i Self-ratings of their language competence as the PCVs Xemember it stood when they first arrived in the field are good predictors of mid-tour self-ratings only in the case of Group A, with validities ranging from .40 to .69. In Group B, the validities range from -.19 to .48. These two self-reports were made at the same time (i.e., at the mid-tour follow-up); the low correlations for Group B can only mean that.Group B was highly variable in the amount of progress they thought, they had made in acquiring fluency in Spanish. In contrast, Group A tended to have much the same opinions (at least, relative to each other) of their abilities for the first month in the field as for the time of the mid-tour testing. In the case of Group A, also, the self-ratings for the first month in the field are quite good predictors of the scores on the mid- tour objective proficiency tests.

A certain limited amount of data on Questionnaire Factor Scores are available for the mid-tour groups. The numbers of cases are small, and the results do not present a very consistent picture. The validities of the factor scores in predicting mid-tour criterion variables are higher in Group A than in Group B.All four questionnaire factor scores show some significant amount of correlation with at least one of the criterion variables in Group A. The best language learner, according to these data, is the person who is interested in foreign languages, is not compulsive about trying to do well in everything, has a preference for learning audiolingually (rather than by studying principally the written language), and has some exposure tothe language at home. Group A, it will be remembered, was composed primarily of people who had already had some training in Spanish before joining the Peace Corps.Apparently it was these traits of interest, non-compulsivity, audiolingual preference, and favorable home environment that provided the Group A students with the added push to work hard to improve their knowledge of Spanish beyond what they had initially. These traits apparently did not have any influence on learning in Group B, where language aptitude was the critical variable (as may be seen clearly in Table 43, where MCAT has validity coefficients against mid-tour proficiency tests as high as .81). In fact, in Group B, there is a nearly significant negative correlation of -.36 for the home exposure factor score vs. the gain score variable.

Prediction of Mid-Tour Lan ufte Proficienc from End -of- Training Data

For some purposes it may be useful to have regression systems available for the prediction of mid-tour language proficiency solely from data that can be collected at the end of training. Table 45 gives such a regression system based solely upon three language proficiency tests given at the end of training and computed to show separate predictions for each of four language proficiency variables at the mid-tour follow-up for all available cases with complete data. The multiple correlations for the three . Table 45 , 'll'. . . ,. Prediction of Mid-tour Language Proficiency from Endfof-,training TesVScores .N 172, "Qualified" and "Non4qualified" Groups COiacd s ., , ;: lie .Predictor Variables1 2 4 5 6.' .7 , bi."2S.D.: 173.14 13.44 173.35 15.09 47.60.13.75 3' 181.16. 8.89 183.4.8 13.35 '10;28,54:43 *ReadingListening MA1 ,MA1 21 1.00 Intercorrelations .79 .88 1-2 ....AG .61** .45**'Beta 'Weights .27* PACT A 3 .88.79 1.00. .84 1.00 .04. Mult. R: , 3 .22 ..06.31**.78 .75.05' listeningYleading MB' 2181 54 Validity Coefficients .73.75 .71.57 .72.68 21 .40 .45 broweights .04.20 .04.2. GainPACT B 76 -.51 .71 -.53 .65 -.66 .74 Inter- estcept 3 114.24 -.06 .14 55.87 -3.21 .34 2666 -.66 **p < .01Converted*p < .05 (significancescores. levels given only for Beta weights) nolevorawarwora~, Some cases were given Form MA instead of MB at the Mid-tour 6.05 follow-up. 8.28 6,,78 ;111111111144141111111144M1111411111111111111111111.1116 6.75 ` 4...... *****..- 11. .1.1.41.11111401MIRWILIM -101- test variables range from .73 to .78. The multiple correlation for predicting-the amount of gain in listening proficiency during the field experience is .68, but it should be noted that this prediction is mainly dependent upon elgvalysiweighting of the end-of-training PACT scare, showing that the amount of gain is actually primarily a function of how far the PCV at the end of training.had to go.That is, those who were poorest in language proficiency at the end of training gained moat, on the avercge.

It is noteworthy that the beta weights show that there are specific relationships between the two forms of the MLA Cooperative Listening Test and between the two forms of the PACT. Evidently these.rdo tests measure slightly different aspects of listening proficiency.On the other hand, performance on Form B of the Reading test is predicted somewhat better from the Form A Listening test than from the Form A Reading test.

On page 91 it was noted that self-ratings of language competence may reflect a slightly different dimension from what is measured by objective tests.To explore this matter further, Table 46 was prepared to show a regression system based upon bothob- jective teats and self-ratings pertinent to the end of training as predictors, and also, both objective tests and self-ratings at-the mid-tour follow-up as criterion variables.

The first set of self-ratings were actually rendered at the time of the aid -tour follow-up, but they were retrospective and referred to the first month in the field, i.e. shortly after the end of training. That,they were valid reflections of language competence at the end of training is suggested by the fact that, as me may see inTable 46, these retrospective ratings were more highly correlated with objective test scores at the end of training than with objective test scores attained at the time of themid- tour follow-up. The correlations of the ild-tour sell- ratings with the end-of-training and mid-tour objective proficiency test variables are as follows:

Mddtour Self-Ratings (N = 172) Listening Speaking Reading Writing End-of-Training: Listening MA .54 .50 .44 .44 n " " Reading MA .54 .48 .53 .47 II Is 11 PACT Form A .57 .51- .50 .51

Nidtour: Listening MB .42 .46 .37 .40 $1 Reading MB .50 .47 .50 .47 PACT Form B .53 .55 .47 .47 if PACT Gain -.26 -.14 -.21 -.24

The midtour ratings tend to be correlated slightly more highly with the end-of-training test scoren than with the midtour test scores, a finding that possiblyindicates that the midtour self-ratings reflect aelf-concepts of language competence formed at the end of tralY;.ag and relatively unaffected by the field experience.

Nevertheless, that the self-ratings measure some aspects of language competence that are not measured by the objective tests is again suggested by the fact that for the prediction of midtour self-ratings, the corresponding retrospective end-of-training self-rating has the only significant beta-weight (see Table 46).That is, the retrospective self-rating of listening is the best predictor of the mid-tour self-rating of listening, the retrospective self-rating of speaking ability is the best predictor of the mid-tour self-rating of speaking ability, etc.

Only in the case of the midtour test of Reading ability does retrospective end- of-training self-rating make any significant contribution to prediction, and this self- rating, not surprisingly, is that of Reading ability. Furthermore,-even though the end-of-training objective tests are correlated substantially with the midtour self- Wri611..14000k0.". TIWICIMIRarr.Senalle " Prediction of Mid-Tour Language Proficiency Table 46 Self-Ratings and Test Score Variables from N m 272, "Qualified" and "Non-Qualified" mmwomommeW.N 1 Data Pertaining to End-of-Training Groups Combined Mean: fti0.0!1W.,,OIM/MMME..,./..02.59 0....w,em.troverms...... ww.w.....wwwraftwos1 2.31 2 2.66 3 Predictors2.23 4 173.14 5 173.35 0 47.60 7 3.98 8 4.03 9 .rm....ma.rwmewwwwmwtgM".3.81 10 3.30'11 Criteria 181.16 12 183.48 54.85 13 14 ,ft. 37.24 15 Self-Rating, let Month: Listening S.D.: 1 1.221.00 1.19 .84 1.22 .70 Intercorrelations 1.23 .67 13.44 .65 15.09 .69 13.75 .74 1 C.86 .38** .03 0.85 -.020.95 Beta-weights1.08 .11 -.068.89 13.35 .10 10.28 .01 9,25 .00 Listening MA1 WritingReadingSpeaking 5432 .65.67.70.84 1.00 .65.65.69 1.00 .59.84.69 1.00 .58.84.65 1.00 .58'.59.65 .79.67.68.70 .88.65.63.72 5432 -.07 ,17.06.14 .19.04.00.42** -.11 -.06 .04.43**,-.04.05 .49**.07 -.06-.01 .61**.02 -.18 .44**.25* -.0/-.02 .26*.07 -.06-.02 .08 PACTReading A MA1 76 .74.69 .72.70 Validity.63.68 Coefficients .65.67 .88.79 1.00 .84 Mult.1.00 .84 76 .65.02.04 .o7.00 .72.16.13 -.09 .F2.22 -.05 .74.26 .79.11.29** .76.46**.07 -.98* .68.08.29* ,*CD Self-Rating, Mid-Tour: ListeningReadingSpeaking 10 98 .49.52.63 .50.59.60 .61.45.48 .55.43.48 .44.50.54 .53.48.54 .50.51.57 321. -.05 .10.27 .00.30.02 -.01 .34.04 -.04 b-weights.09 " -.44-.46 .11 -2.01 2.731.05 -.18 .57.05 -.16 .58.03 PACTReadingListening Form ME MB(or (or MA)1 MA)1 Writing 14131211 .55.56.45.53 .56.52.47.51 .46.56.39.54 .45.49.39.62 .71.75.73.44 .65.71.57.47 .74.72.68.51 7654 .00.01.04 .00.01.03 -.01 .01.03 -.01 .02.00.43 -.03-.09 .17.40 -2.00 .10.44.26 -.62 .34.05.20 -.66-.63 .05.20 Gain on PACT 15 -.48 -.45 -.42 -.46 -.51 -.53 Intercept -.66 rest .65.83 1.23 .67 2.14 .72 3.13 .82 110.52 5.96 57.41 -4.608.14 6.68 25.40 6.75 1Converted*p < .05; **pscores. < .01 (Significance levels Some cases were given Form MA instead of given only for 0-weights) MB at the midtour follow-up. AIM144.114=111.11011110110. 11=ww .111M 1 ..1 .4firiennikm. -103-

ratings, in no cese does an end-of-training objectivetest make any unique contribution to the prediction of a midtour self-rating.

