ti')-i .L

THE CALIFORNIA STUDYARTICULATION

ON FOREIGNLANGUAGE

Tablc l Surley Re orscs by La4uage

Fre.ch Cerman SnanEh

IN 1979 F. Andre Paquette, deploring the lack ofincen-rives in foreisn langxage study and the general ineifcctivene$ of the response to a national crisis in fore'gnlal juageedu.r ' ron.d,ed.anoneorh(t th ' rg.sL\ i lstilulions ofhigher education have "failcd to solve themajor arriculalion problen of foreign lansuage education: effeclive. . . placemenl al the colleee lclcl" (14).

lhe , r ' : orn 'd <rdrc | .d i \o1 .onmr.rcc or lo P CnLansuase, an alfiliale of the Articulalion Council of

Izok Sch\rartz

rd o n a, .hrr(d Pa.J4 er.on.(rn u\( , " , r .u a. iot 'and placenent problemt ot studcnts noving from secondary schoolto coUege and uDive.sitt foeig!laneuageprosrans in California. vicqing the issue as more thanonc oflindine adequale insruoenls romeasure tbetargct language proficjency ofenlering colleee studenisd| \ough, robe.ure. h: .T ' i . r b(doF r feLdi onComdittee addressed the problem ol*hal l shall charac

p. ' ra l l . \ . o, r 'e d ' rep.nc. i rthe perccption of$hal constitules a normalyea. ollan_

sJape rJd) i r le (conJavandpoi lconda"\ i " tpoinrs. Asurvey ofsecondary school langu!ee teacherscompleled byrhe Liaison Commitlee in l982lurned upa slronC leeline tha! an imbalancc of class siz€ aI thesecondary 14cl was deirimental to the effectiveDes ofloreisn la lg lage in . ru. ,o d d. ' isni f ' .drr n.grr \eariicularion iacio. Anotber survey bcgun in l98l andcofipl€red in sprine I984 pfoposed to jnv€sligate studenl perc€prions of ardcularion faclon in the thr€e laDguages mosl .ommonly tausht in caliiomjahigh schoohand to corelare these per.eplions wjth dara on collcg€enrry placement levch furnished by the same students.Thc lesults of thk "Survey on Sludent Pc.ccptions ofAniculalion EfilcLire.e$" arc pfcsenled bere.i

I ib le I | | . r 'hp pa-| i f lDar.ns col le le ' n, d Jn. . . i -lies and the nunber of valid responles by lansuase

Start-ortrs

One ofLh€ most slartling facts ederying iom lhc sur-v€y was rhat almost halfot all student rcspondcnt!, whohad an avense of olcr tso lta6 ot high schoollanguagestudy, ele. ted or$creadvised to beginstudyof lhe laDguage all over again in collese. (Many siudenls, Loo elrbana$ed to avow dre truth. did not respond.) The

l - au t -ot . PtoJ, :a. uJ I .r. \ trt' ohtarn o \'o1? U\:, e

sitt bs AhEeles. fhisurti.tesllbnantiall! |'.pradu.a the EraoI the Subcannnke on Shldent P.rceptjons olAdicutattonElfe.tirmcs, Caldorhid state Liaiso, C.hh|tutee on rbretenLanluaEe, ||hi.h the oulhor.haired. Ca.tibutinE 10 the rcp.rt,besi.les le authot, wrc Raseidtu Br.oks althe Unire^n! aJbuemeand U6ula Ulrich aJhsAnselesCit| CaIeBe TheLiuisahConnnbe an Folelin hnEuage is.utr.htly chaircdbr Bdte O. Hnsch oJ Cobtila Co ese.

MiIKN

Universily or caliiornia

Caliiomia Sl!te Uni!e6ny

0l52l

I0

l02\

33

a2a

810I 13

LLt6 9l

8 15

122

l5 l7

l2

t2l60

2l23l95

02160810

2A \2

i5

5l

t2

L: r l

42

2

9l

21

rReroired by a CabriUo Collc8c tanster nudcnt. zeroes Inthi\ 1ab!e rcsulted enher trofl nonparticip!'ion or trom noresD..sc lrom elieible iudena.

