Daily Excerpt: Achieving Native-Like Second Language Proficiency (Leaver) - Introduction

 


Today's excerpt comes from Achieving Native-Like Second Language Proficiency (Speaking) by Betty Lou Leaver.

INTRODUCTION


A Research Study on High-Level Language Achievement

 

      The purposes of the research study, described in this volume, were (1) to assess the behavioral aspects of Level 4 language proficiency, (2) to determine the most important factors that contribute to reaching that level, and (3) to examine the nature of Level 4 language from two perspectives: the teachers who teach it and the users who apply it in their daily and professional lives. This volume reports on purpose #2 (determining the important factors that lead to attainment of Level 4 proficiency) specifically for the skill of speaking.

            In this study, the researchers interviewed in depth foreign-language users who had developed one or more language skills in one or more languages to Level 4 and beyond. They were found in several US government agencies (where individuals with the highest levels of foreign language proficiency are found in the greatest numbers), academia, and other walks of life. The interviewers asked these highly proficient learners what did and did not help at various points in their language-learning careers. A similar set of questions was asked of the teachers.

 

Research Design

 

Methodology

            The study was conducted, using quasi-experimental methods, sometimes called grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Using theoretical sampling, the researchers collected qualitative and quantitative data through in-depth, open-ended interviews and then coded those qualitative data that could be quantified into categories that were suggested by the constant comparative method of data analysis.

            In the constant comparative method, the researcher simultaneously codes and analyzes data in order to develop concepts (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The researcher in this method uses comparison to identify emergent categories and their properties. Joint collecting, coding, and analyzing of data is typical of this method, as well.

            In addition to the elements that resembled to some extent case studies, the study contained some elements that lend themselves to direct quantitative analysis. These included checklists about selected aspects of the language learning process at various stages of proficiency development, as well as demographic variables.

.

Data Collection

            The study began with a research focus—the 3+/4 threshold and ways that it can be crossed—and a plan of action—in-depth interviews of previously tested language learners who had successfully crossed that threshold in reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking. As with other qualitative studies that use the constant comparison method of early data analysis (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Taylor and Bogdan, 1984), the research design has evolved in accordance with emerging findings.

            To date, in the full study data has been collected in more than 100 categories and in 28 demographic areas. (The interview guide at Appendix B gives a sense of the extensiveness of these categories.) Much of the data remains unexploited due to the quantity collected and the funds and time available to for coding and analysis. This volume reports on a limited portion of the statistics collected.

            Data were collected by two interviewers, one from the Defense Language (Atwell, see Leaver and Atwell, 2002) and one at that time from the National Foreign Language Center (Leaver). Both had been tested by the DLI to be at Level 4 in multiple skills in one or more foreign languages. Both were very familiar with the proficiency levels used by the Interagency Language Roundtable (i.e. the 0-5 levels used in this paper to describe proficiency) and the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL).

            This background helped immensely in designing the interview guide, as well as in being able to exploit information provided by interviewees during interviews. Both interviewers were present for most of the interviews, with either one or both questioning one interviewee. No group interviews were conducted, although there is currently some interest in doing so later on in the study.

 

The Interview Guide and Interviews

            The interview guide proved to be very helpful in averting “interviewer bias” i.e. undue influence from the interviewers’ own experiences. Most interviewees received the interview guide in advance and often even prepared some responses before the interview. Prompting of any sort was seldom necessary. Most had firmly held opinions (not always consistent with each other) about how learning takes place at the 3+/4 threshold, although often they based these opinions on a sample size of one, i.e. on their own experience alone.

            The interview guide was developed with the assistance of the DLI Research Division. A 35-page document, it contains open-ended, descriptive questions, along with an empirical questionnaire. Of these, nine pages of questions focus on the skill of speaking. Since the various modalities of language involve differing, although often overlapping, variables, the interview guide was sectioned into five divisions: demographics, reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Interviewees who have been tested at Level 4 in all four modalities encounter a formidable task in answering 35 pages, consisting of many open-ended questions.  (The demographic and speaking questions can be found at Appendix B.)

            Interviews typically lasted from 1-4 hours, plus an estimated 1-4 hours of follow-up. The range in direct interview time is a matter of difference in cognitive style, with reflective learners taking longer than impulsive ones and, on some occasions, the reflective learners needed more than one meeting in order to share all the information they wanted to or could.

            The interviews were transcribed. These transcripts were discussed with interviewees to ensure accuracy of data.