MIDTOUR DMA COLLECTED FROM PCVs TRAINED INPORTUGUESE

As noted earlier, midtour datawere collected from only one small contingent of PCVs trained in Portuguese and assignedto duty in Brazil.The results obtained from the field questionnaire are so similar in their general character to those analyzedfor the PCVs trained in Spanish that itseems hardly worthwhile giving any detailed account of them. The Portuguese-trained PCVs reportedabout the same amount of difficulty with language problems on arriving in the fieldas the Spanish-trained students, if account is taken of their respective levels oftraining. They made much the same kinds of recommendations about possible changes in the languagetraining program. The duties to which they were assigned were in generalsimilar to those already described for the Spanish-trained contingents, except that itmay be noted that a much larger proportion of the Portuguese-trained PCVswere assigned to teaching duties, largely the teaching of English.

Table 47 gives the means and standard deviationsof various predictor and criterion variables for 24cases for whore data were complete. The only test which affords any possibility of indicating the amount ofprogress in Portuguese during the field experience is the PACT, and here the comparisonwould appear to indicate that therewas actually a loss in competence in Portuguese. Unfortunatelir, no data are available to show how comparable Forms A and " of thePortuguese PACT tre; therefore,even this comparison is not interpretable withany degree of definitilaness. If large numbers of the Portuguese-trained PCVswere assigned to the teaching of English,as would appear to be the cases, a loss in Portuguese during the fieldexperience could be accounted for by disuse of the skills acquired duringtraining.Yet, as may be seen from Table 48, self-ratings of language skills showedconsiderable improvement from the first month of field experience to the midtourfollow-up.By the time of the midtour follow- up, for example, 20 out o2 31, or 64.5%, rated their abilityto speak as either "a lot" or "very much."Furthermore, Table 49 shows that 13out of the 31, or 41.9%, reported no adverse effects of language problemson job performance at the midtour point.

Table 50 presents correlations betweenpredictor and in-field achievement variables. Because of the small number ofcases (N = 24), interpretation must be limited to an appraisal of the patterns of relationships,which are in general similar to those found for Spanish-trained PCVs.

The language aptitudescore taken at the start of training shows enly moderate validity in predicting in-field Portugues.! achievement; its highest validity is inpre - dicting reading achievement:. Section number in trainiag has slightlyhigher validity than language aptitude. Of the factor scoaes derived from theForeign Language Ques- tionnaire, only Interest tends to shayany appreciable predictive validity. The end- of-training Portuguese achievementtests are rebstantially correlated with in-field achievement tests, an one might expect (in-fieldReading achievement being particularly well predicted).

As in the case of the data analyzedfor PCVs with assignments in Spanish-speaking countries, the amount of gain from end-of-trainingto the mid-tour testing was essentially correlated asativelz with end-of-trainingscores. It is unlikely that this result reflects a "ceiling effect" wherebythe infield achievement test did notmeasure the upper levels of achievement withsufficient precisiont because itmay be observed that few individuals attained near-perfectscenes on the in-field achievement tests. Rather, it seems to reflecta tendency for those with least satisfactory language achievement at the end of training to gainmore than those who reached the field already possessing a satisfactory levelof language competence. Presumably the former PCVs were under more pressure to improvethemselves than the latter.

SIMaglata klOa2a.=a1KMP.ORNIMIR rie:c..011...moarprocem4 VgaRROPMSCeWMWOORAIF -104-

Table 47

-Means and*Standard Deviatioaa of Predictorand Critirion

Variabless, PCVs. Trained in Portuguese (Nm 24)

Mean S.D.

At start of training:

EMLAT 76.4 -15.9

Section Number 3.3 1.6

Factor Scores:

Interest 231.8 126.6

Cogipulsivity 246.6 97.3

Audiolingual Preference 209.2 97.6

:Home Exposure 84.2 127.7

End-of-training:

EListening 245.8 10.8

EReading 264.3 18.0-

PACT A 43.1 9.4

Midtcur:

Listening Form MB 24.6 6.6

Reading Form NB 26.5 10.4

PACT B 34.1 9.2

me.1711..11.

, Table 48

Sell Ratings of Language:ProfiCtOcyZniikg1Firat Month in the Field and at MidtaUr Foilow_.upP69i Trained in

Portuguese (N at 31)

First-No: Mid-Tour

N Z N lvmmimta Amalilt .IID.

..Smant

Very little 2 6.5 0 0.0 Same 12 38.7 0 0.0 Quite a bit 38.7 10 32.2 A lot 3 9.6 13 41.9 7ery much 2 6.5 7 22.6 No response X 3.2

Understand Very little 9 29.0 0 0.0 Some 171 22.6 3 9.6 Quite a bit 35.5 8 25.8 A lot 4 12.9 13 41.9 Very much 0 0.0 6 19.4 No response 1 3.2

1 Read

¶ery little 4 12.9 0 0.0 Some 13 41.91 4 12.9 Quite. a bit 10 32.2 9 290 A lot 2 6.5 13 41.9 Very much 2 6.5 4 12.9

No response 1. 3.2 Write Very little 8 25.8 1 3.2 Some 12 38.7 6- 19.4 Quite a bit 8 25.8 14 45.1 A lot 2 6.5 6 19.4 Very such 1 3.2 3 9.6 No response 1 3.2

W/S;K01,7=1 Jf...em, NOMMINNIWWW110.-

..41y4pprowsessewariVismotaromm-s-,Trr...... -....."fr., rr m0 ' 1 I' i",,i'' I'l * 7'I''''':,4' ' '/.4)' 9' ';'''':,? , -", , I, " i ,J ;-; ' ,-.- , Iftl ''/, -,,'--- ,, . , , - , , . 2 J .4,-- -, f imiri:6le-7 41 , ...',4 (Jr . ^ - -,--,-;,-_---rz.rri. , /4

'aeLPIZ=1:c_Mteszimvm...... 1

. Table 49

Effect of Language Proble4s on Job-Performance during the First Month in the Field and at the Mid 'hour Follow-up, PCVs Trained in Portuguese (N a, 31)

First Month At Mid-Tour in Field Follow-up

No use of Portuguese Get by with English. 5 16.2 1 3.2

No adverse effect Competence equal to demand 1 3.2 11 35.5 Competence superior 'to &mand 2 6.4 2 6.4

Adverse effect Small 18 58.0 16 51.6 Considerable 5 16.2 1 3.2 h1 mmillme0 w

31 100.0 31 99.9

Table 50

Validity Coefficients for Several Variables in PredLiting Mid-Tour Language Proficiency, N = 24 rCVs Trained in Portuguese

Criterion Variables fl ListeningReading PACT Gain Predictor Variables Form11.../ MB Form MB Form B on PACT

Start-of-TrainIaw EMLAT .36 .61* .18 -.24 Section Number (reflected) .50* .64** .35 -.21

Factor Scores: Interest .29 .49* .44 -.24 Compulsivity .16 -.18 .15 .38 Audiolingual '?reference .11 .10 -.07 -.07 Home Exposure -.07 .08 .09 -.16

End-of-T: aining: EListening .54* .75** .40 -.46* EReading. .15 .45* .1.7... -.06 PACT A .49* .73** .54* -.50* oWN4.NOMMOM4.,.41MMOwZ "rarer...NM =7MINIWT..ft.MO.W=Mm.Miifal *p < .05; **p < .01 (Two-tidied test)

_ IrillrraiXerrA ,--7-'17-77777-7:77 7 . 411,1;417rFirarfigggR,1471,7,""""rAl; ; 4-zirf 14'1 1

47; :P7rtir; , 14gneveseuregeorueot .-*. reee -74.---"-eeee=e17-71

-107-

Because of the small numbers of cases involved, it isnot considered useful to report multiple regression analyses of these data.

SUMMARY

Out of the 336 students of Spanish and 48 students ofPortuguese who were studied at the end of training, 176 PCVs assigned to Spanish-speakingcountries and 31 assigned to a Portuguese-speaking country were followedup and tested in the field, some five to tea months after they had arrived in the hostcountry.Because of the larger numbers involved, most'of the results reported in this chapterare from the PCVs trained in Spanish.

In the In-Field Questionnaire, they were askedto assess their competence in the foreign language and zhe effect of language problemson job performance when they first arrived in the field. About two-thirds of the group reported thatat that time language problems had at least some adverse effect on their job performance.Their responses were used to set a "qualifying level" on the language proficiencytests that had been administered at the end of training, such thatthe qualifying level optimally differentiated those who reported some or considerable adverseeffects of language problems from those who reported that theircompetence was equal or superior to the demand.