ADFL BuJ,.rrN, 17, No l, SEnL BER 1985 22

percentages staftjns over (table 2) show some sienificanlditfcfences by lansuas€ ard by educarional segment. Theovcrall French and Spanish liCures (37q0 and 4l%) donor seem too significanrly divergent. The higher GeFman ligure (J4q0) is consistenl with a subsranriallyg.ea.cr nurbpro-CqTJ1 JLdel . nd.dr i lsdi \q i*laclion wilh rhe teadrinc olGerman in hieh s.hool(seerables 8 and 9 aDd accompanying 1cx0.

t , ' i . - t '1 .

OieFll Drop-Back Part€rns

Curiousl! while ltartoler natistics shorv a lareeditlerenccbcts€en German and theolher tso languagcs.lhe dilferencc almosr disappears in !o!al d.op-backligu.es. lirblc 4 combhes the rolal ntrmber of collesescmcstes ofadvanced placenent lost by s!ar! ovcrs withlhe numbcr lost by non sran oveB {ho entered collcscprograms ar a lo*eFrhan-expectcd placcmenr level.lThe deiinition of "expected pla.enent lelel" as grvenin DoIe 2 is arbitrary at be\! and is used hcrc only asa rec€ssary reference poini for slandardi2ing the surlcyda!a. Collegcs and universities onthe quartersysr€m lharcount a year oi precollege study as equivalen! to onlya college quarte. can be expected to pfoduce a lowerplaccment sraDdard. Figures in table! 5 and 6 show dropback lumbe6 in lerms of borh the higher end lower

Table 4. Overall Drop Bacl Numbers in Semestes

t32t00265

152t,1l

Sun Ove$ Percent230 12

cc

56

:i352A5l55

Senrestesdroppcd Arelage535i 321 1.5517 8t9 1.6

Anolher inlercstine difllrence is rhe higher perccntage of Gefiian ltudents citing as an arliculadon problemthe swifter pace of coll€ge Cerman clases (French35.7q0, Cernan 49%, Spanish l4q0)- Are college Ccrma1insru. o, . u1,pdl i i1, \e ' ' e\pa," , or ' o"r .

When rhe start ovcf lieures are vies€d by segment,the pa(ern ofdivergcnce is €ven nor€ srrikins, with only20q0 of rhe UC regmenr ltarting over as conlrasled with5lq0 and 55oro for the CSU and communily college scgments respectively. It appears lha! lhe more lax placement practices in the last lwo segments encourage.r .de1r. .o ,c( l a.docrnrci l r " .dfe, p.cccmen .

While a higher perc€ntae€ ofGerman students staftedover, the Spanish eroup tcnded 1lJ have a sonewhalhisher averase ir numbe. ol years of piecollese sludywhen shrring over (!abl€ 31. This finding ma! nerelyreflect the grea!e. opporlunity in California recondrryschools to begin Spanish study carlicr dran study ofthe

Table 3. Ye.is Studied Laneuaec in High S.hoolwh,"n Staned Over

100

26t251

2,18

135.5t28.5

1.51.6

iof the 547 ansser iorns, l2 contained inadequare enuy

iA stu{lent was counted asa native speakq ilthe lansuagesas used out oi clas at least hall rhe !fre.

