:
6.;

3‘ o . a. r .

3"qu .m...‘

.I» ‘1
: $54.49.
4.; {nuvfi

L.

5nd

:1 I: 4.. ,
:4...

(In. 3.
a. I’.’
$4M“ . uh.

71!

it!
.. Initiatntk

.IL .99. [7
it

2 (n2: 1
Rad .994; a 4.31)....2
I 3.3.1611... .33...
2:1 :2?- 1:5
. . {(251 v1!)
Your?! «3.):
$30.:

.. .Ji .5...

1.3 1537:;
.r. l"{.a‘(-.Ie!.
ti?

 

éwfifif.
1»

 

 

wm‘

loo;

 

3The Nati

0

Creating Opportunities for
Funded by the US. Department 0

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR
SKILL ACQUISITION DURING INTRODUCTORY
LANGUAGE COURSES

presented by

Michelle Lorraine McMullen-Hohnke

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Audiology and Speech
Arts Sciences

 

 

Interim"?te
gsl.neu.eduln0°d

I]

/“ fiMajor PIIofessor’s Signature
3- I (0" O 6)

\.

 

Date

onal Consortium
of Interpreter

Educaflon

r, and interpret“

0 Education. RSA

?U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

- --.-._,--.-~----~—.- c..- -.- -,_.-.

-.-.-.-.-._.-.-.-.- -t- -.—.- .A n -

-.-.- --

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

0&6 163290?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DaleDue.indd-p.1

 

POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SKILL ACQUISITION
DURING INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE COURSES
By

Michelle Lorraine McMullen-Hohnke

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Of

MASTERS OF ARTS
Department Of Audiology and Speech Sciences

2006

ABSTRACT

POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SKILL ACQUISITION
DURING INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE COURSES

By
Michelle Lorraine McMullen-Hohnke
The purpose Of this study was to investigate the abilities of students enrolled in
introductory language courses to self-assess their new language skills. Students from
first-semester American Sign Language, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses at
Michigan State University completed a questionnaire concerning their willingness to
participate in four communication scenarios in which they were asked to interact with a
fluent speaker Of the language they were studying. The scenarios were based on the work
Of Lodge—Miller and Elfenbein (1994) who found that students studying introductory
Signed English were willing to engage in situations that required trained interpreters. In
the current study, the majority of students in each course demonstrated appropriate
decision-making skills regarding two relatively simple interactions (i.e., babysitting and
communicating with a customer in a store). When presented with two complex
interactions (i.e., interpreting for a police Officer and a car accident witness, and
interpreting for two lawyers and a witness to a fight), however, the majority of students in
each course demonstrated poor decision-making skills and/or overconfidence in their
responses. The primary justification provided for engaging in situations beyond their
skill levels was “to help” their communication partners even though they did not have the
skills to help. These findings raise concern about beginning language students’ abilities
to assess their capabilities and limitations as they use their new skills to interact in their

daily life activities.

To my loyal husband whose encouragement and support never waver. Walking the road
with you is the greatest blessing.

TO my dearly loved mother who taught me many life lessons, most importantly
selflessness. Thank you for filling my life with faith, love, and hope.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the staff at Michigan State University’s Center for Statistical
Training and Consulting, especially Yu Fang for his instruction concerning the analysis
Of the data. I would like to also thank the supervisory staff for the additional
consultations related to data-entry formatting and test outcomes.

I would like to express gratitude tO the five participating language instructors who
allowed me to intrude upon their classrooms and conduct research. I am grateful to all Of
the students who took time out of their busy schedules to complete the questionnaire.
Thank you for your honesty.

Many thanks to my committee members, Dr. Jill Elfenbein, Dr. Peter Lapine, and
Dr. Ida Stockman, for advice regarding all areas Of this study and its’ subsequent write-
up. I am deeply indebted to my main thesis advisor, Dr. Jill Elfenbein, who spent
countless hours guiding me through this process. Thank you for making this document
worthy of publication.

Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to give praise to the Holy Spirit who

carries me through my days and allows me to travel the roads of Creation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
Literature Review ..................................................................... 5
Post-Secondary Students’ Beliefs Concerning Attainment of
Language Proficiency .................................................................................... 5
Student Self-Assessment Regarding Skill Acquisition and Proficiency ........ 8
Instructional Methods Effects on Students’ Abilities to Self-Assess
Their Skills ..................................................................................................... 9
Relationships Among Students’ Perceived Anxiety, Perceived Skill
Levels and Actual Skill Levels ...................................................................... 9
Manual Communication Students’ Abilities to Self-Assess Their
Sign Skills ...................................................................................................... ll
Depictions Of Deaf Individuals in the Media, Popular Literature
and Textbooks ................................................................................................ 14
Summary ........................................................................................................ l7
Rationale for the Current Study ..................................................................... 18
Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 21
METHOD .................................................................................................................. 22
The University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects Review ............................................................................................ 22
Survey ................................................................................ 22
The Four Interaction Scenarios ..................................................................... 23
Survey Questions about Student Characteristics .......................................... 24
Participant Recruitment ................................................................................ 25
Course Selection ........................................................................................... 25
Students ......................................................................................................... 26
Language Instructors ..................................................................................... 29
RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 35
Babysitting Scenario ...................................................................................... 36
Students’ Participation Decisions .................................................................. 36
Students’ Confidence Ratings ........................................................................ 38
Store Scenario ................................................................................................ 44
Students’ Participation Decisions .................................................................. 44
Students’ Confidence Ratings ....................................................................... 46

Police Scenario .............................................................................................. 51

Students’ Participation Decisions .................................................................. 51
Students’ Confidence Ratings ....................................................................... 53
Court Scenario ............................................................................................... 58
Students’ Participation Decisions .................................................................. 58
Students’ Confidence Ratings ....................................................................... 60
Summary Of Support for Hypotheses One and Two ..................................... 65
Hypothesis One ............................................................................................. 65
Hypothesis Two ............................................................................................ 68
Repeated Measures Testing of Students’ Confidence Ratings ...................... 69
Investigation of the Effects of Scenario ........................................................ 69
Investigation of the Potential Influence of Student Characteristics .............. 72
Students’ Justification Responses for Their Participation Decisions
in the Four Scenarios ..................................................................................... 78
Babysitting ..................................................................................................... 79
Store ............................................................................................................... 81
Police ............................................................................................................. 83
Court ............................................................................................................. 86
Post-Hoe Comparison to the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein Data Set ............. 89
“Yes” Participation Decisions ...................................................................... 89
Confidence Ratings ...................................................................................... 92
“Yes” Participation Justifications ................................................................ 92
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 95
Students’ Self-Assessment Abilities ............................................................. 95
Implications Of Students Participating in Communication Interactions
Beyond Their Skill Levels ............................................................................ 96
Giving Students a Clearer View of Their Proficiency Levels ...................... 99
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................... 100
Future Research ............................................................................................. 102
APPENDD( ............................................................................................................... 107
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 113

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Potential Participant Pool Compared to the Total Number

of Surveys Returned ................................................................................................... 27
Table 2: Participating Students’ Background Information ........................................ 28
Table 3: Descriptive Information about the Language Instructors ............................ 29

Table 4: Language Instructors’ Judgments for Student Participation
Decisions and Confidence Ratings for the Four Scenarios ....................................... 32

Table 5: Chi Square Results for Student “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Babysitting Scenario ........................................................................................ 37

Table 6: Pairwise Test Results for “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Babysitting Scenario ........................................................................................ 38

Table 7: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Babysitting Scenario ....................... 39

Table 8: Chi Square Results for Proportions Of Students with Confidence

Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ....................................................................... 42
Table 9: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence
Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ....................................................................... 43
Table 10: Chi Square Results for Student “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Store Scenario .................................................................................................. 45
Table 11: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Store Scenario ................................ 46

Table 12: Chi Square Results for Proportions Of Students with Confidence
Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ........................................................................ 49

Table 13: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions Of Students with Confidence
Ratings Above the Instructors ACRs ......................................................................... 50

Table 14: Chi Square Results for Student “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Police Scenario ................................................................................................. 52

Table 15: Pairwise Test Results for “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Police Scenario ................................................................................................. 53

Table 16: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Police Scenario .............................. 54

vii

Table 17: Chi Square Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence

Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ....................................................................... 57
Table 18: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence

Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ....................................................................... 57
Table 19: Chi Square Results for Student “Yes” Responses to Participation

in the Court Scenario ................................................................................................. 59
Table 20: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Court Scenario ............................... 60

Table 21: Chi Square Results for Proportions Of Students with Confidence
Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ........................................................................ 63

Table 22: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence
Ratings Above the Instructors’ ACRs ....................................................................... 64

Table 23: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings
Across Scenario ......................................................................................................... 71

Table 24: Mean Confidence Ratings for Students with Other Language
Study by Gender and Scenario ................................................................................... 73

Table 25: Mean Confidence Ratings for Students without Other Language
Study by Gender and Scenario .................................................................................. 74

Table 26: Post-Hoc Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings
with the Contributing Variables of Gender and Other Language Study
for the Babysitting Scenario ...................................................................................... 75

Table 27: Post-Hoc Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings
with the Contributing Variables Of Gender and Other Language Study
for the Store Scenario ................................................................................................ 76