During the course of the field experience, however,considerable progress in overcoming language problems was reported by thegroup. Those who were already competent in Spanish at the outsee of the field tour took onlya month or so, on the average, to adjust completely to the linguistic demands of theirjobs in the host country.Those who had not reached the qualifying levelon the proficiency tests at the end of training took on the average five months toovercome the difficulty of being noticeably

halting and non-fluent in speaking Spanish. .

At the time of the midtour follow-up, the majority of the PCVs,even those who had not initially reached the qualifying level on the end-of-trainingproficiency tests, rated their abilities in spoken Spanish as quite high. Only 10% of the initially "qualified" group reported any adverse effects of languageproblems on job performance, and only 50% (as compared with 94% at the time of arrival in the field)of the initially "non-qualified" group reported such problemsat all. Still, there were a few PCVs even at the time of the midtour follow-up who apparently were not using Spanish in their work at all, and 9% of the initially "non-qualified"group were still reporting "considerable" adverse effects of language problemson job performance.

At the time of the midtour inquiry, the majority of the PCVsabout 73% of them-- thought the length of the training program had beenproper; 23%, however, thought it should have been longer, and 4% thought it should have been shorter.A very large number of the respondents thought that regardless of the lengthof the training program, there should have been even more emphasis than therewas on speaking and listening training, as well as on the development of vocabulary.

Language competence at the midtour point was tested objectively bymeans of alternate forms of tests that had also been given at the end of training. On these tests, those who were already at qualifying levels at the end of trainingshowed little or no progress, except in reading levels.The remainder, i.e., those who had not met qualifying levels by the end of training, made considerable gains, althoughprogress did not appear to be as rapid as it had been during the period of formal training.Whereas 1.6% of the initially "non-qualified" groupwere technically above the qualifying level on one of the tests at the end of training, 28.7% were above this levelat the midtour testing, and the majority of the remainder were not far behind.Nevertheless, progress was very good when compared with norms for the performance of college students studying Spanish. Ninety-six per cent of the initially "non-qualified" PCVs badscores on the advanced ("M") form of the Cooperative Listening Test thatwere above the median for second-year college norms. Even if not all the "non- qualified" group attained the

mannnimummaamwraregowww...... ,* Pr a .~.~.0 OmOVNlIPM Ime**14 0440114^9111/4112141 IIGNICZ*A.10 "MIRO elIM let; -108-

rathet high qualifying levelt set on-the proficiency tests, most of themwere clearly .4-"tar'rAttead of the performance of the typical gradgate_of,atwo -year college course in

It was shown that even-theagh objective proficiency testa didnot do a particular - lg job Of identifying thoseVhd-Vauld report adverse effects of languagedefici- encies on job performance at the tidtodr-Voint&.scoreson the test were associated with the probability of making such reports:

It was found that language proficiency at the midtour testingcould bepredicted quite wellwith multiple correlations ranging up to .72--from data availableat the start of training.The patterns of relationships *were highly similar to those fouad for the predidtion of language proficiency at the end of the formaltraining period:-- For persons who already had some-knowledge of Spanish, language proficiencyat the mid- tour testing was primarily dependent upon the level of proficiency measuredat the start of training, and only secondarily upon language aptitude and other variables. For persuas who had no knowledge of-Spanish at the outset of training, languageaptitude as caesura by the lic4dern language Aptitude Test wasa strong predictor. Certain questionnaire factor scores made small but significant contributions for. certaingroups. Aside from the initial level of language profiCiency, therewere no good predictors of the amount of gain in language competence the PCV would make during the fieldexperience.

Statistical data are also given to show how midtour language competence could be predicted from combinations of data from the start of training and the end oftraining, and from data from the end of training alone. BINIVIM1...a...1111.....=1.1

-109 -

Chapter 8

Studies of Attrition

left During the data-gathering period ofthis study there were many students who with dif- the Peace Corps for various reasons.The present study of attrition deals ferences in language aptitude and proficiencyprior to Peace Corps enlistment among those Who left four groups of trainees: those who left during the training program, those who left at the end of the trPining programand before assignment to the field, after field assignment but before the mid-tourappraisal, and those who were still in the service at the time of the in-fieldfollow-up. Language aptitude was measured by EMLAT- scores and, for students ofSpanish, prior linguistic proficiency wasmeasured by Section Placement scores.

ANALYSIS OF ATTRITION FOR STUDENTS OF SPANISH

for Means and-standard deviationsof EMLAT scores and Section PlaCement scores -The cases in our sample; --categorized by withdrawal status, aregiven.inTable 51. status differences in language'aptitude amongthe four main groups defining withdrawal trend is the expected are statisticallysignificant-- = 3.44; p < .025), and the 446 the one; i.e., those with lowerlang aptitude scores are more likely to leave Peace Corps during or at the end oftrebling than are those with higherlanguage-apti- durhg,training group," those who left because of tude scores.Within the "terminated language ineptitude score significantlylowei'm the language aptitude test than do those who left for other reasons(t = 2.33, p < .e ).

The differences among the withdrawalstatus groupsl e prior Spanishproficiency Those who left the are also statisticallysignificant (F3,449 si 5.81, p < . Peace Corps during or at the end oftraining were less proficnt in Spanish, as meas- were those who ured by section placement, beforeenlisting in the Peace Corps t left soon after field assignment or whowere-still in service. Thos who were termin- -oficient in ated for language ineptitude duringtraining were also initially less Spanish than those who were terminatedfor other reasons during training k 3.71, p < .05).

Withdrawal Aptitude, by EMLAT Table 52 reports the percentage ofstudents in each withdrawal category score for each of twoPrior ProficiencyGroups.' There is a significant relationship of ser- between knowledge of Spanish prior toPeace Corps enlistment and termination Thirty-eight per cent of vice before the midtour follow-up(x2 = 6.5760, p < .02). I the end of the-Students without prior knowledgeof Spanish left the Corps during or at left within training, while twenty-five percentof those with prior Spanish knowledge small and the same time period.The percentages of early field terminations were equal for the two groups (5.1%). tendency for If we consider all 436 cases withEMLAT scores, there is a slight

01111i1MINIOIMIMMINO 1The records of all cases were examined to see whetherthere was any evidence Know- that they had some prior knowledgeof Spanish. Cases were assigned to the Prior ledge group if they met one or mare ofthe following conditions:

1. A Spanish Placement Test score wasavailable. 2. They had taken one or more coursesin Spanish prior to Peace Corpsenlistment. 3. They had Spanish-speaking parents.

ARM=MmwWmeg=;mo

14';474,1.....,'.- t. s.

-110-

Table 51

Mean Language Aptitude and SPS Scores,By Time and Reason

for Separation, as Compared to Datafor Those Still in Service

ememawaribareammalimenamanw MAT SPS =0

SD H S SD le.iarated During Training

3 for Language Ineptitude 6 46.8 17.5 6 26.0 6.9 for Lack of Motivation 12 62.2" 13.6 13 49.5 8.2 Temporary or Permanent Withdrawal 6 63.3 26.9 6 45.7 23.5

for Personal Unsuitability 43 66.3 14.6, 45 45.0 12.2 Miscellaneous 10 52.4 17.9- 10 44.2 10.8

Total 74 62.1 17.6 80 44.3 13.6

Sear.....2.-----"tEnci912-----Arrainin for Language Ineptitude 1 40.0 1 30.0 for Lack ofMotivation 2 72.0 26.0 2 52.5 9.0 for Personal Unsuitability 49 63.0 14.6 50 47.9 9.9 Miscellaneous 7 68.0 20.1 7 48.7 8.1

Total 59 63.5 15.3 60 47.9 10.0

Separated in Field'Service

for Personal Adjustment 10 73.3 27.0 10 44.2 14.1 Miscellaneous i9 71.3 16.7 19 53.2 14.9

Total. 29 72.0 20.9 29 50.1 15.2

Still in Service (at raid -Tour Follow-up)

288 67.7 179 284 50.1 9.9

Tosa1SLEI__mle (Entrants into Training) !450 66.5 17.9 453 46.8 10.7 =1/No701MEN OZMI/00110INN/1/iMMIM 11114.7. ,31/......