Table 5. Dron Bal l Numbe6 b) Pcr.^n(

Nnmber oi Drop Backs535 .150 84qo511 4-15-360n

210

t09

2I] 82trr

125r03261

10092

261251

92161251

T.ble 6. Drop Back Nunrbcn by PcnonsUs$s Qu!nd Srandrrd*

Number of Drop Ba.ks535 180 Tlqo511 176 7l qo

A!eraecTotal Yoas Yea(

23

, . 'L-.4 ' j - tArticulalion Probl€ms

For a conplete picrure of sludenr pe.ceptions ot ar-licllalion problcms, ii was Decesary m include !o,,dron-bd. l , rudenr. { ho indi .ared a oect i re.n Jcroenicperlo.mance in their college language study. Tdblc 7 pro-vides the number of ihese sludents by languase.a Thecombined fieufe of 87.5% ofstudents wbo either srariedovcr, dropped ba.k, or cxperienced a dedine in theirgra.les at the collcge level(ovcr 75010 otthose using rhequarter standard) indicares serious dtic!lation problcns,parricularly when wc consider thar the nany studenr!who gave up on lansuase srudy atrer high school, whopreferred to $vitch toanother larguage. or who dectmedto respond to thc questionnaire were no! inctuded in uxs

Trble I Crrde Declnc n Colleee Lr qurc< 5trLdy

2.-l l

t115

59

l9

Thus lhe Lotll number of students s,ho eitber startedover, dropped back, or suffe.ed erade decline was 469ol 536 o.87.5%.

What were the p.incipal arliculation problens ciredbynudellswho encountered dillicutties or who d.oppedback? Tables 8 and 9 provide rhe ligures for the fifieenproblefts lhted in lhe qucstionnaire (ilcms l3 271. Shrdents in all Lhrcc laDsuages chose ireds t4 (faster pace

Table 3. Anicularion Problens by I anauagc

Itcns ranked by percenr .iti.g rhem a5 probtens:35.7lqo 1,1 Fancr pa.e in college14.06 18. Not enoulh hearing, speaking lan

luage rn hr8h school25. loo m.ny ouhidc obligations26. Not enotrsh challcnse in high school16. Poorer rcaching in high \chool20. No! enough Erldmar in hilh school13. Harde. gradina nr college27. I had poor nudy habits in hish

24. Clas loo large in hiCh school17. Not enou8h hearin8 lnd spcakins in

21. Too much er.frmar in college19. Nor cnoush Cramdar jn college21. Clas too large iI cotlege22. Too much gramnar in hieh s.hool15. Poorer reachins in college

Itens rankcd by perceni .ni.e them as probtems:49Vt 14. Faier pace in coltcge,12 18. Nor enough hcarins, speaking tanguasc

in high school29,6126.:l?23.0119.23

11.71

:183ll4l028252t

l2l0

32

16. Poorer Ica.hing in bieh s.hool20. Not enough g.amnar ir high school26 Nor enough challense jn high school27. I had poor nudr habns in hish schoolll Harder Erading in colleg€25. Too dany oulside obli8ations2.1. Clas roo larse in hish schooi17. Not enoueh hearine and speakina in

19. Nor enough eramnar in coltcge21. Too much granrnar in collegc21. Cla$ roo la.se in collcse22. Too nuch eranfrar in high school15. Poorer rea.hirg in college

hcn selection by college catcgoriesl Ircr '

\.1.q on bj Lo lege crrcEones

(55)(51) \12)

2t9l2

125

\9 162

2l2322

t2il t 2

cc(r 1) lolll r82

1 t1 18.6812 65 15.71l 3 ,1.19

t0 12 23.012 18 9.87

t2 62 3,1.062 l l 1t l6 l5 19.23J B 1. t14 9 ,1.94

uc csu cc1!t t12t qtl

621 150113 19 I , tr88

. l 18 11l t5r l t0 l l

217t24l l l t

'rotal t00

23 28

2213 38

12 t2

l0 l0l l

21 2)25 251.1 34l0 l0

(16)

I5

I

0lI3

I ]

l?

l92021222l2425

27

l12l2

l5

24l

2ll9

1l

l5

l lt8l9202l2223

258 25 B.7l

t2 48 26.317 l l 17.0: l

24

in collcec) and l8 (not enough hearing and speakiDs thclanguage in high school) more frequently than aly ofthe olher problems listed. Items22(1oo nuch g.amdarin hieh school), 23 (clas! too large in collece), and l5(poofer leaching in college) were perceived as leasttroublesorne (less than 6qo).