Table 28: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings
with the Contributing Variables of Gender and Other Language Study
for the Police Scenario ............................................................................................... 77

Table 29: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings
with the Contributing Variables of Gender and Other Language Study
for the Court Scenario ............................................................................................... 78

Table 30: Percentage of Students Responding “Yes” to Participation in

the Four Communication Scenarios in Comparison to the Lodge-Miller
and Elfenbein (1994) Data ......................................................................................... 89

viii

Table 31: Students’ Mean Confidence Compared to the Lodge-Miller and
Elfenbein Data ........................................................................................................... 92

Table 32: Percentage Of Students in the ASL Course who Reported “To Help”

as Their Justification for Participation in Comparison to the Lodge-Miller
and Elfenbein Data .................................................................................................... 93

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Students’ Participation Decisions for the Babysitting Scenario ................ 36
Figure 2: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Babysitting Scenario ...................... 40
Figure 3: Comparison Of the Students’ Confidence Ratings for the

Babysitting Scenario to the Instructors’ ACRs .......................................................... 42
Figure 4: Students’ Participation Decisions for the Store Scenario ........................... 44
Figure 5: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Store Scenario ................................ 47
Figure 6: Comparison Of the Students’ Confidence Ratings for the

Store Scenario to the Instructors’ACRs ..................................................................... 49
Figure 7: Students’ Participation Decisions for the Police Scenario ......................... 51
Figure 8: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Police Scenario ............................... 54
Figure 9: Comparison Of the Students’ Confidence Ratings for the

Police Scenario to the Instructors’ ACRs .................................................................. 56
Figure 10: Students’ Participation Decisions for the Court Scenario ........................ 59
Figure 11: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Court Scenario .............................. 61
Figure 12: Comparison of the Students’ Confidence Ratings for the

Court Scenario Compared to the Instructors’ ACRs ................................................. 63
Figure 13: Students’ Mean Confidence for the Four Scenarios ................................. 71

Figure 14: Students’ Mean Confidence Ratings by Gender, Other
Language Study and Scenario ................................................................................... 74

Figure 15: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the
Babysitting Scenario .................................................................................................. 79

Figure 16: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the
Babysitting Scenario .................................................................................................. 80

Figure 17: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the
Store Scenario ............................................................................................................ 81

Figure 18: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the
Store Scenario ............................................................................................................ 82

Figure 19: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the
Police Scenario ........................................................................................................... 84

Figure 20: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the
Police Scenario ........................................................................................................... 85

Figure 21: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the
Court Scenario ........................................................................................................... 86

Figure 22: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the
Court Scenario ........................................................................................................... 87

xi

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, post-secondary enrollment in modern foreign languages
between 1977 and 1998 remained fairly stable (Welles, 2004). The 2002 survey Of
foreign language enrollments in United States institutions Of higher education conducted
by the Modern Language Association (MLA) revealed a 17.0% increase in foreign
language enrollment from 1998 tO 2002, with over 1.3 million students taking language
courses in 2002. During this same time period, the college student population also
increased 29%. Welles stated that although the MLA viewed the growth in language
enrollment as “substantial, the proportion of modern foreign language enrollments to
every 100 institutional enrollments has remained relatively constant over the years” (p.
24).

Capriccioso and Epstein (2006) noted that less than 8 percent of post-secondary
students in the United States enroll in foreign language courses. The United States
Census Bureau (2004) reported that in 2002, 1,397,300 students in higher education
institutions enrolled in foreign language courses. During the same year, 15,318 students
graduated with bachelor’s degrees in foreign languages and literatures. According to the
United States Government Office of Management and Budget (2006), just one percent Of
post-secondary degrees are awarded to students specializing in foreign languages.

Although only 1% Of students enrolled in foreign language courses continue on to
earn degrees in this field, the 2002 MLA survey revealed that post-secondary institutions
are Offering a wider variety of language courses compared to previous survey years.

Welles (2004) reported that a growing student demand to pursue specific languages (e.g.,

American Sign Language (ASL), Arabic, Chinese) resulted in additional undergraduate
and graduate language course offerings in the 2,769 colleges and universities surveyed.
Although Spanish continues to account for more than half (53.4%) Of all foreign language
enrollments, the survey data revealed that other commonly taught languages such as
French, German, and Russian demonstrated only modest gains when compared to
enrollments in less commonly taught languages such as Korean, Arabic, Portuguese,
Chinese, and ASL (Welles, 2004). Morrison (2003) and Damast (2005) both stated that
Arabic is one Of the fastest growing languages taught in high schools, colleges and
universities because Of governmental pressure to fill the increasing demand for fluent
speakers heightened by current political environments.

Post-secondary students’ attraction to the study of both commonly and less
commonly taught languages is reflective Of Graddol’s (2004) description Of the
communication demands Of a global multilingual society containing participants engaged
in shared business, governmental, medicinal, and educational pursuits. For example,
most people in the world speak more than one language and are able to shift between
languages as needed during the work day. Graddol stated that, “Mononlingual English
speakers may find it difficult to fiilly participate in a multilingual society” (p. 1330).

Graddol estimated that by 2050, in the 15-24 year age range globally, native
speakers Of the top five languages spoken will include 166 million Chinese speakers, 74
million Hindi speakers, 72 million Arabic speakers, 65 million English speakers, and 63
million Spanish speakers. Estimates Of current language use from the 2000 United States

Census results revealed that, among the 262.4 million people age 5 and over in the United

States, 47 million (18%) spoke a language other than English in the home environment
(U .8. Bureau of the Census, 2000). The top five languages, other than English, spoken in
the United States included Spanish with 28 million speakers, Chinese with 2.0 million
speakers, French with 1.6 million speakers, German with 1.4 million speakers, and
Tagalog with 1.2 million speakers. Other growing languages in the United States
included Vietnamese, Italian, Korean, Russian, Polish, and Arabic. Johnson (2000)
discussed the implications of having many cultural groups living within the United
States, noting that the majority Of these groups become marginalized with their discourse
silenced in public and private sectors that utilize English as the main form of
communication and social interaction. Johnson stated that no one person can be an
expert in all cultural groups or be proficient in all language systems, but that individuals
having “varying degrees Of cultural mindedness and intercultural communication
competence offer promise for bridging communication differences and difficulties that
occur in moments Of cultural complexity” (p. 63). Culturally complex interactions
between English speakers and speakers of another language could occur in a variety Of
settings including medical, legal, and work-related arenas.

The United States Census Bureau (2000) categorized 11.9 million individuals as
linguistically isolated, meaning that they lacked a strong command Of the English
language. In the Midwest region, of the 5,623,538 individuals speaking a language other
than English, 2,398,120 (4%) qualified as linguistically isolated. This linguistic isolation
may prevent these individuals from participating in basic everyday communication

interactions such as shopping or banking. It may also affect communicating effectively

with medical personnel, service providers, or public and school Officials. To assist this
linguistically isolated population in achieving a safer and higher quality of life, it is vital
that the educational system provide opportunities for language instruction to prepare the
general student population for participation in an increasingly multilingual society (e.g.,
study Of culture in addition to vocabulary and syntax, study abroad to provide context for
the language). Kramsch (1993) stated that the goals of foreign language education
include: communicative competence, cultural knowledge, and cognitive growth. In order
to attain these goals, it is important that students enrolled in foreign language courses
acquire formal conversational skills, reflect upon the cultural group’s history and
ideologies to understand the language in its own context, and be cognizant Of their
proficiency levels when using the target language in a variety of situations.

Kramsch (1993) discussed the important role of language instructors as cultural
intermediaries who create bridges from their cultures and languages to their students’
cultures and languages. Students who choose to pursue more advanced language study
may also be groomed to become cultural intermediaries, assisting the linguistically
isolated with participation in public and private sectors. These students must recognize
their skill levels relative to the possible communication demands placed on them in a
multilingual and culturally diverse society.

With 47 million people speaking a language other than English in the United
States, some portion of native speakers of English who have completed or are taking
introductory language courses will encounter native speakers Of another language in

everyday life situations. According to Huber (1993), only 16% of the students enrolled in

introductory language courses go on to advanced classes. The remaining 84% of the
students terminate their language study after completion of introductory courses. Are
individuals who terminate their language study early able to assess their language
proficiency levels enabling them to recognize their capabilities and limitations in
communication interactions with speakers who do not use English? The next section Of
this report provides a review of literature concerning post-secondary students’ abilities to
assess their Skills in the language classroom and of factors impacting this assessment.
Literature Review
Post-Secondary Students ’ Beliefs Concerning Attainment of Language Proficiency
Phillips (1985) stated that students who complete four semesters of language
courses develop survival-level language skills. They may be able to maintain simple
conversations with frequent pronunciation and grammatical errors, to discuss only
familiar topics due to limited language experience, and to be understood only by
language users who are used to dealing with foreigners by slowing down their speech and
using large amounts of repetition or paraphrasing. Many students at this level have
acquired a speaking vocabulary adequate only to express basic needs such as ordering a
meal, asking for and giving simple directions, making purchases, and telling time.
Lightbown (2003) describes this situation as developing a “classroom register” in that
students acquire skills such as vocabulary and morphosyntax which are relevant to course
instruction, but lacking in any pragmatic or sociolinguistic aspects of the language.
Students’ inabilities to recognize the enormous depth of language study required tO

become proficient may result in gross overestimations of their skill levels while taking

language courses (Horwitz, 1988; Lightbown, 2003).