WANsiminmmummgremw.mm twoorrevire=101410:01111111.111MNIOr, Table 52

Withdrawal Status, EmitGrottps, and Pe.or Proficiency A. Cises with No Prior Spanish .11,... R." Scores 0- 50- k 67- 84- 49 66 83 119 None Total Withdrawal Status N 7,NZNLNZNINZ During Training Language Ineptitude 3 8.8 1 2.6 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.2 Personality Unsuitability 2 5.9 4 10.3-11 18.5 1 5.0 2 33.3 20 12.7 Miscellanelus 2 5.9 3 7.7 3 5.1 0 0.0 2 33.3_10 6.3 Total 7 20.6 8 20.5 15 25.4 1 5.0 4 66.7 35 22.2 Ind of Training, Language Ineptitude 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 Peisonality Unsuitability 6 17.6 6 15.4 8 13.6 2 10.0 0 0.0 22 13.9 Miscellaneous 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0, 2 1.3 Total 7 20.6 6 15.4 10 16.9 2 10.0 0 0.0 25 15.8 Early Field Total 1 2.9 0 0.0 7 11.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.1 Total Terminated 15 44.114 35.9 32 54.2 3 15.0 4 66.7 68 43.0 Still in. Service at MidtoUr19 55.925 64.127 45.817 85.0 2 33.3 90 57.0 All cases 34 100.039100.0 59 100.020100.0 651.13576--

IIIIMMIEL11: B. Cases with Prior Spanish

IWNIIIMINOMIIMEMAIMMEIMI Raw Scores 0- 50- 67- 84- 49 65 83 119 None Total Withdrawal Status N I N I N N N I ii

Darin Trainia. . . Language Ineptitude 1 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Personality UnSuitability 4 8.9 6 8.5 9 7.5 2 4,2 0 0.0 21 7.2 Miscellaneous 4 .8 9 6 8.5 6 5.0 0 0.0 1 12.5 17 5.8 Total 9 20.012 16.915 12.5 2 4.2 1 12.5 39 13.4 End re Traininz, Language Ineptitude 0 0.0 0 040 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Personality Unsuitability 3 6.7 12 16.9 9. 7.5 3 6.2 3. 12.5 28 9.6 Miscellaneous 4A---1 Total 5 11.113 18.311 9.2 5 10.4 1 12.5 35 12.0 Early...2141d Total 0 0.0 5 7.0 4 3.3 5 10.4 1 12.5 15 51

Total Teriainated 14 31,130 42,3 30 25.0 12 25.0 3 _37.5 89 30.5 Still in Service at Midtour 31 68.941 57.790 75.0 36 75.0 5 62.5 203 69.5

All cases 45100.0 71100.0120 100.048100.0 8 100.0 292-100.0 11.0.1=1=1WMIIPAI....0.0,a.1

...e.F..,.45.44 Table 52 (continued)

,-C. All cases EMLAT Raw Scores

0- 50- 67- 84- 7 49 66 83 119 None Total Withdrawal Status N 2 N 3 N 2N 2 N 2 N 2 AgESN2.24-tatr. Language inaptitude 4 5.1 1 0.9 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 1:3 Personality Unsuitability 6 7.6 10 9.120 11.2 3 4.4 2 14.3 42 9.3 Miscellaneous 6 7.6 9 8;2 9 5.0 0 0.0 3 21.4 27 6.0 Total16 20.320 18.2 30 16.8 3 4.4 5 35.7 74 16.4

End of Language Ineptitude 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 Personality.Umsuitability 9 11.4 18 16.417 9.5 5 7.4 1 7.1 50 11.1 Miscellaneous 2 2.5 1 0.9 4 2.2 2 2.9 0 0.0 9 2.0 Total 12 15.2 19 17.2 21 11.7 7 10.3 1 7.1 60 13.3

Early Field Total 1 1.3 5 4.511 6.1 5 7.4 1 7.1 23 5.1

Total. Terminated 29 36.7 44 40.0 62 34.615 22.1 7 50.0157 34.9

Still in Service at Hidtour50 63.3 66 60.0117 65.453 77.9 7 50.0293 65.1

All cases 79100.0110 100.0 179 100.068100.0 4100.0450 100,0

,_171,01). emerrMMIlleedlenwswie 111111Ms...M.M.O.

-113-

those 5 the lower two EMLAT score groups to havea higher probability of being terminated than those in the upper two score groups (xi= p < .10).Actually, of course, most of the terminations were for personality unsuitability rather than language ineptitude. Because the numbers of students terminated for language ineptitude were so small, It was not possible to test for the significance of the trend for those with low EMLAT scores to be terminated for thatreason.Approximately four per cent of students with no prior knowledge of Spanish and less thanone per cent of students with prior knowledge of Spanish were terminated for languageineptitude during or at the end of training. The largest number of such terminations came from students with no prior knowledge of Spanish and with EMLAT scores of 49 or below.There were no terminations for language ineptitude from either of thegroups with high.EMLAT scores (84 or above). (It is not known to what extent the language aptitudescores directly influenced the assignment of "language ineptitude"as the reason for termination.

ANALYSIS OF ATTRITION FOR STUDENTS OF PORTUGUESE

Thirty-one (64.6%) of the forty-eight students of Portuguesewere still in service at the end of five to six months in the field. Of the original number, eleven (22.9%) were terminated during training, and six (12.5Z) left the Peace Corpssoon after being assigned to the field.Means and standard deviations of the EMLATscore distributione and section assignments of these groups are given in Table 53.There are no significant differences in language aptitude among these groups (Fe .98), but the 'differences in section assignment are significant (F n 24.93,p < .01). Those who were less proficient in Portuguese prior to Peace Corps enlistment,as indicated by section assignment, were more likely to leave the Corps thanwere those who were relatively more proficient in the language before entering Peace Corps training. This statement is further substantiated by the fact that the relationship betweenhaving had at least one course in Portuguese before entering the Peace Corps and remaining in the Peace Corps for at least five or six months of in-field service is significant (x2= 13.31, p < .001).

Table 53

Students of Portuguese:Withdraval Status, Language Aptitude,

and Prior Portuguese Ilro2iciency

Withdrawal Status N EMLAT Section Assignseut

SD Ti SD AMMIIIMr

Left Training 11 74.1 13.6 4.2 1.8

Left Early Field 6 62.815.5 3.5 2c3

Still in Service 3/ 75.014.9 3.2 1.6 48

MUMM.IMMOSIIMWIMUMmd..M.MMMIIMOSM.MOMMOINIMMOMPIIIIMOIMI.momr..WWWW.IMPANMAMOirmimmlimP MITIEMMIma.M.M.GIMOMENNOMINMSEMI

4,-- :, -115- PRECEEDLiG PAGE W.AlgifROT FILED 1

REFERENCES

Bolinger, D. L., et Al. Modeanishttmitstof the ModamlengsamAsseciation. . . New York:. Harcourt,- brace, 1960. - . ..- Buil, A:visualaarofSianis. Los Angeles: Uaiveraiti of California, 1961.

Calvert, Laura D. -Notes on tfiePeace Corps language trAfring program.Modern Language -Journal, 1963, 47*(7)5 319-323:

Calvert, Laura D. Role of written exercises in an audio-lingual pro.-am.Hispania, 1965,-48 313-316.

Campbell, D. T.; and.Fiske, D, W. Convergent and discriminant-validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Ps chological Bulletin1959, 56, 81-105.

Carroll, John B. Wanted: a research basis for educational policy on foreign language

. teaching. Harvard Educational Review1960, 30128-140.

Carroll, John B.The prediction of success in:int languageanguage training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training_alearch and eaucation. Pittsburgh:University of Pitts- burgh Press, 1962.Pp. 87-136. [Also published in paperback by John Wiley & Sons, - 1965.] -

Carroll, John 3. A model of school learning. TeacileeR__,ecod 1963, 5 1, 723- 733. (a)

Carroll, John B. Research on teaching foreign languages. In Gage,.N..L. (Ed.), nand- book of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Pp. 1060-1100. (b)

Carroll, Jobn B. lmforstm.isel__)rotisim:nmsd language Axaduation from collei-e. Cambridge, Mass.: Laboratory for Research in Instruc- tion, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 1966. (In preparation)

Carroll, John B., & Ha, Wai-Ching. port on the del4algpment of a series of test_ s of Chinese laneniageprILfien. Cmbridge, Mass., 1959. (Mimeo.)

Carroll, John B., & Sspon, Stanley M. ModervjanglumhptitUde Test.New 1Jrk: The Psychological Corporation, 1958.

Carton, Aaron S., & Carroll, John B. The 1959 SumminerRussiaLaninPror Final Report of Testing Project. Cambridge, Hass.: Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, July 1960. (Mimeo.)

Clark, John L. D.Item-by-iten parallel achievement tests for different foreign languages. Journal of-Educational Measurement 1965, 21, 77-83.

Educational Testing Service. tgvmiti/thoreliozu.L2LHandbookCMLAaneTests. Princeton, N. J., 1965. (a)

Educational Testing Service. Booklet of Norms MLA Coo erative Forei ;map Tests. Princeton, N. J., 1965. (b) .'%--JIIM-0,==WW.Q=M001,41CWOMMssimvlevivalimmummolmimoms.....mat

- -116,

quttmae, L.The quantification of a class of attributes:a theory and method oscale constrgttcn. it. Horst (Ed.), The prediction of nersonal a_ljustment. Social Science. Ritswch Councils Bulletin 48, 19.41.

Handrick,Fannie A.The raiz ofmot,ivation inforgmlai2gtiage learninit. Qualifying - Flier onlititt61 fd-ttie-Hafiii.a.gfitdnate.s-a--0-4-auweat-j:cins Jund 1965.

Hobha, -Agsgehologieiinthe. Peace. Corps; American P 1563, 18 (1); 47-55.

rug, Robert E. An analysis of ei hteen Peacelimlumdlattb Pittsburgh: American Institute for:Research, 1962.

Landszaf, John L.Peace Corps and languagis:,,an introduction. 1.442guiE;ticlaporter 4 (Center for. Applied Linguistics., Washington)., 1963, 5..(2), 1-2.

, Riccia, Guy J. Introituotion to Brazilian Portuguese.Annapolis,. Md.t. United States

- Naval Institute, 1957.