Siuden$ uking French and Spanish also ranked ilen25 (roo ftany ourside obliealiols in collcee) as the thndnajor aniculation problcnr. Gernan nudents fell thatrhc thhd most inponant factor $as item 16 (poorerre". l , rns I r h.sh 'choolr . Fu l ) 24r0 or rhe ddenr. inall languages who encountered problems selccied ilenr26 (nol enoush challers€ in hiehschool), and 2l.5qo leltthere was not e.ough eramnar tausht in bigh schoolL m )rr . Ano hp . igr ; i icdnr t . ror . harJ. gradire 1collese (irem l3), was selected by 23.5q0. Tbe last fac

1,.) . -

tor ciled by at least 20qo {as itcm 27 (l had poo. siudybabits in hieh school):20.65o/0. ltem 24 (clas too lareein hich school) ranked o.ly ninth (17q0) in the survexthoueh it was .iled by 21qo of the Ce.man studenrs.

Of the items critical of collese conditions and teaching methods (13, 14, 15, 17, 19,21, and 2l) , only 13(harder gradine) and 14 (fasler pace) were selecled by

Tlble 9. Ani.ulation rroblems Rlnked: All L.nguagcs

lrench Gernan Spanish lbtal082) (100) (26t (54?)

ItenN ranked by p.rcq.r cninc rhen as problens:l,r.oqr l.l. Fancr pacc in collese21 9 13. Nol enoush bearing. spcakjng lan

guase i. high s.hool

25

26t32021

23

62

35l125l8t31l10

25l3

28:ll302l

12

32

90

12

52

22

;i9

t78 32.51t5t 27 60136 21.86t3t 23.9,1r29 21.58] l3 21.57111 20.659l l].00?l 13.1415 8.22J9 1.12

21.\25.121 |19.6

18.5

t1. l

5.3

Irem seledion by collcec categones:

25. Too nany ouhide oblieationsll Hardcr grading in college16. Poorer teachinc in hilh school27. I had Door study habns in hieh

26. Nor cnough challenge in hich school24 Class roo la.ge i. high s.hool20. Not e.ourh sranmar in hish school17. Not cnough headng and Deating ir

21. Too much gratrnar nr coucCe19. Nol e.otreh grammar in college22. Too .ruch eramnar in hish school21. Clas roo larse in colleee15. Poorer reaching in collcgc

Pllc€ment Melhods

A codparison ofplaccmcnt melhods in the lbu.seg-nents ofhighcr cducalion reveah signifi.ant differences

L Pla.enFnr e{an.. Thp e were u\ed bi 1(r0 ot pr ivare college and 50q0 oiUC students.lf,ss than 4qo ofCSU and communily college sluJenls relorted using this

2, Interview with instructor or advisei This metbodNas rcporled by 25ol0 of rhe privatecollcg€ students butonly 5qo oi those in dre UC systenr. Fo. th€ CSU andcommunily coll€ges ihe pefccntases sere ll0/0 and 13q0fcspedively. These dala may indicate a problem of access to profe$o6 in lhe large public inslitulions.

L iNtructionsinthecoll€gecalalog. Thepe.ccntagerelying onthe catalog was a subsrantial 24 qo i! ihc corn-munity coueges. A somewhar lovef percentage oICSUsiudents (l6qo) used this method. Only 8.J0r0 ofUC sttrdenrs and 6q0 ofprilate college nudents relied primar

4- Guesjns alproximare level. Self placcmenl *asused by awhopping 54q0 of CSU and 52qo ol comnu-lity collcce studenls. This may reflect their age andgrcater experience as a class. only 23qo ol lhe pnvatecollege sroup and 2:1.5q0 ofthc UC sroup reled on thetrown judgment in lhis matler