Studies by J emigan (2001) and Horwitz (1988) revealed that the unrealistic
learning expectations of students enrolled in introductory language courses influenced the
students’ abilities to accurately assess their language skills. J emigan administered
surveys to and conducted interviews with 101 lower division students enrolled in
introductory Portuguese classes at the University Of Texas at Austin. Students completed
a survey during the first week of class and another during the third to the last week of
class. The first survey included information concerning students’ backgrounds and goals
for the course. The second survey asked students about their goal attainment, if they had
changed any Of their goals, and why they decided to continue or discontinue their
language study.

J emigan reported that “many” of the students in the Portuguese class set
unrealistic goals concerning language attainment (p. 32). The students felt they could
attain proficiency in the language easily, especially if they had past exposure to a related
language such as Spanish. J emigan noted that “many” students stated that these
expectations were based on information they received from friends and teachers who
stated that individuals who knew a related language, such as Spanish, would attain
Portuguese with relative ease. She stated that when students do not attain their speaking
goals, they may then become fi'ustrated and discontinue their language study or they may
lower their original expectation of attaining proficiency. This study provided evidence
that some students believed that they would learn a language with relative case if they

knew a related language, but did not provide information regarding students’ assessments

of their language skills during or after an introductory language course.

A study conducted by Horwitz (1988) also documented the impact of students’
unrealistic learning expectations on their abilities to accurately assess their language
skills. The author administered The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory
(BALLI) to first-semester language students at the University of Texas during the first
three weeks of their language classes. The BALLI was administered to 80 students
enrolled in first-semester German courses, 63 students enrolled in first-semester French
courses, and 98 students enrolled in first-semester Spanish courses. The 34-item
inventory assessed student Opinions concerning their current language skill levels, their
views of their languages as difficult or easy to learn, how long it would take to attain
fluency in the target language, and the relative difficulty Of reading and writing, and
speaking the target language. Students responded to statements such as, “Some
languages are easier to learn than others” using a 5-point scale from “strongly agree” tO
“strongly disagree” (p. 285).

Horwitz found that 20% Of the students in the Spanish courses viewed their
language as difficult to learn, while 33% of the students in the German courses and 38%
Of the students in the French courses felt that their respective languages were difficult to
learn. It is interesting to note, however, that 5-8% of students within each language
group felt they could attain fluency in a second language in under one year of study and
that 35-38% of students in each language group felt they could learn a second language in
one to two years Of language study. Horwitz stated that this last set of student

expectations Of the time to attain fluency in the target language was a significant

underestimation. The author hypothesized that students who underestimate the time to
attain fluency might be overestimating not only their current skill levels, but also what
they would attain in later courses. The data acquired from Horwitz’s study are important
in that they provided information about post-secondary students’ beliefs concerning
language learning across multiple languages. Like the J emigan data, however, this study
provides no direct evidence of the abilities of individuals to assess their own language
skills.
Student Self-Assessment Regarding Skill Acquisition and Proficiency

Dunning, Heath, & Suls (2004) stated that in order for individuals to accurately
assess their abilities, they must identify both the skills and knowledge necessary to
become competent in a specified area. However, for individuals learning new material, it
may be difficult to fully understand these end goals. The lack of these comparison points
can result in individuals having difficulty assessing and recognizing their current
incompetence. In the arena of language acquisition, students enrolled in introductory
courses may be unable to comprehend the enormous task necessary to attain language
proficiency because, as beginning users of the language, their exposure to the language is
extremely limited. Dunning et al reported that, in some instances, this lack of knowledge
concerning end goals and the individual’s subsequent failure to recognize his/her
incompetence then leads the individual to view what little skills he/she has in this area as
above-average. The authors stated that responsibility for students’ flawed self-
assessments does not rest solely on the students; the ways in which they were instructed

can also be an important factor.

Instructional Methods Effects on Students ’ Abilities to Self-Assess Their Skills
Dunning et a1 (2004) stated that massed training is a popular instructional method

used by educational institutions such as colleges and universities to teach students
enrolled in a wide range Of courses. In this method, instructors provide a large amount Of
information to students per class session. This is necessary to meet the time constraints
Of universities’ semester systems. With each class session, students acquire knowledge at
a rapid rate and can attain high levels of proficiency during that moment of instruction.
The authors cautioned that this type of instruction allows for little carry-over from
session to session as students are acquiring one subset of the course information in one
session and then acquiring new information during the next session. Students perceive
themselves as competent in an area where they may know a limited set Of specific pieces
Of information. For example, students learn about information from one chapter of their
class textbook for one class period and then about another chapter for the next class
period. Although the students understand the material during each class period, they may
not retain this information when beginning a new class period. Students may be focused
on learning the information for that specific class time and not integrate this content with
the related course material of past or future classes to gain a better understanding of the
subject matter.

Relationships Among Students ’ Perceived Anxiety, Perceived Skill Levels
And Actual Skill Levels

Data from a study by MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement (1997) revealed post-
secondary students’ inabilities to accurately assess their communication skill levels in the

modalities of reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension. The authors

9

administered questionnaires and a series of French proficiency tests to 37 students with
varied competence in the French language. The questionnaire included 19 items in which
participants were asked to rate their anxiety levels when using French in speaking
situations. Given statements such as, “I would get nervous ifI had to speak French to
someone in a store,” students rated their perceived anxiety using a 7-point scale ranging
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (p. 271). The authors then administered a
26-item test which assessed the students’ perceived competence in various tasks testing
reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension in the target language. The
students’ proficiency levels were rated by three bilingual judges (i.e., one judge for the
speaking tasks, one judge for the writing tasks, and one judge for the reading and
listening comprehension tasks).

The authors noted that students who were more proficient tended to rate
themselves as more proficient; however, only a moderate correlation was revealed
between the self proficiency ratings Of the students and the Obj ective proficiency ratings
Of the judges. The study also indicated that as the students’ anxiety scores increased,
their performance on the objective measures of proficiency decreased across all tasks.
Those students who rated themselves as more anxious in language situations tended to
underestimate their language abilities in multiple modalities, and those students who
rated themselves as less anxious and more relaxed tended to overestimate their language
abilities in multiple modalities. The authors noted that anxious students, who might be
more reluctant to speak or participate in class, would have difficulty increasing their

proficiency and would remain anxious. Conversely, more relaxed students, who might be

10

comfortable being actively involved in class activities, would have greater potential to
increase their proficiency. It is not clear whether, at some point, either group’s self-
assessment skills would improve.

Manual Communication Students ’ Abilities to Self-Assess Their Sign Skills

A study conducted by Lodge-Miller & Elfenbein (1994) examined post-secondary
students’ abilities to accurately assess their communication skills while enrolled in a
Signed English course at the University of Iowa. Signed English is a system for
representing the English language that was designed for use by preschool and school-age
children. Because it is a representation Of English and is not a true language, it is
considered to be one of several manually coded English systems (Bornstein, 1990).

The participants in this study were 57 class members who were undergraduate
students majoring in areas other than speech-language pathology and audiology. The
subjects were asked to complete questionnaires that included hypothetical situations in
which students were asked to use the signs they were learning with deaf individuals in
scenarios of varying difficulty. Two instructors each taught two sections of the course.
Two sections received the questionnaire on the third day of class at which time students
had only been instructed in the use of the manual alphabet (i.e., fingerspelling). These
two sections were given the same questionnaire again at midterm. The remaining two
groups were given the questionnaire at midterm only.

The students were asked if they would choose to participate in the scenarios
based on their current skill levels. The first two scenarios (i.e., babysitting for a six-year-

Old deaf child for 30 minutes and communicating the total amount due to a deaf woman

11

in line in front of the student at a store) were acceptable for student participation based on
their current skill level. The remaining scenarios required advanced skills far beyond the
students’ current level Of knowledge. They involved facilitating communication between
a deaf woman who was a witness to an accident and a police Officer wanting her
statement, and facilitating communication between a deaf man who witnessed a fistfight
and two lawyers in a court of law. For each scenario, students were asked to: 1) answer
whether they would participate in the scenario, 2) provide a reason for their participation
decision, and 3) rate their confidence when using their language skills in the situation
based on an ll-pOint scale on which “0" represented “no confidence” and “10"
represented “totally confident.”

Results from the initial distribution of the questionnaire (which was given three
days into the course when the students knew only the manual alphabet) were that 100%
of the students stated that they would babysit, 96% Of the students stated that they would
interpret for a customer in a store and interpret for a police Officer, and 70% of the
students revealed that they would interpret for a deaf individual in a legal setting. The
students’ confidence ratings were greater for the store scenario than the other three
scenarios. There were no significant differences between the confidence ratings for the
babysitting, accident, and court scenarios.

The researchers also investigated the impact Of a discussion about deafness,
interpreter ethics, sign systems, and ASL on the students’ responses. Each instructor
provided this lecture in one section before the students completed the questionnaire at

midterm and then in the other section after the students completed the questionnaire.