Rigez Frank A. The Foreign Service Institute tests language proficiency. Linguistic EA2s4121, 1959, 1 (2), 4.

Stein, Morris I. Volunteers for eace: the firstralp of Peact_Caps Volunteers in a Rural ComatnaitDenevt Progrw in Colombia. South America. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Topping, Donald M., & Cammack, Floyd fi..University of Hawaii Peace Corps Language Training Program. Ieaomuv5mlm, 1965, 25 (1.2), 29-421

Wallmark, ICThe vertical e uattsulgAttyLA Coqperative Foreign Language Teat and the MLA Fotgletlasaaseprofiellasy Tests for Teachers and Advanced Students. Princeton,'N. J.:Educational Testing Service, 1966. i gala.7111/431M,0 St ..:1=4:M=2=.1=242.72MagitMEMIMMEM=Ctnr=3.tgattWIritTritMitistitIllniqaMUAVO tryVrt.VkeVrXZVMMISIN'gvSnntj/RtliEZ IML1 4.7..a.H°374.4 A:rP('1:7:41W,""4' awa.ter.ix."4.4, i . r. yavvt 1 ti t. Date sour Section Instructor to TextbookStudents absent:or other media Neineo unmi fer.absence.Xif12 Pages (sections etc): What the teacher did: -What the %tudtint aid:: 11 a 04 ts. / .1, of, AnyCondition unusual of happenings,students: interruptions, etc.? "Alurt" "Dull" "Medium" AnyAssignment other remarks? for next period (stated or implied)? I 1/-'

444 /..-15(/7kr?ikl ilayrza. M.NFILAvizTidA,. ra=2/1rINITIM '"Wi,:rwarono'^' =it arataii Dr440*14ARtf.i..alaii,2IVaaallaaihifigriLryolt14144/LVf':VUirdaPraiye*Frrail"Dijr4147L.Vfilrl'k.11 VV. K ...Katy,. ay . ; t./4=444.1 .

-118-

Appellate B FOREIGN LANGUAGE- QUESTIONNAIRE

Preliminary Information'

We are aondifoting astudyto try to determinehaw an individualislarguage badk-

grqund is related to his learning of 'a foreign languagein. courses Suili as those given in the Peace Corps. One of-the major purpoteis of the. studyis to see in what ways foreign language teaching can be mademore efficient and productive. In order to make this 'Study, itis netesSaryfor Us to have considerable,and quite specific, information About each trainee's foreign languagecontacts, both-in and out of the classroom, prior to his entry into the Peace Corpsprogram. .Thus, we would like to ask your

cooperation in completing the fallowingquestionnaire as thoroughly andas accurately as possible.The questionnaire may appear somewhat long,particularly :Ear those who have had an extensive foreign language background,bet you should be able to complete it in twenty to thirty minutes.Ample tiMe.has been scheduled far thispurpose.

The DIRECTIONS riven you at-the beginning. of each ofthe various parts of the questionnaire are designed to help you fill out eachpart in the most accurate and

efficient manner.Please folio- r the directions carefully,and doeach part in the. order in which it is presented. If you have any questions in thecourse of the,

I questionnaire, raise. your hand and the supervisor willhelp you.

We would like to point out that the entire questionnaireis completely confidential in nature. We are asking you to give your name onlyto make sure that we have received a form from eaci student.After the questionnaires are collected, allanswers will be coded and combined statistically. Individual questionnaires_; will not beseen by a Peace Corps officer at any time.Summary statistics aboutgammas ai whole will eventually be made, but no individualanswers will ever be identified.The success of our project depends. in large parton having you mark what is true awl, so please mark every item frankly and accurately.

-.....-- - :- r PART -ONE BAC61001)-DATA' PLEASE Van Yaf

.- WHAT TS PliR P1 OGR4 M4

WHECTIONS: Please place checkmarks in the appropriate blanks, and write . . answers where necessary.

/).My faPer'S/methees-nativelanguaae is fbglish. Father: Yei No (speeify language)

. Mothet: Yes No (specify language)

2) Although English is his nativelanguage, my father/mother can carryon .a reason-: ably fluent.social conversation insome language(s) other than English. Father: No Yes (specify language or languages) Mother:No Yes (specify language or languages)

3) Although English is his nativelanguage, my father/mother can read books and 'magazines in some language(s) other thanEnglish. Father: No Yes (specify languageorlanguages) Mother: No Yes (specify'" or languages)

4) I have conversed withmy father and/or mother in some language(s) other than English.

No Yes _(specify languageor languages)

5) In comparison to their interestin my other academic courses,inyparents were less interested equally interested very interested in my achieVements in foreign languagestudy.

6) I have had the opportunityto hear my'father"and/or mother conversing with friends in someanguage(s) other than English.

No Yei . (specify language or languages)

7) I have studied Latin:

- No Yes (give number of semesters studied)

8)1 have studied Greek.

No- 'Yes. (gift nUMber of semesters .studied)

(Note: This questionnaire has been specially prepared by HarvardGraduate School Of Education' for use'onlyjn connection with thePeace'Corps language research pioject ;which it is conducting.) Septeiber 1963 ';(iinititUtaY"

PARS TWO B.E0aft LANG144E LO inksES: SUMMARY

-DIRECtIONS: Tile -Modern Language CoUrse 'Table on the next page la Intended to provide a summary .of all the iel_g2LA. 'clisSrocin training which you have had in any

. . .modern foreign language60-t Latin Ofdrtek)in:h16.echooCor college. "Regular''. training is any daytiMe, school instruction duripg theregular school year. Sumter courses and other special situations Will be examined-later onin the questionnaire, so do not mention-Lath:I, Greek,sutther or special courses in this table. If you studied modern spoken Hebrew at any time do not list it in this table, but include it later on in the.questiOnnaire under'Other Language Contacts". The Table should be tilled out as follows: FIRST: in the left-hand column of the HIGH SCHOOLpart of the table, cross out with a large "X" any semester(s) in which you had no rota_m classroom training in any modern foreign language. You shoulk; be left with a list of high school_ semesters in which you had some classroom training in a modern foreign language or languages. If your high school did not use the usual semester system, check with the supervisor . for. instructions. Spanish, German, etc.) of . SECOND: write in the middle column the name (French, the language studied during each semester remaining. If you studied.more than one modern foreign language in any one semester, check with the supervisor. THIRD: in the left-hand column of the COLLEGE part of the table, cross out any semester(s) in which you had no regular classroom training in any modern foreign language. If your college did not use the usual semester system, check with the supervisor for instructions. FOURTH: write in the middle:solumn the name of the language studied during each semester remaining. If you studied more than one, language during any one semester, check with the supervisor. FIFTH: starting at the top of the HIGH SCHOOL part of the table, number each language course (i.e., each line on which you have 'written a language), writing the number in the right-hand column. ou'should number from "1" through , contin- uing your numbering down through the COLLEGE part of the table.The last number in the completed table should be the to nuMber of regular modern foreign language courses (semesters) you have taken inhigh sabot:4 (if any) and college (if any). SIXTH: when every one has completed his tables the supervisor will pass out Course Information Sheets.You will need to take as many of these sheets as you have numbers on your table. ; ;5 ;!,;"--,

l':',.4nnT,44A.Tra'74...7.""dr;;C;VM-WEEZMOWOM*60M011111MWIej=i fialrelmoviaaarliCir '..cats AwstollOIM=MIA=CLall:rMiSallTre....111tiritt:t

fl. MODERN LANGOAGi:COU'ISE TABLE_ 7-- - . "'- 4 -COMEGE SE ESTER= :LANGUAGEEftiM1)1.4 SEMESTER.-- TORTERR-NUMBER. . _

. FallFresh, . _

. . prin --9th. S rin 'Fresh.-

Fali 10th: Fall-Sogh:

--'. 3 3 .40 Sitin!- 10th .. ring Sonh.

Fall 11th 'ail Jun. .

S.rin llth ,airintJun. A

Fall- 12th . all Sen. 11111111

Sirint 12th =wino Sen. 1.1

PART TIME REGULAR LANGUAGE COURSES: INFORM4TION SHEETS

DIRECTIONS: FIRST: when you receive.your Course Information Sheets, number them from "Ithrough..,....., putting the number in the large box at the top right-hand corner of each sheet. Also, print your name on each sheet in the space provided. SECOND: remembering-back as well'as you can what your foreign language courses were like, please fill out one Course InforMation Sheet for each coUrse listed in your table, being very careful that the sheets as you have numbered them correspond to the courses numbered in the table. We realize that it is difficult to look back at courses taken some time ago, but please try to recollect as much as is humanly postible about each course. Try not to leave any item blank; if.you cannot remember certain things, write DK (don't know). If inforiation which you have given oh an earlier sheet is repeated later on (for example; name of school, atdres- ses, etc.) you may abbreviate, use ditto marks, and so forth, so long as we will be able to recreate the information from your notation and prior sheets.When you have finished, filling out the Course Information Sheets, please go on to the remaining

parts of the questionnaire.