5. Other nelhods. Only 7 oi lhe 547 studenls choseolher means olplacement- Nore ofth€se serc idenrified.

229

Prilate UC CSU cc(91) (17) (51) (3r)

t l

; ;

l?l3

2l222l

25

27

l1213

l58

23z

555

25l5l3

l

5l056

l2

3

t52l3

t2

l262l

t2t6

l l

2329

) l

523

t1

lI

241825

61 25.1

9 3.456 2t . )16 l ] .6

t4 5.3

22 8.3t3 4.9t1 ,1.1

12 21.149 t3.5

25

'5Table 10. P rcemenr Merhods

Mclhod p,ivare UC csu cc

1911\ !!L)

22.98q0 (23)

lqq, (e4l

50.00nh (5) j.I., (t5. l2qb ( t 1) 1t .26qn ( ts)8.5 r 0/o 121) 15.90i (3,1)

24.119t (82) s4.tqr 0,r)Lr9ah (2) l .32o1o 10)3.5rqo QD 13.91,r ! ( t0)

r 00on ( t5r) r00so d,1t)

|1 20.848t t4.875 1l . t l

1 | .28

^onresponse perccnrages ro rh€ quesiion of ptaccmenr On rhe second poinr. student perceptions ol specjfic$€re 14q'0 to. tle csu group, ed,b for rhc prilatc cor- articurarion probiens.'the;; ,";,';;;il;,,,

".."".",,legesroun,8. i0n fo. the UC part ic ipanrs, and?% for ac,os tanguage - j

* . " . l i , " r - .* ._, ""

tne conmunity collcge croup. problcms. over a third of all srudents wrtx Drobtensattributed Lhcm in parr ro the faner pace of co cse.1nr 'J on. dur n Jc, ,d l . r , , t .arco. .ors. t .* i ,

Conctusion fedion $nh the qual i ly ot h iAh school pr"grarn.-stroncesL in cerman and prog.e$ivcly less so in fre.ch

rhelpecifrcobjecioflhissu.ycy\!asrofurnishdara:#i:il'h"i;:,1""ilr"*',i:l"Jl,;"ff",.J,,.,i;l:on ih,e topics: (r) drcp back pauenr, (2) ,easons for

"i,.a in,,rri"i.n, r,.u,iig

".;;;;"kr;;;i "",""e"".".dropprng back or arricutatio. problcms lcading to a Anorhef high scorer jn rhe surrey was ,,rou,,,axy ourd-.cline in perrormance a! the posrsecondary le;r, and .,ia".urig",i"",,; 1oo "i.:i;;

,ilftu;". ...r"(l) Dlaccm€nt methods used in the four sesments. niry co|cge segmenrs t3o.Suibl and 6l ot 2JJ m rhcOn rhe firsr poinL, ttre survey resrlrs sho; th,r

I-r::::1,,,d"*,T*.Fir"..".",';;,;;il.i'"";l :ff::":'l;:,:Til:'j:J;i,'""J,':il,::i,,,,Tj,,iT;'ansuage

progm dn€cdy inro aCatjfornia co cee tan is a fact ot conrenporary s,"a-, fii" ,1", ," *r-,euage p.ograh fclt o.proved to besufficienrlyprcpared rcmedt but Lh:rr $r nusr lake irto considerauon h planro enter ar rhe..expecred 1evct,', thar is, scconrl seroi rcl,esc wirh me ".d

of i*,, ;;;;i ,;,;;;;;l:H '1i:li,,T;:ili:ll;'.:J:,i",.""?:XTi",::.":i:::.oi.college rirl iwo ycar ot hiBh school. and so on. pfisinely tarse number of sludenrs (19.5q0) who ptaceWhile rt,is tfue rhar thestan-orer ra|e \!as higher anrong rremselles by guessing al rhe aplrropriaie tevel. If this::-):i::l': li 1!:.tt! and (ommunrt) torrese scs rieurc i'

-'"t;n"a 'u'rr' ,r" i.'' iu'0""i" *^, p.*mencirEn dnmg th6e tn rhe nnraLe Jnd Lrr- seBfrcnts thehsclves by c o n s u tl in g I h e c a r a 10 g, it k secD har rneand while thcre appears ro be more pracemenr conrrol rorar of studelrs who d;pe^. .ri,riir," l",p