12

Sections that received the discussion before the questionnaire was completed became the
Discussion Group and sections that received the discussion after the questionnaire was
completed became the NO Discussion Group. At midterm, 100% of the Discussion
Group indicated they would babysit or interpret for a customer, 72% indicated they
would interpret for the police and 41% stated they would interpret in court. In the No
Discussion Group, 100% indicated they would babysit or interpret for a customer, 96%
stated they would interpret for the police and 86% Of the students stated they would
interpret in court. The No Discussion Group reported significantly higher confidence
ratings than the Discussion Group. The confidence ratings for both groups were highest
for the store scenario and then decreased across the babysitting, accident, and court
scenarios. The confidence ratings for the babysitting scenario were significantly higher
than the confidence ratings for the accident and court scenarios, but significantly lower
than the confidence ratings for the store scenario. The accident and court confidence
ratings did not significantly differ. These results revealed that although discussions
regarding sign languages and systems and individuals’ rights to a skilled interpreter may
assist in decreasing students’ self-evaluation inaccuracies, they do not eliminate them.
Next, the authors reviewed the students’ justifications for their participation
decisions. They noted that at both survey administrations (i.e., the third day and at
midterm) the top two justifications for participation in each Of the last three scenarios
included “the need to help” or “the need to help people who are deaf.” These responses
occurred even after students received class lectures concerning the rights of deaf

individuals to have a skilled interpreter present during language interactions. Lodge-

13

Miller and Elfenbein raised the issue of whether the students perceived deaf individuals
as “disabled” and “in greater need Of help than other individuals” (p 290). This study
indicated that students taking an introductory Signed English course demonstrated poor
self-assessment Of their Sign skills. Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein stated that follow-up
research was necessary to gather data on students taking introductory ASL courses, as
well as from students enrolled in spoken languages such as French, Spanish, and
Japanese to compare the self-assessment skills of students’ taking visually based and
spoken languages.
Depictions of Deaf Individuals in the Media, Popular Literature and Textbooks

In light of the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein (1994) findings regarding students
feeling “a need to help people who are deaf,” studies were reviewed that investigated
how deaf individuals are portrayed in societal arenas such as literature, the media, and
education. Hafferty and Foster (1994) conducted a study reviewing the images of deaf
individuals in popular culture such as in literature and television programming. The
authors suggested that the ways in which these individuals were portrayed served as a
reflection Of public attitude. The authors felt that many Of the images were unrealistic
and distorted, often reflecting capabilities beyond the majority Of deaf individuals’ skills.

The authors reviewed the television series, Reasonable Doubts, starring a popular
Deaf actress named Marlee Matlin. Although the authors stated that her character
reflected a positive image Of a deaf individual, they noted that it also represented an
unrealistic view of the communication interactions occurring between deaf and hearing

people. In this television series, Matlin’s character was skilled in the abilities Of

14

lipreading and speaking orally. The authors cautioned that the general public could view
this portrayal of her character’s skills as typical Of people who are deaf and lead to
unrealistic expectations Of deaf individuals’ abilities. Furthermore, the authors found that
her character was always accompanied by an individual who could act as an interpreter
for her. The authors stated that this type Of image Offered a distorted view of the true
communication barriers faced by deaf individuals. The authors noted that misleading
stereotypes arise when individuals view a portrayal Of the capabilities Of a very small
percentage of a population and then generalize this depiction to the entire deaf
population.

The authors also reviewed a 50-year period of literary fiction specifically focusing
on detective novels to determine how deaf characters were portrayed. The authors
examined four novels published in the 1930s with Drury Lane as the main deaf detective
character, one novel published in 1973 with Sampson Trehune as the main deaf detective
character, and four novels published in the 19808 with a deaf detective character named
Joe Binney. An analysis Of these characters revealed that the first two individuals are
depicted-as extremely wealthy and possessing the ability to lipread in various linguistic
contexts and environmental settings. In addition, Sampson Trehune’s character is
constantly accompanied by a companion who could act as an interpreter to facilitate
communication, if necessary. Although the character of Joe Binney does not possess
extreme wealth and lacks an interpreter side-kick, he is still capable of lipreading and
understanding conversations without difficulty. The authors noted that the portrayal Of

these characters depicted an unrealistic communicative environment for deaf and hearing

15

individuals, minimizing the problematic social interactions occurring when significant
parts of conversations are misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Hoffmeister (1996) reviewed 13 of the most common textbooks used for general
special education classes by 20 departments Of special education in colleges across the
United States. Hoffrneister specifically examined chapters allotted to people who are
deaf to examine how this cultural group was described to future regular and special
education teachers. Hoffineister found that approximately 70% of the chapters focused
on the ear and how hearing loss occurs and is measured. The author viewed this as a
focus on pathology. Only one chapter had as much as 20% Of its content devoted to Deaf
culture, the role Of Deaf professionals, and the Deaf community. Three had no discussion
of this type. Hoffineister Observed that three chapters described ASL as a language and
the remaining chapters described ASL as “one of the communication methods used in the
classroom” (p. 184). The author stated that when ASL was mentioned it was
accompanied by a negative factor, such as the effort required to master it or an indication
that the language was not educationally relevant.

Hoffrneister’s study is relevant as it shows an educationally supported
socialization occurring in which individuals are taught to view a group as distinctive not
because of their culture or language, but because of a label Of pathology that society has
placed on it. The author cautioned that the way in which the students were socialized to
view deaf individuals, compounded by larger societal attitudes, may take precedence over
facts about the group’s culture and language. If an individual is taught to view another

group’s language as not educationally relevant, he/she may begin to view it as not worth

16

learning. If individuals do consider Sign worth learning, but only for use as an
educational tool or “communication method,” individuals may perceive sign as easy to
master.

Summary

Post-secondary students’ choices regarding the decision to enroll in foreign
language courses can be influenced by societal, cultural, and familial Opinions concerning
languages and their users, as well as by historical and current political and business
environments dictating which languages are essential to learn. The changing United
States’ demographics also impacts student language choices. In the United States, with
over 47 million individuals speaking a language other than English and 11.9 million
individuals categorized as linguistically isolated, it is likely that some portion Of post-
secondary students enrolled in foreign language courses will one day be in positions to
act as cultural intermediaries (e.g., a store manager communicating with a customer who
does not speak English). However, many students at the post-secondary level terminate
their language study early. Only 1% Of the original 1.3 million students enrolled in
foreign language courses go on to earn a degree in this field.

The literature reviewed revealed that Opinions from friends, teachers, literature,
and the media may influence students’ perceptions about language learning or the cultural
group who use a language (J emigan, 2001; Hafferty and Foster, 1994; Hoffrneister,
1996). Research also revealed that students had difficulty assessing the time needed to
attain proficiency in a target language (Jemigan, 2001; Horwitz, 1988) and that students’

self-assessments of their proficiency in a language only moderately correlated with

17

objective ratings of their proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and
speaking that language (MacIntyre et a1, 1997).

The Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein (1994) study demonstrated that students taking
an introductory manual communication course demonstrated poor self-assessment Of
their skill levels in Signed English. Students made poor participation decisions and
indicated overconfidence concerning communication tasks beyond their language
capabilities. Because the students were learning a Sign system that used English word
order, their prior knowledge Of English may have influenced their participation decisions
and levels Of confidence. They may have felt more skilled than they truly were.
Students’ responses also may have been influenced by their opinions about the characters
in the scenarios. Many students in this study justified their inappropriate participation in
these situations by stating the need “to help” or “to help people who are deaf.”

Rationale for the Current Study

What is not available in the literature pool is information concerning whether
students enrolled in the study of true languages, spoken language or ASL, are able to
appropriately assess their skill levels and use those assessments tO make decisions about
participation in communication outside Of the classroom. The Lodge-Miller and
Elfenbein study used a survey to investigate students’ willingness to participate in four
language interaction scenarios of varying difficulty and their confidence ratings regarding
performance in those situations. The authors discussed a need for follow-up research to
determine whether the patterns they Observed in students studying Signed English would

also be observed in students studying visually based languages such as ASL and spoken

l8

languages such as French or Spanish. The goals Of this project were to replicate a portion
Of the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study (i.e., participation decision and confidence
rating tasks for the four scenarios, the decision-justification task, and the midterm
timeframe for survey distribution) with students from a variety of introductory language
courses and to investigate the contribution of student characteristics (e.g., gender,
previous study Of languages) to students’ self-assessment capabilities. The investigator Of
this current study sought to understand: 1) if post-secondary students taking introductory
language courses are able to accurately assess their newly acquired language skills, 2) if
this accuracy differs across languages, 3) if this accuracy is affected by other factors (e.g.,
gender, previous exposure to the language, family use of the language, study of other
languages, and anticipated grade in the course), and 4) if students in the ASL course were
more likely than students of spoken languages to make decisions about entering
communication interactions based on a perceived need “to help” the conversational
partner.

It is important to investigate the similarities and differences between students
learning spoken languages and students learning ASL. For example, most students
studying spoken languages have had prior experience with learning a spoken language
when they learned their native languages. These students may be able to assess their skill
levels based on their prior spoken language experience. Most hearing students studying
ASL also have had prior experience with spoken language learning when they learned
their native languages. However, these students are now learning a language in a visual

modality. It may be more difficult for these students to assess their skill levels than it is

19

for students studying a spoken language because of their lack of experience in a visual
modality.

The Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study revealed that students learning Signed
English demonstrated poor self-assessment skills. Signed English is a manually coded
English system and thus uses English word order. ASL is a true language with its own
syntax. Students studying Signed English may overestimate their skills because they
view them as an extension Of their English skills. Students studying ASL may
demonstrate better self-assessment skills than the students studying Signed English
because the students studying ASL are aware of the challenge of learning a new
language.

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein also found that students in their study felt the need to
help people who are deaf and they hypothesized that they might have viewed them as
disabled due tO their deafness. Students taking the ASL course also might view deaf
individuals as disabled and in greater need Of help. It is likely that students studying
spoken languages would not view their communication partners as disabled and,
therefore, would not feel the same need to help these individuals.

The purpose Of this study was to examine the self-assessment skills of students
who were learning spoken or signed languages. The focus of the current study was post-
secondary students enrolled in a variety of introductory language courses including ASL,
Arabic, Korean, and Spanish at Michigan State University during the Fall semester Of

2005.

20

 

Hypotheses
Ho: Students enrolled in the ASL course will demonstrate poor self-assessment

capabilities.

Ho: Students enrolled in the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses will demonstrate better

self-assessment capabilities than students enrolled in the ASL course.

Ho: Students in the ASL course will be more likely than students in the Arabic, Korean,
and Spanish courses to justify their decisions about participation in various

communication situations with the need “to help” their communication partners.

Ho: Students who have real world exposure to users Of the target language or who have
studied other languages will demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities than those
without any exposure to users Of the target language or who have not studied other

languages.

21

METHOD

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Review

This project entitled, “Post-secondary students’ perceptions Of their skill
acquisition during introductory language courses,” was submitted to and reviewed by The
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan
State University during the Summer semester Of 2005. UCRIHS classified the project
(IRB #X05-604) with exempt status.

Survey

The current project was modeled after the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein (1994)
study which examined students’ abilities to self-assess their beginning Signed English
skills. In that study, the researchers surveyed students to determine their willingness to
participate in four language interaction scenarios of varying difficulty. The researchers
also examined the students’ justifications for their decisions and their confidence
regarding participation in the interactions.

The 43-item survey instrument that served as the foundation for this study
included three sets of questions: 1) questions focused on gathering data about the
characteristics Of the students who completed the survey, 2) questions focused on the
students’ responses to the scenarios developed by Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein and 3)
questions focused on the students’ responses to five additional scenarios developed by the
primary investigator asking students what they would do with their language skills
outside of the classroom. The five additional scenarios included examples of daily living

situations such as engaging in a causal conversation, ordering in a restaurant, watching a

22

movie, giving directions, or selecting an academic course. In these situations the students
would need to use the language they were currently studying. This report will deal with
the first two data sets. A copy of the complete survey is provided in the Appendix.
The Four Interaction Scenarios

The section of the student questionnaire which reproduced the four scenarios from
the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study was titled Perception of Current Abilities. Each
participant was provided with a series of four scenarios in which he/she would need to
communicate with a native or fluent speaker of the language he/she was studying using
that language. The first two scenarios were simple interactions that students who had
completed seven to nine weeks of an introductory language course could likely manage.
The last two scenarios required skills well beyond the students’ current proficiency
levels; these were situations in which the lead character had a legal right to a skilled
interpreter. The scenarios included: 1) Babysitting - babysitting for 30 minutes for a six-
year-Old child, 2) Store - facilitating communication between a customer and a store clerk
concerning the total amount due for a purchase, 3) Police - facilitating communication
between a witness to a car accident and a police Officer, and 4) Court - facilitating
communication between a witness to a fight in a bar and two lawyers in a court Of law.

For each scenario, students were asked : l) to state whether they would
participate in the interaction, 2) to provide a brief reason for the decision about
participation (i.e., why the student would or would not participate), and 3) to rate their
confidence in participating in this activity. Students were given the 11-point scale

developed by Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein to rate their confidence. On this scale “0"

23

represented “no confidence,” and “10" represented “totally confident.” Use of the
Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein scale set the stage for a comparison Of the data Obtained from
this project to the original study.

Survey Questions about Student Characteristics

The Personal Information section Of the survey included various questions
regarding the participant’s gender, age, ethnicity, hearing status, native language, family
members’ use of the target language, and use of the target language in the individual’s
home environment or as part of the individual’s culture.

The next section, Educational Information, included questions concerning the
student’s current language Of study, the student’s interest in the class, the greatest
influence on the student’s decision tO enroll in the language course, the presence Of a
language requirement for the student’s major, the student’s plans to continue studying the
target language, and the student’s Opinion regarding the importance of students learning
other languages A final set Of questions about the student’s characteristics, Additional
Questions, provided information about the student’s major, class year, previous exposure
to the target language and/or other languages, Opinions regarding other languages he/she
felt were important to study, and anticipated grade in the course.

Student responses to some of the questions such as class year were used to
describe the participants. Other questions were designed tO gather information about
factors that might have contributed to the students’ responses to the Perception of
Current Abilities section of the survey. For example, questions about students’ previous

exposure to the target language or to other languages were developed based on data from

24

J emigan (2001). That study revealed that post-secondary students enrolled in
introductory Portuguese courses felt they could attain fluency with relative ease because
they had past exposure to a related language such as Spanish.
Participant Recruitment
Course Selection

Following UCRIHS review, the primary investigator distributed project
description information to the secretaries on campus serving departments that Offered
language courses. The secretaries then disseminated the information to faculty teaching
language courses during the Fall semester Of 2005. The primary investigator received
responses through electronic mail from interested faculty teaching ASL, Arabic, German,
Korean, and Spanish. Through electronic mail correspondence, each language instructor
scheduled a time during his/her class sessions for the primary investigator to discuss the
project with potential participants and to distribute questionnaires to those students
choosing to participate. These meetings were scheduled between weeks seven and nine
Of the fifteen-week semester. This time period was selected to match one of the data-
collection time frames used in the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study.

Five language instructors and the students enrolled in their introductory courses
participated in the study. This included: one instructor teaching two sections Of ASL, one
instructor teaching three sections Of Arabic, one instructor teaching one section of
Korean, and two instructors each teaching two sections of Spanish.

Although instructors teaching introductory German courses initially planned to

participate, classes on the date chosen for survey distribution were scheduled as five

25

multiple—section review sessions. Student attendance at the review sessions was not
mandatory. NO students were present at the three review sessions attended by the
primary investigator, so the survey was not distributed to any students taking introductory
German courses.

Students

Prior to survey distribution, the primary investigator provided students with an
overview of the research project and offered them an Opportunity to participate. The
investigator explained that the Objective of the study was to increase understanding Of
students’ abilities tO assess their communication skills in the languages they were
studying. The investigator discussed the voluntary nature Of student participation in the
research project, emphasizing that students would not be penalized in any way for
choosing not to participate and would not receive any compensation for participating.
Following a ten-minute discussion regarding the project, including explaining the
sections of the survey and answering any student questions, the investigator asked the
participants to complete the survey. Students were instructed not to place their names
anywhere on the survey as this was an anonymous survey. Participating students
completed the survey in about 15 minutes.

Table 1 provides summary information about both the potential participant pool
and the numbers Of student participants. NO data were collected concerning the numbers
of students who were present in the classes on the days the research was conducted.

Of the 333 surveys returned, 18 were removed from the data pool. All were from

the ASL courses. Two were discarded because the students were not yet 18 years of age

26

Table 1: Potential Participant Pool Compared to the Total Number of Surveys Returned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language # of sections Offered # of sections # Of student surveys
on campus and total participating and returned
enrollment total enrollment
ASL 2 Sections 2 Sections N=l99
N=262 N=262
Arabic 4 Sections 3 Sections N=49
N=90 N=69
German 6 Sections 6 Sections =0
N=l49 N=l49
Korean 1 Section 1 Section N=
N=11 N=ll
Spanish 15 Sections 4 Sections N=76
N=33O N=91

 

 

 

 

and thus too young to give consent to participate in research. An additional 16 surveys
were discarded because they were incomplete. Of the 16 students who returned these, 12
did not list reasons for participating in any of the four scenarios, one did not fill out the
last page Of the survey, two did not fill out the last two survey pages, and one student did
not fill out the last three pages of the survey. Some students in the remaining courses
omitted answers to isolated questions. These were: 1) a “yes” or “no” response to
participation in the police scenario (2 students) or the court scenario (5 students), 2) a
reason to justify participation in the babysitting scenario (3 students), the store scenario
(1 student), the police scenario (6 students), or the court scenario (10 students), or 3) a
confidence rating for the police scenario (1 student), or the court scenario (3 students).
The data from these surveys were included in the analysis because the other sections were
complete. A “no response” category was added to certain sections during data entry so
that the missing responses could be documented.

After the elimination of the 18 ASL surveys, the total numbers of participating

27

 

students for each language were: ASL (181), Arabic (49), Korean (9), and Spanish (76).
Survey return rates, calculated using enrollments in the participating sections as
denominators, were 69% for the ASL course, 72% for the Arabic course, 82% for the
Korean course, and 84% for the Spanish course. Table 2 provides information concerning

students’ gender distribution, class years, and past exposure to the target language.