1671PrieAWIMItErnrramiumning ronftworrtmnsftwareporreo r!".":14r: WIWPF4,1974",,...9..41 14 I I 010741q'gsWaRoNKTP3' A.; Appo:At4ilLSboati4uedX

PAM* FOUR. OTHER LANGUAGE. CONTACTS

. DIRECTIONS; ThiS part of the questionnaire is iniendedsto 7 provide a summaryof - - . _any special tratning-(as opposed to the,regular school-year claiseS) which y'ou - have hid in any Modern foreign, language. ,PIeose read each ofthe items below. _ If one or more apply to you, follow-the instructions given forthose items.

SOMMER" M. COURSES: If you attended any foreign language classes given during the summer, please ask:the Supervisor for one additional Course Information. Sheet. for _420 summer course taken. in the box at the top of the page, write "SS" and the-date the coursewas taken (exam7.'le: SS- Summer 1962). Then fill out the sheet(s) in the regular way.

NIGHT SCHOOL COURSESi If you attended any foreign language classes given during

the evening, please-ask the-supervisor forone additional- Course Information Sheet for each coursetaken in this way, In-the box at the top of the.page, write "NS" and the period during whichthe course was taken (example: NS- Sept.1960 through Jan.1961-). Then fill out the sheet(s) in the regular way.

COMM-1AL COURSES, Spy' IAL TUTORING: If you have hadany foreign language instruction from a commercial language school (example:Berlitz), or if you were tutored privately either in connection with regular language classes or for some special reason (example: summer travel abroad), pleascheck withthe supervisor-to see whether yon should fill outa Course Information Sheet with this information" or describe your experience in some otherway.

OTHER LANGUAGE CONTACTS: If you have hadany foreign language contacts whiCh have not been described in other parts of the questionnaire, but whichyou believe may have had some effect on yohr knowledge of a foreign language, please check with the supervisor to see whether you should fill out .a-Course Information

Sheet with this information or describe your experience insome other way. 1 -:

. 4,-,i4:)CWOMMeZZaa 9.=mm...-, rwascsaa.saff.-ihalaC7selNierr...1.2*".9914411.:

.".

-1236.= Apptigdik B (coitailfied

P ART FIVE

DIREC71046:. For each, of your CourSOnforMation Sheets (including-any filled on.

. under Part.FOur) please reed- over each item quiekly and place auplus" mark (4.) above your-ansiver if yeU are quite sure that.your infokmation (nenlitry)

_ for that item is correct. :Place a "zero" (0)1f Oil are reasonably sure that this was the case, and a. "minus" mark (.-.4-11-there is some doubt-in Your mind that-this entry is correct (a "DK" entry is its_own minus mark). Although you will obviously be certain about some,ofthe answers on the sheets (such as the name of your school) we would still like to have you mark each item on the sheet

with one of these three designations. Do not hesitate to ,use "0"Aor.".i-." if you have some doubt about your answer; on the other hand, mark "11," if you think the answer is correct. MAW SIX DIRECTIONS: This final section-consists of a number of -questions about .pour interest in and attitude toward foreign languages before you became interested in the Peace Corps program. Since foreign language' training is:so inteha part of your work in the Peace Corps w would expect that your attitude toward foreign languages might be at present somewhat different from what itwas Ram to .4" your entry.into the Peace Corps. We would like to know what you thought and did 1 about foreign languages in the past, before na even had the idea that you might someday enter the Peace Corps. So, for the next items, please bear in mind that we are concerned with the lout, with your "pre-Peace Corps" feeling, insofar as you can remember it. Please answer these questions as you were before you bad "even-heard about" the Peace Corps. Remember, too, thatthe answers are confidential---if you didn't like or weren't interested in foreign languages, say so. Frank answers are much more important to our project than "polite" or

"good" ones. . Remember: ALL THESE SHOULD BE PRE-PEACE CORPS" ANSWERS. Check' marks (1 ) are sufficient (i.e., :net+, U, and).

1) I voluntarily and entirely on my own (not in connection with any class) picked up and attempted to read a foreign magazine or newspaper. Yes No 2) I voluntarily and entirely on my own attempted to read one or more plays,

novels, or other serious works in.a-foreign language. Yes No 3) i would have enjoyed joining a club-whose main object was to make it possible for students to converse with one another in a foreign language,.hear lectures

in the language, and se forth. Yes No . - If I had had t foreign friend who was -quite fluentin- English and liked to speaktOdlish, s %you'd still rather haye_hadhim talk to me in his native language; Yes Na 5)71 would-father-II:eye takeil a-foreign an-page test by (choose one):' A) haming the teadlieriay the.sentences.. A having:66:teacher'write thesentences on the board.-

6)1.would raiherhavel-' 1

.AJ studied a-foreign languagebylistening tearecording. S. 10 studied-4 foreign language by-readingin a book. 73--ithoughOhat foreign languagesshOuld be:

. A) taught to all students. B C B) taught only to those whowant to study it, C3 omitted from the curriculum. 6) When seeing a foreign film,I preferredto:

I A) have the actors speaking in the foreignlanguage A B C and,po subtitles. i B) have English Subtitlet, withthe actors speaking in the foreigirlanguage.-

. . C) have the actors speaking inEnglish, and no subtitles.

9) In Comparison.tomy other courses, I was

A) very interested A B C B) equally interested f: C) less'inteiested in foreign language study.

10) In thinking about the foreignlanguage courses which I have taken, if I could "do it allover again," I would probably:

A) have taken more foreign languagecourses. -A_ B C

B) have taken about thesame number of foreign I language courses.

C) have taken fewer foreign languagecourses. 1 4 11) Outside of class, and whennot doing homework, I used to think I

I wards, things,or ideas in a foreign language:

A) quite often. B C B) once in a while. C) hardly ever. I 12) Whenever foreign language homeworkwas assigned, I usuany: A) did it-punctually, often giving it preference over A B C other kinds of homework.

_ B) did it more or less willinglyalong with other homework. C) ,usually put it off in preferenceto other kinds of homework. . tp, - memoiclve .17140611C16-CIMMNIMPatiCit

I -425= elppendiie B (Ootitintied) I 13) If I had had the opportunity to determine the way in which foreign languages were taught at raTschoolI would probably have: A) decreased the amount of training required. B C 11) kept the amount of training as it was. C) increased7-th-amount. of training required. 14) After I had been working at fdre10-language homework for some time, I found that I: A) had a tendelcy to think about ether things. 4 B) was interested enough to get the assignment done. C) became very interested in what I was studying. 15) Compared to the others in my language classes I think I actually: A) studied less than most of them. A B B) studied about as much as most of them. C) studied more than most of them. 16) In get a given grade, I think I would have to have: .34) studied more than most of them. A B) studied about as much as most of them. C) studied less than most of them. 17) With the knowledge of the foreign language which you had

. immediately before entering the Peace Corps, which of the following things cohld you have done most readily?Please write "1" opposite the thing you could have done most readily, "2" opposite the thing you could have done next most readily, and so forth. Please give one different number (1-4) to each thing. A) listened to the radio programs broadcast from a foreign station B) struck up a conversation with a fellow traveler who spoke only the foreign language C) read a popular book written in the foreign language D) written a letter in the foreign language to a travel agency asking for information 18) If I had had the opportunity, I would have been willing to spend time learning the rudiments of some "out-of-the-way" language such as Swahili (check one): definitely ,probably possibly probably not definitely not 19)1f I had married .a, person whose native language was not English, I would heve learned his (her) language even if we both knew English. definitely probably possibly probably not definitely not

- , 46-

ARP -- X900tpued)_

20) Place a=check 'Mark anywhere along-the line beleicto indicate how much you liked foreign languages compared to year Other. cOurses::"

Foreign language courses . Foreign. lanyuage courses were my least preferred ,were my m' preferred courses% courses.

21) Generally speaking, during foreign languageclasses, I tended:

To think about variouse ,To become wholly absorbed other things. in the subject matter.

22) Compared to others in my foreign language classes,I-would have considered myself:

very inferior, every superior

in foreign language ability.

23) Please rank the four language skillsbelow from 1 to 4. Write "1" opposite the skill you were best at, "2" opposite the'skillyou were next best at, and so forth. Even though you may have considered yourselfalmost equally good (or bad) at two or more skills, pleasetry to make a choice, giving one different number to each skill.

1i stewing speaking reading writing

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.Please check to see that your name is on the first page of the Questionnaire and on each of the Course Information Sheets. Then place the Course Information Sheets inside thebody of the Questionnaire and hand in to the supervisor. Thank mi very Much for your help.

' 77.77,t7., .1?,V;;Att&: , nmomminmehmmmereIPMMEMMIpw

Appetid-1;* lsontintied)

lefeflcient dvpfes3 Ott yere---#.4ppliest COURSE- NFORWATI4u,' a vs courses Your last name toad he-iegiittedi- COURSE,PUMBER:

1) Gradein which course taken (exiiple:- 6th giade, college freshman) 2) Descriptive name of course (beginning -French, intermediate Spanish. etc..)

3) Name of school Name of teacher 4) Address of school 5) How was school year divided? A) by semesters A B 8) in some other way

(If "other," explain ,imomffie. 6) If a secondary school, was it: (mark your answer in right-handcolumn) A) public A B C B) private C) parochial If a college, was it: A) state supported A B B) private 7) How many hours mder week did the language class meet, excluding work in the

language laboratory? (A single class meeting .of 40 minutes to 1 hour should be considered an "hour") hours per week 8) Was student work in a LANGUAGE LABORATORY, either voluntary or assigned, apart of this.course? Yec No (If "No", skip to item 9; if "Yes", fill in below) If language laboratory attendance was ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY, check the one

most appropriate statement: A) I went once or twice at the beginning of the A B C course, but not after that. B) I went once.or.twfce at the beginning of the course and occasionally just before quiizei. and tests.