", u"

"a_: ,r- 11: *r"1," i ' -g y9 ' : .cT*, ' overarl d,opback,iserorpraccmenrerani"ir.", i ,1"^..,*_".*,

rlgu.es remained high in att rhe sesmenis. The srearer $c 0,,0 ivho snle no inforh"i"" ".

pl"""_*,.",.,,.pla.emenr pcrmi$ivene$ in rhc CSU and comrnuniry S.tr pr,."."ni .un, o t "ou.,"

,," "

."i,"""i," "00,.".n.collegcs, rhougb nrggening a more raxdirecrion ofsru- A studenr needing an ..lvance.r class whose onry sec-

1.e:1::t mal rcn::r a mlsciou! rccoenitio, of rhe spe rion is oficred

"i" r.".^.".* ., ,.*",r" ,*"c'al.haracrer ofihe students (oldef srudcnts olr ofhigh sohrs lhe probtein rry.n-'i,,g;"

" io,i".-r"*t

"r*.school loncer, poorcr.cadcmi. achieve6, and studenh .- , i "g * u --" , , i t "nr . i i . " i i r , r ,

r . , , " . , , "

** .ruth heavier ao.k and fanily oblisariont. Allowins aca solution ro rhe pfoblcn rhan tnte.nrptiig stuay ot ttreoenrcauy lcss kflrre sruddrs to re|cat srudy leveh aho tanSuaee ot worsc, d.opping rhe language atrogcrner.cdnces dre risk of faiturc and cncouraee! studenrs ro rn prese.tins irs concfu;io;,, ,r,..s"i""ri,,b".in,,r,_rcntinuc lheir loreien laneuagc srDdy. ree empnasrzes rhar lh€ samntin! rcprescnted here is aIt should noDethetes be a cause of conccnr ro ihe !err smail lcr.entase or,rr" .irl ,ir.-rr.._,,, ,**"pJolesion and to-rhe public thar so nuch hish schooi ir foreign ranguagei$ho rv",".,.,"""i. i, ,, ,," r",e".study tirnc k in effect tosr lhen srudenrs sra.r over o. bccausc only ;ro;nd 7.50/o or Cari,'nia snraorrs condrcp back ro rhe extenl revealed iD rhis surley. Such tinue rhc study of th" *..,."r+" I" ""1"a" "*,

noreverse novenent rends to diminish sub(anriatty a r-ear,s jnierrlr,rion. One dusL concruoenumbe6 reach iDg sLrfficienlrv adlan.€d telels in corlcse rhereib.e rhar rhe major arri.urarion r,-ti* o tne o*ro masrer tlre ransuage in a praciical and ne.ni.sful trrar rhis surveyavoid;d, rrre r.".ii, . i, i"* i", "*"

ni.r,schoot and coilesc sru.ly or rl" tnnnunn".

26

Tbe Caliibrnia a i.ulatioD nudy illusfates the tmnensty oirhc probl,-m in the Urited Stalcs and thenearmeanirelessncss olatlempts to conelare secondary andposlsecondary "ycais ol srudy.'{ The problem of"cuniculum paralld" seems to bc anply bome out bythe djsparity berween collegcs' expectations resardnsrhe readincss of continuiie srudcnts at entry aDd students' aciual entry !aIIerns. The standardizatioD oflan

euase proficiency exams based on dearly dctined anduniversally acccpted soah would bea rational lnsr stepto\!ard sohiDs thc national arliculalion problem. Srandardizalion of rhse exams would allo enable colleecsand uni!ersities to srandardize placetrenr procedurcs byrequiring placement exams on adnksion.