Table 2: Participating Students' Background Information

 

Class Gender Class year Past
language exposure

 

Male Female Fresh Soph Junior Senior Yes No

 

ASL 16% 84% 32% 25% 18% 25% 51% 47%

 

Arabic 47% 53% 31% 37% 22% 10% 51% 45%

 

Korean 67% 33% 45% 22% 0% 33% 89% l 1%

 

Spanish 36% 64% 17% 37% 16% 29% 74% 22%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 315 participating students, 85 (27%) were male and 230 (73%) were
female. Students described their ethnicity as follows: Caucasian (245 students, 78%),
African-American (28 students, 9%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (3 students, 1%),
Asian (13 students, 4%), Pacific Islander (1 student, 003%), Hispanic (11 students, 3%),
and Other (14 students, 4%). Almost all (309 students, 98%) of the respondents were in
the 18-23 years of age category. Three students (009%) were in the 24-29 years of age
category, two students (006%) were in the 30-35 years Of age category, and 1 student
(003%) was in the 36-39 years Of age category. The distribution Of the students across

class year was 89 (28%) freshmen, 94 (30%) sophomores, 56 (18%) juniors, and 75
28

(24%) seniors.

Language Instructors

Table 3 provides information about the five language instructors. The table

includes information about the instructors’ gender, ages, teaching experience and native

languages. All five instructors were female. They ranged from 24 to 53 years Of age.

Their teaching experience ranged from 1 year to 23 years. All of the instructors had

taught at universities and one also taught at a community college. Four Of the five

language instructors were native speakers Of the language they were teaching.

Table 3: Descriptive Information about the Language Instructors

 

Instructor’s
class

Gender

Age

Experience
teaching the
course

Native
language

 

ASL

Female

53

16 years at
MSU
23 years at a
community
college

ASL

 

Arabic

Female

24

1 year at MSU
2 years at a
university

English

 

Korean

Female

25

1 year at MSU

Korean

 

Spanish

Female

33

4 semesters at
MSU
1 semester at a
university

Spanish

 

 

Spanish

 

Female

 

27

 

1 semester at
MSU
3 semesters
abroad at
universities

 

Spanish

 

To gather data concerning the appropriateness of students’ decisions regarding

scenario participation and confidence ratings, the language instructors in each course

29

 

were asked to complete the scenario section Of the survey titled Perception of Current
Abilities. In this section students were asked whether they would participate in the four
scenarios, to provide a reason for their answer, and tO estimate their confidence rating for
participating in each scenario. Instructors were asked to determine: 1) the acceptability
of student participation in each scenario, and 2) the confidence ratings students should
provide regarding participating in each scenario. The instructors could provide possible
student justifications for participation, but were not required to dO so. The instructors’
Opinions regarding acceptability of student participation in each of the scenarios and their
judgments of appropriate confidence ratings were critical to the data analysis in that l)
the instructors were fluent and/or native speakers of the target language and 2) they were
familiar with the language skills of the students responding to the survey.

The instructors’ responses to scenario participation were “yes” or “no” decisions
based on the students’ skill levels at the time Of data collection (i.e., the seventh to ninth
week of the fifteen-week semester). Confidence ratings were made using the same 1 1-
point scale used by the students. The Spanish course was taught by two instructors. Each
instructor provided student confidence ratings which were then used in one combined
range for the students in their course. The ASL, Korean, and Arabic courses were each
taught by one instructor who provided these ratings.

When rating student performance, instructors were asked to estimate a “typical”
student’s confidence rating and also a “better” student’s confidence rating. This gave the
primary investigator information about how students with varying classroom capabilities

might perform in the scenarios. The instructors’ estimated student confidence ratings

30

(ESCRs) for typical and better students were then used to create Appropriate Confidence
Ranges (ACRs) for each of the scenarios. These ranges reflected the lowest rating
provided for the typical students and the highest rating provided for the better students.
For example, if the instructor stated that a typical student’s confidence rating in one of
the scenarios was a 3 and a better performing student’s confidence rating was a 6, it was
acceptable for the students’ confidence ratings to fall anywhere from 3 to 6. In the data
analysis, students’ ratings were then categorized as above the ACR if they were greater
than the instructor’s range (above a 6 in this example), within the ACR if they fell within
the instructor’s range, below the ACR if they were lower than the instructor’s range
(below a 3 in this example), or as a no response if they were missing.

All of the instructors agreed that, at mid-semester, students in the introductory
language courses had developed adequate skills to successfully participate in the first two
scenarios. Thesescenarios were babysitting for 30 minutes and facilitating
communication between a customer and a store clerk concerning the customer’s amount
due. The language instructors also agreed that the remaining two scenarios, which
included interpreting for a car accident witness and a police officer, and interpreting in
court, were both beyond the students’ current skill levels. It is interesting to note that the
instructor who taught the Arabic course stated that, even as a fluent speaker, she would
not feel comfortable interpreting in a court of law.

Table 4 provides a summary Of the language instructors’ participation decisions
and confidence ratings for their students. The language instructors’ were in agreement

regarding student participation in the four scenarios. Their estimated confidence ratings

31

Table 4: Language Instructors' Judgments for Student Participation Decisions and Confidence
Ratings for the Four Scenarios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Language Scenario Participation Confidence rating
ASL Babysitting Yes Typical Student=5
Better StudenF8
Store Yes Typical Student=5
Better Student=8
Police No Typical Student=1
Better Student=2
Court NO Typical Student=0
Better Student—=0
Arabic Babysitting Yes Typical StudenFS
Better Student=5
Store Yes Typical Student=5
Better Student=6-10
Police NO Typical Student-=0
Better Student=0
Court NO Typical Student=0
Better Student=0
Korean Babysitting Yes Typical Student=8
Better Student=lO
Store Yes Typical Student=7
Better Student=10
Police NO Typical Student=1
Better Student=3
Court NO Typical Student=0
Better Student-=1
Spanish Babysitting Yes Typical Student=0-2
Better Student=5-6
Store Yes Typical Student=3-5
Better Student=7
Police NO Typical Student=0
Better Student=0-2
Court NO Typical StudenFO

 

 

 

Better Student=0-2

 

for the babysitting and store scenarios varied considerably. For the babysitting scenario,

there was a 9-point range among the instructors’ ratings for typical students and a 6-point

 

range among the instructors’ ratings for better performing students. For the store
scenario, there was a 5-point range among the instructors’ confidence ratings for both
typical and better performing students. Estimated confidence ratings for the typical
students in the police and court scenarios were more consistent across instructors. For
the police scenario, there was a 2-point range. For the court scenario, all the instructors
provided an estimated rating of zero for typical students. The ratings ranges provided for
the better performing students were somewhat broader. There was a 4-point range for
better performing students for the police scenario and a 3-point range for better
performing students for the court scenario. Although the instructors’ confidence ratings
varied, the low confidence ratings for the police and court scenarios clearly reflected the
instructors’ Opinions that both typical and better performing students should have little or
no confidence in these situations.

The Arabic course instructor and the ASL instructor completed the survey while
their students completed their surveys. The remaining three instructors completed their
surveys at a later date because they had other responsibilities during the class visit. The
primary investigator reviewed all the instructors’ responses and discovered that the
Korean course instructor and the ASL instructor made participation decisions which
conflicted with their estimated confidence ratings. For example, the ASL instructor
stated that students in the introductory Sign course did not have enough skills to
participate in the police and court scenarios. However, the instructor gave confidence
ratings on the mid-to-high end Of the scale (5 and 8) for student performance in these

scenarios. Both instructors were contacted via electronic mail and asked to complete a

33

second survey. They verified or changed their ratings to reflect how they felt their
students should respond to each scenario. These responses were then used in the data
analysis. The remaining instructors’ confidence ratings were consistent with their

participation decisions. Their initial survey responses were used in the data analysis.

34

RESULTS

For each of the four scenarios, students were asked: 1) to decide whether they
would participate, 2) to provide a reason for the participation decision, and 3) to provide
a confidence rating for participation. Instructors were asked to describe the responses
(i.e., participation decisions and confidence ratings) that would be appropriate for the
typical and better performing students in their classes. Students were also asked
questions regarding their previous exposure to the target language or to other language(s)
they had studied prior to their enrollment in their current language course. These
responses would be used to examine their effects on the students’ answers to the four
scenario questions.

The Results section will analyze the students’ responses for each scenario to
support or reject the four theoretical hypotheses which were: 1) students enrolled in the
ASL course will demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities, 2) students enrolled in the
Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses will demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities
than students enrolled in the ASL course, 3) students in the ASL course will be more
likely than students in the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses to justify their decisions
about participation in various communication situations with the need‘to help’their
communication partners, and 4) students who have real world exposure to users Of the
target language or who have studied other languages will demonstrate better self-
assessment capabilities than those without any exposure to users of the target language or
who have not studied other languages. For the first two hypotheses, analysis involved

comparing the students’ participation decisions and confidence ratings to the responses Of

35

the instructors which were based on the students’ current skill levels. For the data related
to the third hypothesis, a descriptive analysis was completed because the students’
justification responses were their personal opinions. For the fourth hypothesis, analysis
involved examining relationships among the students’ confidence ratings and their
personal characteristics (e.g., previous exposure to the language, anticipated grade).
Babysitting Scenario
Students ’ Participation Decisions
Figure 1 displays the students’ participation responses for this scenario. The
majority of students in each course stated they would participate in this scenario.