            As a result of emerging, unexpected data, additional hypotheses were formed. These hypotheses were explored by adding questions related to them to the interview guide. In order to obtain all the date possible, follow-up phone calls were made to previous interviewees, adding to the total time spent in being interviewed by any one interviewee.

            Data collected during interviews have provided direct and indirect information. Language teachers who have themselves attained Level 4 or higher proficiency are usually able to articulate second language acquisition categories that are of use in classifying and coding. Other high-level professional language users have not been as facile at using the jargon of the language profession. Some highly skilled speakers have not had a very good idea at all of how they reached their advanced levels.

            All, however, have been willing to reflect at great length and in great detail about their experiences. There is an obvious reason for this: “Most have reached a level where their language proficiency is taken for granted, compliments are no longer forthcoming because [the individuals] are not perceived as foreign, and their multi-year efforts seem to be of no interest to anyone but themselves…the opportunity to be interviewed was found to be ‘the most interesting thing I have done all week,’ in the words of one interviewee” (Leaver and Atwell, 2002, p. 263).

            In this initial portion of the study, we have not conducted any group interviews. The possibility of doing so is not excluded for the future.

 

Written Narrative

            Several of the interviewees prepared written narratives. The written narratives form the core of a series of potential case studies. They also provided additional details for use in analysis.

 

The Population

            Since there is currently only one test that differentiates among levels of very high levels of proficiency, the Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency Test (see Appendix A for a list of the descriptors for Levels 3-5), interviews were conducted only with individuals who had been tested at Level 4 in one or more skills with this instrument. The results reported here pertain only to those individuals participating in the study who had been tested at Levels 4, 4+, and 5 in speaking.

            It is unknown what portion of the population of Level-4 language users has been interviewed. It is well known that there are not very many of these individuals. Of those within the US government, where an identification and tracking system is in place, the study has already included a large enough number of Level-4 speakers to acquire statistical significance. (Nonetheless, the study continues, with plans to interview, if possible, 25% or more of the known population.)

            At the outset of the study, names of individuals were obtained principally through three sources:

            (1) those personally known to the authors,

            (2) those available from US government testing records, and

            (3) referrals from other referrals.

Finding individuals has not been easy. There is no national databank that lists high-level learners (although some government agencies have one). There is, in any event, a paucity of very high-level speakers in the United States. Fortunately, the fact that the Defense Language Institute was assisting with the study helped in finding government employees and former employees with the required proficiency levels. Then, we learned, as is often the case, that “like” knows “like.” Level-4 individuals tend to know who else speaks at Level 4, and so we were able to add to the original databank in two ways:

            (1) by asking colleagues for names and contacts;

            (2) by continuing to get referrals from interviewees.

In some cases, interviewees’ spouses were bilingual or multilingual!

            We were quite fortunate in piquing interest in our study. Of all the people we approached – and we approached all we could find – 80% agreed to be interviewed.

 

Characteristics of Level-4 Proficiency

            The definitions of Level 4 are somewhat ambiguous. In general, one could say that someone at Level 4 can do almost everything a native speaker can do and accomplish it almost as well. However, the crucial term, “almost,” is not specified. Experienced government testers consider that a slight accent, an occasional slip in register, or an occasional faux pas can be the criterion for a Level 4+ rather than the native-speaker 5.

            Among the items that are looked for by testers at the Defense Language Institute are (1) the ability to tailor language to situation and/or interlocutor, (2) successful completion of influencing tasks such as persuasion or defense of a position or policy (requiring deep sensitivity to cultural appropriateness), (3) an insider’s view of the culture, and (4) no more than a slight accent (Atwell, personal communication, February 1, 2003). Since the language learning process is essentially finished at Level 3, the distinguishing feature between the two levels is the quality of the speech. For example, Level 3 speech tends to be sociolinguistically relatively monotonic and Level 4 highly varied, rich, and apropos to the topic at hand and circumstances of the communication (ibid.)

 

Demographics of the Interviewees

            So far, 54 individuals from a variety of specializations (military personnel, teachers, lawyers, interpreters and translators, students, psychometricians, general education/K-12 personnel, diplomats, scientists, political scientists, and astronauts, among others) have been interviewed. The sample was generally balanced with respect to gender, age at testing of the proficiency level of the speaker (all were adults, as stated earlier, but they ranged in age from early 30s to mid-60s), age at onset of language study, ethnic groups, learning styles, and reasons for studying the language. In other words, none of these particular variables seemed to be a critical factor in whether or not someone would attain Level-4 second language proficiency.