Since participating in the editing ofthesurveyrepofi,I halc rcthought some of its conclusions. Were I nosto.ewriLe its conclusion on placemert, I sould keep thecoDc."ssion to sell-placemenl in colleges with linitcdcou6c otitrings but add a sirong plea for a geneEllicht_enrng ul p ld.e. err Dro.( lJ,r . I

'e lJ. l ot r iJor in

plac€nenr, while undoubtedly ljnked to a survi!ali!r attitude in many language departnenrs, is directly con'necled ro and symlrtomalic ol lhe lack oi seriousne$wiLh \lhich forci8n language study h resarded in Amenc., . ' cd (o io l . l h, f r ' ( !n . Jo .L ' r l r ' rdr p osrc i \ .nrcasures cudendy beine advocaled to improve arlicularion neasurcs such as establishine spccilic com'peiencies for sludy lelels, devisine proiicjency examsbdrd or Inu.( conpelenc'e. . drd - ' r r r 'ne e\d ' in

r l . -n en' can o\ ' l .nr .e l \e\ .o l rc o. , r . r r .J l . :orwocs. whal is needed aho is a real national codmitment to a serious foreigD languaee conponenl nisccond-ary and postsecondary curricula and the pforision oreconomic inccnrives, in the fields of busine$, golernmcnl, media, and education, for acqliring second orthird language mastertl Without such incentives, manylansuage sludents in our collcecs and univeruities willconti.uero seek rhclcast challenginecla$ levels to "eatq

' ' 'u, , l l a Cene'J l Fdu.d ion ,eqL -

ment" and $i l lmanage to f ind l l rcm ui tb or wirhourbellcr phcenrenl nrslrunents-

l. surveyirg thc fivcyears that hale elapsed since thcpublicarion of the Paquetc article meDtioned abole, one

/ ) t . . ) ' ' I

.an oDly conclude that the p.oipect lor national sup_porl ior foreign language study has rarcely improved,

in spite of the rcconnendalions ofmany reporrs. tsut,

il we believe that th€ neglect of forcicn language study

is a serious nalional liabilirx Ne can be hopefulthal good

sense will cv€nrually prevail. Until that line, we must

conlirue 1o search for lhe crcalive solLiio.s $ilhin our

means ro rh€ problem of arliculation.

NOTES

rTh. $trvey sas ltuncd to studenls who had enreredCalilornia colleEe and univeAi(y languagc programs srlh nomore Ihan one ycar olimenption orsamc.latrau.se nudv be

eun in aCalilorniahigh ichool, drus eliminarine lhe lhcrorol

rExpecred lertl n derernined by .ounrins one colleacscmester ior each ycar of precollege nudy. llnntEilies and colleges Ll[t .ouDt only one senic{cr for the tnsl hlo tca6 olhish s.hool languaee nudy arc in xctuality enlor.in! drop-back

rDrol ,r.k is dclined as enterin8 rlrc collece progra'n ona level loser rhan rlre expected level (1 ycd hish school 1or Icolleee scnrcict. This sy\len counts quanebas fEctions ThcalLenrarc or quaner nandard (hble 6) counl\ one.ollcec quanertbr each year ol hieh school study

ron)r .n"r ' ! . .en. ' ru"dJd 1' L d niur ' i i ' "non dror backs. \\ hile the conbincd iisurc *ould be lo*d u!,n4 ts.bl b\4nJ'o

' . r , "o. l lo! i .or ' r " i r " i l

fease in the nunb$ ol nudenb tporlnis dcclinins arades(190n ol non nan orftsl, brinsins lhe rinal rotals up to over

5On€ {ud.nt eho did nor ian over and did nol rum(hplaccmem dara bur did suflcr a decline in lradcs was counred

tfhe rem "level ol *udy," *hich was intcnded lo ser amore meaninslulstanda lor.rcasuing proaBss, has utr1o!run!tely not led Io riy morc elieclive aniculation and

woR( clTFrl

Paqueue, F. Andrc TheMandare lor aNalionalPrcgran lorAscssnrent oi La.luagc Proft.lenc\es." ADFL Brlletinl2.r (1980): l2 15.