Figure 1: Students' Participation Decisions for the Babysitting Scenario

 

Class Language
I ASL

fl Korean
Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

Students’ Participation Decisions

36

Positive (yes) responses were Obtained from .96 (173/ l 81) of the students in the
ASL course, .89 (8/9) of the students in the Korean course, .82 (62/76) of the students in
the Spanish course and .80 (39/49) of the students in the Arabic course. The high
proportions of students deciding to participate were appropriate according to the
instructors who reported that students at this level had sufficient skills to communicate in
this scenario.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions Of students
in the four courses who responded “yes” to participation in the babysitting scenario. The
results, reported in Table 5, revealed that the effect of course language was significant
(p=.001). These data provided evidence supporting rejection Of the null hypothesis that
no significant differences existed among the participation decisions Of the students in the

ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses.

Table 5: Chi Square Results for Student “Yes” Responses to Participation
in the Babysitting Scenario

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Sigrrificance
Pearson Chi-Square 17.351 3 .001
Number of valid
cases 315

 

 

 

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of answering
“yes” was performed using a Bonferroni correction for error rate. In order for a
difference value to be significant, the confidence interval (the range between the lower
and upper bounds) must not include zero (Y. Fang, personal communication, June 8,
2006). The results, reported in Table 6, revealed significant differences in the

probabilities for the following courses: ASL and Spanish, and ASL and Arabic.

37

 

Table 6: Pairwise Test Results for “Yes” Responses to Participation in the Babysitting Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairwise test Lower bound Upper bound Difference
ASL & Korean -0.2055784 0.3395784 0.067
ASL & Spanish 0.01895604 0.261044 0.14
ASL & Arabic 0.00659586 0.3134041 0.16

Korean & -0.2200296 0.3660296 0.073
Spanish

Korean & Arabic -0.2148109 0.4008109 0.093

Spanish & -0.1673504 0.2073504 0.02
Arabic

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proportion of the students in the ASL course who reported that they would
participate in this scenario was significantly greater than the proportions of students in
the Spanish and Arabic courses who made the same decision. Given the direction of the
test results (i.e., students in the ASL course demonstrating the greatest willingness to
participate), the data provided evidence to reject both the theoretical hypothesis that
students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities and the
theoretical hypothesis that students from the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses would
demonstrate better self-assessment skills than the students in the ASL course. It is
important to note that while student participation in this scenario was considered
acceptable by the language instructors, it would not have been inappropriate for a student

who disliked babysitting or lacked babysitting skills to decline to participate.

Students ’ Confidence Ratings
Table 7 provides descriptive statistics for the confidence ratings reported by
students in each course. The data revealed that the confidence means for students who

responded‘yeS’to participation in the babysitting scenario were consistently greater than

38

the confidence means for students who responded “no” to participation in the babysitting
scenario.

Table 7: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Babysitting Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Participation Number Confidence Confidence Mean Standard
language in Of rating rating deviation
babysitting students minimum maximum
ASL Yes 173 2 10 6.98 1.965
NO 8 0 7 2.88 2.167
Arabic Yes 39 3 10 6.90 2.010
NO 1 O 0 4 1 .60 1 .350
Korean Yes 8 4 10 7.50 1.852
NO 1 l 1
Spanish Yes 62 2 10 6.76 1.771
NO 14 0 6 3.29 1.684

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 summarizes the students’ confidence ratings for the babysitting scenario.
In the ASL course, the proportions of students reporting these confidence ratings were:
10 (.12), 9 (.08), 8 (.23), 7 (.19), 6 (.09), 5 (.14), 4 (.07), 3 (.05), 2 (.03), and O (.006).
These data were compared to the language instructor’s ESCRs of 5 for typical students
and 8 for better performing students. Students’ responses were scored within the ACR if
they fell within the instructor’s rating Of 58 Students’ responses were scored above the
ACR if they provided confidence ratings which fell above this range, indicating
overconfidence. If the students’ responses fell below this range, indicating low
confidence, they were scored below the ACR. If students did not provide confidence

ratings, the responses were scored as no responses.

39

Figure 2: Students' Confidence Ratings for the Babysitting Scenario

 

Class Language

a Korean
'3 Spanish
Arabic

_ =5
.30 E:

.20 "

Proportion of Students

IT'S-fl

Iii-3332'):-

‘W‘I'W u, N

\\\\\\\\\I

H ' 1n" mi“

n\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘
TICITITICI'

I T' Evan? ‘3 n
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

u'
t
\\ \\\\ \\\\\\

 

 

a\\\\\\\\\\\‘

'l‘jflfn

 

I
i. v I
.00
2 6

3 4 5 7
Students’ Confidence Ratings

The majority (.66) of the students enrolled in the ASL course provided confidence
ratings which fell within the ACR provided by the instructor. A fifth (.20) of the students
indicated greater confidence than the instructor considered appropriate. A smaller
proportion of students (.14) reported lower confidence ratings than the instructor’s
estimation for typically performing members of the class.

In the Korean class, the confidence ratings data were: 10 (.11), 9 (.11), 8 (.33), 7
(.11), 6 (.11), 4 (.11), and 1 (.11). The instructor for this course provided ESCRs of 8 for
typical students and 10 for better perfomring students. The majority (.56) of the students
enrolled in the Korean course indicated confidence ratings which fell within the
instructor’s ACR. The remaining students (.44) reported lower confidence ratings than the

instructor’s estimated level for typical members of the class. None of the students

40

enrolled in this cornse provided confidence ratings higher than the ESCR assigned to
better students.

The proportions of students in the Spanish course providing each of the
confidence ratings were: 10 (.07), 9 (.01), 8 (.20), 7 (.22), 6 (.17), 5 (.12), 4 (.08), 3 (.04),
2 (.07), 1 (.01), and 0 (.01). The instructors reported ESCRs of 0-2 for typical students
and 5-6 for better performing students. Half (.50) of the students enrolled in this course
indicated confidence ratings within the instructors ACR and half (.50) of the students
reported greater confidence ratings than the instructors considered appropriate. None of
the students in this course provided confidence ratings lower than those the instructors
assigned to typical students.

In the Arabic course, the proportions of students reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.12) 9 (.06), 8 (.12), 7 (.14), 6 (.12), 5 (.12), 4 (.10), 3 (.04), 2 (.08), 1
(.02), and 0 (.06). The instructor provided an ESCR of 5 for both typical and better
performing students. A small proportion (.12) of the students enrolled in this course
indicated the confidence rating that matched the instructor’s rating. The majority (.57) of
the students reported a higher confidence rating than the instructor considered
appropriate, and .31 of the students indicated confidence ratings below the instructor’s
rating.

Figure 3 provides a comparison of the responses from students from all four
courses. Each student’s confidence rating was compared to the ACR for his/her course.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students

in the four courses who reported confidence ratings above the instructors ACRs. The

41

Figure 3: Comparison of the Students' Confidence Ratings for the Babysitting Scenario
to the Instructors' ACRs

 

.60 '
a
E
0
'U
S .40 ‘
hi
9
E
O
E
9
fl.
0
I-
“ .20 ‘

 

 
  
  
   
  
  
 
  
 
 

...-..--.-
. . . . .-:-:-:-"-'-' .-:-l .-:-I
'fu'u'u'n'n'u'u

.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.- :.:.- :.;.:.:.:.

-:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=

-:-:-:-.-.-.-.- .

-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-' :-:

.‘u'u'u'u'n'u':

' .- .-
'5'. . ,-,.,.,...,-'.h .
"7..” Kiri-"1}“ is)??? a. ‘t-( {i QR

m

Within

    

 

Class Language
I ASL
E Korean
E Spanish
Arabic

Students’ Confidence Ratings Compared to the Instructors’ ACRs

results of the test, displayed in Table 8, revealed that the effect of course language was

significant (p=.000). These data provided evidence supporting rejection of the null

hypothesis that no significant differences existed among the confidence ratings Of the

students in the ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses.

Table 8: Chi Square Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings
Above the Instructors' ACRs

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 41.705 3 .000
Number of valid
cases 3 1 5

 

 

 

 

42

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of reporting
confidence ratings above the instructors’ ACRs was performed using a Bonferroni
correction for error rate. The results, reported in Table 9, revealed significant differences
in the probabilities for the following courses: ASL and Korean, Spanish and ASL,
Arabic and ASL, Spanish and Korean, and Arabic and Korean.