 

Language Skills of Population

            Most interviewees had been tested at Level 4 in all four skill areas. In some cases, testing had not been accomplished in all four skills, but individuals felt that their proficiency was about the same in all skill areas. (In these cases, data was not collected for the skill areas for which no test score was available.) Interestingly, in the majority of cases, those who were Level-4 speakers were also Level-4 in other skill areas. Where there was not an even distribution of skills, it was typically the writing skill that was lower. Reading and listening comprehension were typically somewhat higher or Level 4 in reading and listening reported as achieved earlier.

 

Polyglottism

            A significant number of interviewees were polyglots, i.e. near-native in more than one foreign language, including Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish. Their native languages were Arabic, Bulgarian, English, French, German, Greek, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish. These individuals were exceptionally helpful in shedding light on the differing nature of attaining Level-4, based on the language being studied and the native language of the language learner.

 

Age

            All interviewees to date have been over the age of 30. Younger learners have not yet been found; it may be that the amount of erudition required for Level 4 is not available/learned in any language, native language included, until K-12 schooling has been completed. None of the subjects had been taught by a method belonging to the communicative approach, although the majority of teachers among them preferred to teach communicatively; this is very likely a matter of the era in which they grew up and the amount of time (an average of 17 years) that it took them to achieve Level 4 from the beginning of their language study. Perhaps in another decade there will be products of the communicative era to interview.

 

Venues of Study

            The venues of study (where the language had been acquired) were varied, even for any one individual. All had learned at least a portion of the language in the classroom, as well as very often through some form of direct instruction outside the classroom—independent study, tutorial, study abroad. Much self-study at nearly every stage of proficiency development was also a common characteristic. All had also had significant amounts of indirect instruction, with foreign degree work abroad, working abroad, or on-the-job feedback being very common. At the 3+/4 level, some (the minority) had taken courses; others had self-instructed with the help of one or more native speakers—friends, neighbors, relatives, work colleagues.


Teaching Methods Experienced

            The interviewees, to a person, had learned a significant portion of their language in cognitively oriented classrooms such as those reflect Grammar-Translation or Cognitive Code methods. This is not to imply that these methods are better than today’s communicative ones. Rather, the time required to attain Level 4 was such that most speakers at that level began their study before the communicative era. In a few isolated cases, where instruction was available at Level 3, students were exposed to communicative methods. For these students, Level 4 was reached in a significantly shorter time frame, but it is unclear whether communicative methodology made the difference or simply direct instruction itself. (See Chapter 14 for a more in-depth discussion of the role of direct instruction in the acquisition of high-level second-language speaking skills.)


Strong Views

            Nearly all of the respondents held very strong views about how learning and teaching needed to occur to help students successfully reach Level 4. In some areas, there was surprising consistency among respondents (see Chapter 14). In other areas, there were disparate views.

Personal Investment in the Study

            The most rewarding—and amazing—aspect of conducting this study has been the interest the researched population studied has displayed in it. Interviewees have not only willing spent much hours studying the 32-page questionnaire in advance and more hours providing feedback in interview form, but they have also been willing to be approached with follow-up questions as new topics to be explored have been discovered. Many have provided unprompted written narratives. Moreover, polyglots had to provide all this information multiple times—once for each language, as it quickly became clear that there were multiple paths to Level 4, even for the same learner studying different languages. Interviewees present at conferences where results from this study are presented have flocked to these sessions and actively participates in the discussions. It was as if a silent minority had found a voice.

For more posts on Betty Lou and her books, click HERE.


Sign up for the MSI Press LLC monthly newsletter
(recent releases, sales/discounts, awards, reviews, Amazon top 100 list, author advice, and more -- stay up to date)

Follow MSI Press on TwitterFace Book, and Instagram. 

Interested in publishing with MSI Press LLC?
Check out information on how to submit a proposal.

Planning on self-publishing and don't know where to start?
Our author au pair services will mentor you through the process.

Interested in receiving a free copy of this or any MSI Press LLC book
 in exchange for reviewing a current or forthcoming MSI Press LLC book?
Contact editor@msipress.com.

Want an author-signed copy of this book?
Purchase the book at 25% discount (use coupon code FF25)
and concurrently send a written request to orders@msipress.com.
Want to communicate with one of our authors?
You can!
Find their contact information on our Authors' Pages.

   
MSI Press is ranked among the top publishers in California.
Check out our rankings -- and more --
 HERE.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Memoriam: Carl Don Leaver

A Publisher's Conversation with Authors: Book Marketing vs Book Promotion