21

06n+appddl* FoEiSr Ltnguq€ Ar cutrdor eueriornriEIn ords !o ocolrase

'o!r fuu oop€Elion. rhe oale^ of thjs qnclioDaiE 6k rhar you do no, pur

'or Ie€ on ne 56er rom,

Please apond to rhi5 que{@m,ire only if vou d€ ct." a ci,ir_,n. *ii)i'i.;il;;i;;i;;;;:l ]::iil:.":'x1ill1,li::i;11T::i^2":?":.:::i:,::,;i.::""On the uwer fom pleas€ wite i. plac€ of your ndc fieradr of th€ colese you are nov arendrDg and the legua8e ctassyou aE now tarinS, Then hffk ahers ro lhe quesions rhar rollow:

1 yre.ue"."",io*0, a) r-reoch br ceman c, spdshz Kre yotr qpoed !o rhe use ot rhe tansuase oulside of lchool? a) ya b) NoL Ir you ahered y$ ro 2, ro whar drent weE yo! qposedi

a) Mon ol the xmeb) Abour half ihe Unec) kss lhan hatf th€ lined) Occasionally.If you answered no to 2, check €)

4. How mant yeas of the teclase did vo! srndv bcforc coliese? For fncrional runbers cb€ck the tower whole numbsr(e3,, for l% yea^ count l).

- a)_l year br 2 yed( c) I yrd d,4 )eaB e) 5 y!a^

: :Den ,ou besan.co0ese srudy or rhe lans@ce. did you san alr over? a) y6 b) Noo. r Jou d5sftd yA ro 5, why did )bu Jrad over? Check rr,. o," t*,

"^*-

-, 'a) No! r€ady for hiEher ta€l.b) Iveted to imprcve gode average

. ^c) OLh* wrjR atuEr in btank space on back ot &swer form./. 6, !. tr you drd rot rb,r ota, aL whar twet did

'ou stanl

?a) kave blank.7b) isr y€r, 2nd quarter or sem*tei7c) lst yed, 3rd qu&re.8r) 2nd year, lsl qu&td or sd6!d.8b) 2nd trd, 2d quarr€r or semestei8c) 2nd }!ar. 3rd quarter9a) 3rd }!d, 16r qudler or sen€s&i9b) lrd y€r, 2nd qurner or seh4ter9c) 3rd

'€e, 3rd qudrq,

10. llow wcre you plaad?a) Placemenr Mn.b) Inrdview wilh in61ructor or advherc) Placemenr by insruclions in co eee car.lor,d) Placed s€lt bt eue$ins aDprqimate ld.r.

,. e}.

. Other Lxplain in blatrk space on bact of &rwer torm.

jl ,u"rd you conlin( ar rhar tdel? a, yes b) No

rz. I you atuweretl,es ro ll. did your g€d6 go dow0? a, yes b) NoPle.seasws q(sriors 13-27 onD ir you sr&d over,

.ilr y,ou drcpped back ro a lsel rowq rhm wh€re you were praeo,or r ,ou r€Dained sheE pt,ced buqour gEdes hat Eone oowtr.

Did lhe foUowins fadoB o,tibule b rotu dilJituh, ,t the co ese toet?Muk a) Y6 b) No for @h iremi3. Harder sEdirg in coU€sc14, Fsle. pace i! coltesc15. PooM rachins in coltese.16. Peler r€achins in hish schoot,ll. Nor moeh headns ed spsline rhe tan8@e. D cotreserd, Not enougr' h6ing and spe.ting rhe tanguage in hish schoot.,y. r\or oough smmar in coueR20. Nor enoush s@nu rn hjsh;chool.21. Too nuch snmnE in colteEe22. Too tuuch sramm.r in l gh-schoot_21, Class loo ldse in collese24- Cirrs roo laee in hish school.25, Too @ny outside obiiearions i, collcre26, Not edou8h chatlenge in hieh $hoot,27. I had poor srudy habirs h hish schoot,

28