'C) I went more 'Or.I.Psi, [email protected] whether teats di-tinlites were to be given; If language iabftiteiy attendan06 was REQUIRED, Check the one most appropriate" statement . A3LI.-4Atfewer timesOr for skitter periods) than was' -teqUired.. B) Idid!th,.,,,zegn,..iied *Irk,but really no-mere.

. . -. .: , . .- , _ C) _I did the4.0401reOnrk-anCalsospent=acfair amount

.:14_*filk-tiOeihYt410-0*-ItY.0104 . . . ., -. , : . . , . _ . , per laboratory? 0.014.04Y,chOOS-hours' -0#44*tilieek- .in the language emomewaxama. SK-SIDE- CO ., .... . , 'OM/ ,_. . 428- Aff4TW40:11: (congnuad)

9) Check the one most appropriate statement:The clasmom teachr: A) was ELliative- speaker of theforeign langOageo, B) Was "not nature, but had a "native" accent.

C) had a somewhat fon.:,tative accent. D) had a. definitely non-native accent. 10) Bow many students, were there in the languageclass (under one teacher)? fewer than 10 10 -tc 20t _; 20 to 30. ; over 30 11) During the class periods. the teacher(mark one): A) spoke almost entirely-14E404h, except when A B C reading foreign sentences. B) spoke sometimes in the foreign language; attempted to explain things in the foreign language. C) spoke the foreign language almost exclusively, usiag English as little as possible. 12) 'For this class, written homework was assigned: A) never or rarely. A B B) quite consistently. 13) For this class, special sheets, learning guides, and so forth (not quizzes) whi,lh the tear cher had produced himself, were handed out:

A) never or rarely. - A B B) quite consistently. 14) In addition to the regular textbook, a separate book orbooks of reading selections was used. Yes No 15) The final examinations for this course involved thefollowing. paper and pencil Yes No the students' listening to questions, centencea, etc. read aloud by the teacher Yes No the students' speaking to the teacher(in the foreign language) Yes No the students' listening to a tape recorder Yes No the students' speaking into a tape recorder(in the foreign language) Yes No 16) Ay final grade in the course was: about "A" about "B" :shout "C" about "D" lower_ (If your school did not grade in this way, please give yourgrade in your school's system, with abrief explanation of its meaning)

,111111111MILIIIMMEMMMININIMINEMIIMMINNION791111 (If "required", would you 17) This course was: elective - required Yes No have taken4the course if it had not beenrequired?)

TO. 'IannialigranSIMAM102220711Karniral -1017121121it

-129

Appendix C

Rationale and Computational Procedures

Used in Questionnaire Factor Analysis' .

This Appendix presents a detailed account of the procedures usedto derive factor scores. based upon certain sets of items in the Foreign Language Questionnaire shown in Appendix B.

As an inspection of that questionnaire will reveal, the items contain different numbers of alternative responses, and frequently there isno obvious or ..a...priori manner of scaling the responses so as to yield a sing'_ dimension along which individual differences in attitudes and opinions could be measured.Statistical techniques were therefore used to help in deciding on the number of dimensions inherent in the data collected and to develop optimal scoring weights for the responses for each such dimension.

The method chosen is closely related to one proposed. by Guttman (1941).Consider a score matrix X= [Xii] where Xid is the response of the ith individual to the 4th item. The items are the n discrete alternative response positions associated with the several questions in a questionnaire, and each score Ili takes the value 1 if individual i responded by marking alternative j, and 0 otherwise. In general, the number of alternatives will be at least twice as great as the number of questions, and there will be redundancy and dependency in the matrix I-to the extent that ear:h respondent iscon- strained to mark one and only one alternative response to each question. If it is desired to eliminate this redundancy, the score matrix may be setup to contain only the responses to the first (R - 1) alternatives, where m is the number of alternatives for a given question. However, it is in principle immaterial whether X contains redundancy or not.

A composite score for person i based upon a weighted sum of his responses is:

S =-1; rl 2 :1 + wX ...+w X + + w X 22 n' and the variance of a set of these composite scores is

ww2 . . . wn . s sss sBur w 1 1212 1 ln 1

s-s r 52 sBur 2 1 21 2 2 2n w2

sus sns 82 w 1r nl 2r n

orIFIDW 1111 as, a scalar in quadratic form. It is evident that D is the variance-covariance matrix of theaitems and is therefore of ordern x n.s g 2.1), where .pais the proportion responding to item andsit./is theproduct-moment correlation between items j and J.

'This description is adapted fromone prepared by Hendrick (1965).

- ./.../...*40 ," -ITN; t4ipsnidiX-.0 (Continued)

be thought of as one The problem offinding the .dimentiodality-tethe.matilxI can variance of finding thenumber of orthogonal axes aloniOnt#4significant, non - error optlizalVeights for the responses is re-- can be found, andthe probleik-Ofideterminin,g ditiCadd:tutbetb-fotthese.orthogonal axes solved by using theweightMpliedsit-the involved here is with reference to-theorignal.vatiables.-The Mathematical procedure we first need to that of finding theprinciper-COratidtetiii Qf the-taatrii 14- That is, Mize the product u'Du, under find a vector of weights, tit;-analogous to w, that.wal ma vector of weights is to be -the. restriction thatEtti.a 1. After this is founds, anew ft-dad-O.:Mai:WO the-andeAeftunaccountedfor by the first vector, and So oh least, of D is se- until all the-otigintI-Vatiance,or all thenon-errOt'variance at countee-for. the series A theorem Initial:ixdildtlus states that-if teDn-itu a quadratic form, eDm are-the latent vectors of of vectors-titbit givethe successiVeliaxiMum valueS'Of are-the successive latent the matrix D'and thesuccessive tax** values theiselves concerned only with roots of D, isA1, k2, In the-present-case-we are positive latent-rootS becausethese represent variances-. -Any zero roots represent matrix redundancies is the matrix andcanlbe ignored.Because the variance-covariance is Gramian there should be nonegative roots. the matrix D Therefore, we apply the principalcomponents computing algOrithi to the latent vectors and consider the resultinglatent vectors and roots, particularly associated with the first feW largestlatent roots. (If.appropriate, the coordinates of these latent vectors may be rotated toproduce simple structure, as infactor anal- in the matrix X to produce factor ysis.) The weights to be applied to the responses corresponding latent vectors. scores are thenproportional to the elements in the Constadts may be added, if desired, toeliminate negative factor scores.

A',: . .. - 7 '111%tifiVert"ZWallia.Pa

Appeidit

PEACE CORPS LANGUAGE EVALUATION' FORM

Date: _Project::: Waite of Trainee 4.1111MIM.0. I. COURSE dRADEs: Gra*atTest tal, "C preteen$ ion %

IIo.FACILITY:IN pgip.utcg: Present Level of,.Fideney,1,giefitna;gieckone beloirt EXceptietalflIcenCy_ iiore :fluency than iferage. About average fluency Belo*. average, fluency_ Littleor _no: flUen0 eat LeVelofConioreheiwion, (Check onebelow): 40,00i0 cAt!Pre.hen09n t._114Aull AUCrAtig: About; ,ayeragp no- cdsrrehension. Rate_ of:. Acquisition.; Sieal.gia (Chockone below): Outstanding.. Hia average Average.__ Low average

Deficient _ Rate a &ay ijuthinI. pension (Checkone .below): High. average Average.. .$,AP averagU: Deficient... III. ESTIHATE. O,F ADEQ4CY- OF LANGUAGE,ABILITY FOR 141E OVERSEAS JOB (Check one box in each line below)::, r------St on, .tisfacto' . ine No ISpeaking Fluency (check one) Coaprehension (check One) [....- . IV.MANNER OF APPROACH TO LANGUAGELEARNING (Check one box in each line below):

-1511111 Don t know 10110tity Of cites- 111110.11111 Pr iatptnsss in Sittadift Attefitrfetiett ddrint . 1117111111111111 1'61_.... tionye ,-,, / a-ClitS-, ,-. iieUse NMI - turfy

::__ :.-#70, ^-'''---, 40i-ST; ' 1111.111111

Aii-hti441111"1:' :2" 14 1111111111111111111

_44,41etlegillierrialitwor0000,9,040.1cP41-f"'",74.74' _ i. k;'e. -132-

Procedures for Combiniug Scores from Two Lewis of the

LA- Cooperative Foreign Language Tests into a Single. Score

At the time the major computations for this stri4.wepit performed, there was no information available from outside sources to take possible the vertical equating of the two levels CL and l0 of the PfL/-Cooperative Foreign Language Tests. (Since that time, Educational Testing Seivite (1965b) has published norms with Converted Scores that presunably accomplish this vertical equating.)Therefore, especial procedure was devised to combine scores from the two levels.

