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
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
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
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
(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.
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 Twitter, Face Book, and Instagram.
Planning on self-publishing and don't know where to start?
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.
You can!
Find their contact information on our Authors' Pages.
Check out our rankings -- and more -- HERE.
Comments
Post a Comment