Essentially, this procedure involved a non-linear transformation of the scores from each of the two levels before being comb.m4ed additively. It was found that for the sample of Peace Corps students that viers tasted With Forms LA'and MA at the end of training, the distributions of LA, scores were negatively skewed and the distributions of MA. scores were positively skewed; this result suggested that, as might be expected, the LA forms had a "ceiling" such that they were much too easy for many students, while the MA forms had a "floor", being much too hard for many students.The non-linear transformations of these distributions were designed to make the scales more nearly comparable.

These transformations were effected by assuming that the true scores for the total smolt were normally distributed.The midpoint percentiles for each successive raw score were plotted on normal probability payer, generally producing a series of points that for the major part of the distribution approximated a straight line, but that de- viated markedly from this straight line for the mer portion of the distribution (for the LA forms) and for the lower portion of the distribution (in the case of the MA forms). In each case, the straight line was fitted by eye to that portion of the curve that approximated a straight line. Points deviating markedly from the straight line were then translated to the straight line, and the new score equivalents were read off from the abscissa. In -some cases this procedure resulted in negative scores. In the interest of establishing a uniform' procedure, a constant of 100 was added to each non- linearly derived score before combining it (additively, with unit weights) with the derived score from the other level.

The following tables give the raw scores, midpoint percentiles, and derived scores (with constant of 100 added in)-for the Listening and Reading tests, forms LA and MA, in Spanish and in Portuguese. t; 1,

, t ii 1...iirr , . ' , !. ,, , - , I '' , IA N . , g '` I' - "' "" '',-;"t '$ ,k'''',4,.i,,I,I, '''., .- "4`4.0' ;;:,:.i,"-; ! .,- ''S ' i A Irt5: At. , S. ,N4ZN) 0, 0 A ', i A 4 * , SAI ' 0&., :5,;.-t4 !'` ....At.' '\ '' .,--.A. . . :,` '! 1 I ,:, :. A 1 r; :. t'.4 .4 'A'N' 3, NN,A0 NA\ ,-':!, III' ''.--.' rr '' .1.'":,',1'...!t4 `,.' *:::1`''.,1 I 4 ,'''''' '; ' ,4 ; f , 4.., , '0. ' r ..',,, ''',..,, , 1;7.' 0 ,'i,.1.!, ''4; '

, 45, ':'''''':,i '',',I , ... * ''',':;',:-..',:-. ',, .. , ., - . . -1 ',..! A , ,r. '4',"t,st.,..' ,..'"...74;.',..'"...74;.' s':' s':' \',...4',:,-k'r'\',...4',:,-k'r' . ,,., -,..s, , r..V.,,.., ...... ; -..,,;,.. ts, ,,,,, ,..?:,,si .;, ,,,,(,,,,,L,..i I., . .4,, '" ,..',.,4:,, " .L....,,,. , WH' I.,' * N ," , ) ' ! $' . .,, 1 ?, .4' Ii! r . t. ,- , . 1 , ''''-1.161:1Vila.)' , '''7.tt*AV?1-1.3"-"titt'UtlUttHrt't'itst*:-Ztttrt3-rrst:--5t'vi ''''-1.161:1V- i la.)' . :.: .* '' Q e ';-' 2, 'f, . --1.1,''' ;' ''.676;.%0,,,t u.6,-t:7)sf--4:.4,o 6-454,6,o'csN ttr1 ..F.4 to 1.3;1-4 0 4C4 00 03 .t.' Cr41.n A- 6.41 NI 1-1 001,0v, ,- ,'tIV. 2,',,' '''' '"'.1.', ..,,,.;,,,,,.- ,,,,,---",, ,' , , , ,,. ,,, , ;iyd

A , .... A L4 - Nt-,! qt. f '. 4'. 5, " 4, , ''` n54ii.t l .'" .' ! A ' 4 ,A 1'1Al ''' ...'A f

I ... N 4 .A. !' 0'', I A 4 \i''i !, i 7, , ' 1, t . , ' .& ',, '.'.'"; . ' . ` . ,. , ''' a, :j..1',''' . /..., . i, ,..,, . i, ; '', ,, I 4 ,XASz' . '.', \**'4''.' -''-1. o';;:i,' :.'' 'Y''''' "' s22::;':". I''''''`'.....-,.".',E.:':.',- to',,to,torto''' .ta.2. 'to to, to to to to Poto.,toto.toto.to to.1-4 1;4 1-4 1-6)1-641.6 04,10,to N 4 /' ;;` ; . ViADco,...vcA tri Tg L43 t%) 1.A CrD'CO 44,421-414% tet'is)1.141'0 00D'.64 04^tt644 to-P441-1 01(0"02 .6.104 '. s'' ,,...' :

,1 s's

' is, ,

b. .-fI.. .'s , .15 AO V.3,(Xi,' al CO 03 0:6 4.4 ,..1 .14 0% OV,CA kA W W .P. 4". .ito tf.3 La A3 N A) .1.4 1-1 i.. 1.6 1.4 (;) .124t . , (,) '4%. Sp',146v,4.0 1-4 4::) ...s 40% to 6t) Col to to 4F% t -4 4.1 Lit 4:6 '4 to3 t4;3 Oft CDC% (.4 CD*4 1.11 CA) I%) CD 0 're '%8 "' T; . 0 I JRs-,...,-.., . ' e ,I $ 1.-`,...::,1, ,T ..., - .T.:,., 176,..44,'SsItoltt6'06-..F.4' to; 03 'to -0 :44)-to' i-44/Dft4artio 444' 4:444. 4:',:ro CA :Co .V... to soA.n tI2 0' ' W C4, 444 4.4.4 ., ! t-;.oi R..PC1 . :;. At:-'4ENC44to"4441tr m: U17.-V 4-0,46644.n3- 0% 04,46-0'4041-U6,02.. UvV AA: , 41:ri.'i 4441 '...tt .; 1"'" ' ; 4

Sj I Q. Q",,,6cv %O 'D . 1, p0' 010' 0 Aoihr0.4644,nAn to to 1-4-0 4,0 Co 164.06 VI 4% 1 ri 44.4.01-4 *4 VILIO"c3-0 CO Q% t'.) L'o-01,41 Z

",..f.tiSatillallitair44411.11t641.2111.11111.142371.1t , - :.**4.A.".*.. .74.1. '40e43W3ifiZIMAC=IlkraEML.TIMM,444...,--91mslit,4, - . 14.4.4464(10:2 5.) , 5/ est

ReiOternk gl-4010 -'- 04ive4 --- *iii-' -reice4448: Defiired SO' ,84it (Na.'445' Score 443 -:,-- 4 0.19. 82 108 5 - -6 .0.13 87 .. i 1.47 91 -11 44r 8 2.34 93 10i!- 9 3-.31 95 tt 14-62:- 10 5.4 98 02 g.fw 114. 4_, 8.36 99 4*- - ..'T '4 12.75 105 14 ; 0. -IS 13 17=.88 108 VI -347 #7 14 23.16 110 ),0 -,..---,- 15 27.41 112 4t ,4:0.-. 49 10 31.66 114 1.:Q- - 6.3:5 120 17 35.92- 116 4 6:89 121 18 40.90 118 :22` . 7.11 : 10 19 45.15 119 -44: '44,* 123 -26 47.79' .- 120 4' 10;0 124 : gi. 51.31 121 4 12:75 - 145 2; 54.24 122 26' 15,19 127 23 56.00 123 '27' 17.44 '- 128 24 58.49 124 20: 18.70. 49 .,25 61.13 125 29' P. 40- 129 -20 63.62 126 'W 20-.67 ' .130 27 67.14 127 31 21,89 00 28 70.37 128 12: 23:75. .In -- 29 72.13 129 14! 26.68' 4.1.; '30 73.45 130 3 29. %x,61 143 ,'-g 74.77 130 '04' 3.00- X34 "32 76.23 131 ;30,-- 3846' 136 '33 71.55 131 V: 4;0- ;:37 14 78.20. 132 38: 44 .1.1 : 138 35 79:16 133 '39' 41.15 119 ', '36 80.04 133 5044- '140 37 8146' 133 53.-6,5' 141 38 82.60 134 574,1- £42 '39 81:27 134 '61: 441 40 84.15' 135 06,19` 145 41 85;61 136 73;4 .1:47 '-.4-2 87 .8: 137 7.0428 149 43 89.72 138 *41 '152 44 91.04 139 155. 45 92.21 140 160.- 46- 93.38 140 168-,,,, 47-.' '9549 , 3.42 r7' 411;- :91.19 a 148 49 :9,846: 152.. 99:.69 159' 7-.,

. . _ =- -03.1..i.ammi-MOZUCIS!its=

= ----::-.-1,,,_'-",,:.-..--":-,".---:. -:-..--"; ".1a-1.'.:1-:- -',:.7.7'1,t.",--.'...,-=-i-',....--,;,. ,--, ,-,^',-; . -:....t.-A '--.;' : _. ;,:...-,'..:. ';,. '- ---:=`; '1,-.:7- .-- 4"- --::-,..=.!.. -. -- : -;;. ::2----,-:- :::-.,':---:-. ,-.:--_-. - ,,. _-y-....,-,: c-z1 :. . - _

....,-,:- * -.:----; - -'-. - - .-,' -. 01.1 ued)

go:pet-tit:4 PdiEiueae Veá?iou, Teats