Table 9: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above the Instructors’ ACRs
Pairwise test Lower bound Upper bound Difference

ASL & Korean -0.275445 -0.122555 -0.199

ASL & Spanish 0.1346508 0.4673492 0.301

ASL & Arabic 0.17447235 0.5695277 0.372

Korean & 0.35225627 0.6477437 0.5

Spanish

Korean & Arabic 0.38886453 0.7531355 0.571

Spanish & -0.1635241 0.3055241 0.071
Arabic

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proportion of students in the Arabic course who were overconfident was
significantly greater than the proportion of students in the ASL and Korean courses who
were overconfident. The proportion of students in the Spanish course who were
overconfident was significantly greater than the proportion of students in the ASL and
Korean courses who were overconfident. The proportion Of students in the ASL course
who were overconfident was significantly greater than the proportion of students in the
Korean course who were overconfident. These data supported the rejection of the null
hypothesis that no significant differences existed among the confidence ratings of the
students in the ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses. Given the direction of the test
results (i.e., greater proportions of overconfident students in the Arabic and Spanish

courses than in the ASL course), the data also provided evidence to reject the theoretical
43

hypothesis that students in the Arabic and Spanish courses would demonstrate better self-
assessment skills than students in the ASL course. However, the fact that no students in
the Korean course reported overconfidence and that the proportion of students in the ASL
course who reported overconfidence was significantly greater than the proportion of
students in the Korean course, provided evidence to support the theoretical hypothesis
that students in the Korean course would demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities
than students in the ASL course.
Store Scenario
Students ' Participation Decisions

Figure 4 displays the students’ participation responses. The majority of students in

each course stated they would participate in this scenario. Positive (yes) responses were

Figure 4: Students’ Participation Decisions for the Store Scenario

 

Class Language
1.00 ‘ l ASL
E Korean
Spanish
z Arabic
.80 ' I
8
a
0
'3
5 .60 ‘
but
0
5
E .40 -
a.
e
i:
.20 "
.00 "

 

 

 

Students’ Participation Decisions

44

Obtained from .96 (173/181) of the students enrolled in the ASL course, .78 (7/9) Of the
students enrolled in the Korean course, .99 (75/76) Of the students enrolled in the Spanish
course, and .94 (46/49) Of the students enrolled in the Arabic course. The high
proportions Of students deciding tO participate in the store scenario were appropriate
according to the language instructors who agreed that students were adequately prepared
to effectively communicate in this scenario because communicating numbers is stressed
in introductory language courses.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions Of students
in the ASL, Arabic, and Spanish courses who responded “yes” to participation in the
store scenario. It was necessary to exclude the data from the Korean course in order to
meet the test requirements for cell size. The results, reported in Table 10, revealed that

the effect Of course language was not significant (p=.347). These data provided evidence

Table 10: Chi Square Results for Student "Yes" Responses to Participation in the Store Scenario

 

 

 

 

Test Value Df fignificance
Pearson Chi-Square 2.119 2 .347
Number of valid
cases 306

 

 

 

 

supporting acceptance Of the null hypothesis that no significant differences existed

among the participation decisions of the students in the ASL, Arabic, and Spanish

courses. Thus, these data provided evidence to reject the theoretical hypothesis that

students in the Arabic and Spanish courses would demonstrate better self-assessment

capabilities than the students in the ASL course. In addition, the high proportion Of “yes”

 

responses from the students in the ASL course provided evidence for the rejection of the
theoretical hypothesis that the students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-
assessment skills.
Students ' Confidence Ratings
Table 11 provides descriptive statistics for the confidence ratings reported by
students in each course. The data revealed that the confidence means for students who
responded “yes” to participation in the store scenario were consistently greater than the

confidence means for students who responded “no” to participation in the store scenario.

Table 11: Students' Confidence Ratings for the Store Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Participation Number Confidence Confidence Mean Standard
language in store of rating rating deviation
scenario students minimum maximum
ASL Yes 173 2 10 7.49 1.904
NO 8 0 4 1.88 1.246
Arabic Yes 46 2 10 7.26 2.342
NO 3 1 3 2.33 1.155
Korean Yes 7 2 10 7.71 2.752
No 2 1 2 1.50 .707
Spanish Yes 75 3 10 7.27 2.022
NO 1 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 provides a summary of the students’ confidence ratings for the store
scenario. In the ASL course, the proportions Of students indicating these confidence
ratings were: 10 (.17), 9 (.14), 8 (.22), 7 (.14), 6 (.12), 5 (.09), 4 (.07), 3 (.02), 2 (.02), 1
(.01), and 0 (.006). The instructor provided ESCRs of 5 for typical students and 8 for

better performing students. The majority (.56) Of the students enrolled in the ASL course
46

Figure 5: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Store Scenario

 

     
 

Class Language
.30 T I ASL
a Korean
5 Spanish
.25 ‘ ‘

Arabic

 
  

 
 

PM". ‘Ph. .J‘!
Ill-I...

    
  
 
   
  

’1:-JIIZIZIZIZIIIIJIIEI'JIIIIIIIIII):-IIIIII:IJIIIICIZIIIZIZIIIZIZI
‘ _ . ‘ :5 Lb -. J13; L"
r: a

.2.-

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

  
    
  
 

    
    

Proportion of Students
G
l

‘11:“.
I“

   
  

I a I I'
s.) T 'l. l’ '1;
t\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

11-

 

-
1 ”a".

 

 

.- rr- l r. I l_.

C

   

5..-.-. ....I.-..- - . .
" . J;

.00— "'
012345678910

Students’ Confidence Ratings

reported confidence ratings within the instructor’s ACR. A third (.32) of the students
indicated greater confidence ratings than the instructor considered appropriate for better
performing students, and a smaller proportion (.12) of the students reported lower
confidence ratings than the instructor considered appropriate for typical class members.
The proportions of students in the Korean course providing each of the confidence

ratings were: 10 (.22), 9 (.11), 8 (.22), 7 (.11), 2 (.22), and 1 (.11). The instructor
provided ESCRs of 7 for typical students and 10 for better performing students. The
majority (.67) of the students enrolled in this course reported confidence ratings within
the instructor’s ACR. All of the remaining students (.33) indicated lower confidence
ratings than the instructor’s ESCR for typical members of the class. None of the students

in this course provided overconfident ratings for this scenario.

47

The proportions of students in the Spanish course reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.17), 9, (.11), 8 (.26), 7 (.11), 6 (.11), 5 (.12), 4 (.09), 3 (.03), and 1
(.01). The Spanish course instructors provided ESCRs of 3 and 5 for typical students and
7 for better performing students. Slightly less than half (.45) Of the students indicated
confidence ratings within the instructors’ ACR and the majority (.54) of the students
reported greater confidence ratings than the two instructors considered appropriate. A
very small proportion (.01) provided lower confidence ratings than the instructors
considered appropriate for typical members of the class.

In the Arabic course, the proportions of students reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.14), 9 (.27), 8 (.06), 7 (.16), 6 (.10), 5 (.10), 3 (.08), 2 (.06), and 1 (.02).
The instructor provided ESCRs of 5 for typical students and 6-10 for better performing
students. The majority (.84) Of the students enrolled in the Arabic course indicated
confidence ratings within the instructor’s ACR. All of the remaining students (.16)
reported lower confidence ratings than the instructor’s ESCR for typical members of the
class. None of the students in this course provided overconfident ratings.

Figure 6 provides a comparison of the students’ responses from all four courses.
Each student’s confidence rating was compared to the ACR for his/her course.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students
in the ASL, Arabic, and Spanish courses who reported confidence ratings above the
instructors’ ACRs. It was necessary to exclude the data from the Korean course in order

to meet the test requirements for cell size. The results of this test, reported in Table 12,

48

Figure 6: Comparison of the Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Store Scenario to

the Instructors' ACRs

 

.60

.40

Proportion of Students

.20

 

.00

   
 
   
    

:i-

    

-:-:;:;:;:-:-:

 

'1'3'3'2-3'3'5':
:5:E23555555555555!-2:

 

Above Within

 

Class Language
I ASL
E Korean
Spanish
Arabic

Students’ Confidence Ratings Compared to the Instructors’ ACRs

revealed that the effect of course language was significant (p=.000).

These data

provided evidence supporting rejection of the null hypothesis that no significant

differences existed among the confidence ratings for the students in the ASL, Arabic, and

Spanish courses.

Table 12: Chi Square Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings

Above the Instructors’ ACRs

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 39.887 2 .000
Number of valid
cases 306

 

 

 

 

49

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of reporting
confidence ratings above the instructors’ ACRs was performed using a Bonferroni
correction for error rate. The results, reported in Table 13, revealed significant
differences in the probabilities for the following courses: Spanish and ASL, ASL and

Arabic, and Spanish and Arabic.

Table 13: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings
Above the Instructors’ ACRs

 

 

 

 

Pairwise test Lower bound Upper bound Difference
ASL & Spanish 0.012353 0.323647 0.168
ASL & Arabic -0.39531 -0.23469 0315
Spanish & -0.61633 -0.36526 0483
Arabic

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proportion of students in the Spanish course who were overconfident was
significantly greater than the proportions of students in the ASL and Arabic courses who
were overconfident. The proportion of students in the ASL course who were
overconfident was significantly greater than the proportion of students in the Arabic
course who were overconfident. These data provided evidence to support the theoretical
hypothesis that students in the Arabic course would demonstrate better self-assessment
skills than students in the ASL course, but to reject the theoretical hypothesis that
students in the Spanish course would demonstrate better self-assessment skills than
students in the ASL course. The majority of the students in the ASL course reported
confidence ratings within the instructor’s ACR, providing evidence to reject the
theoretical hypothesis that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-

assessment capabilities.

50

Police Scenario
Students ' Participation Decisions
Figure 7 displays the students’ participation responses. The majority of students in
the ASL and Arabic courses stated they would participate in this scenario. The

Figure 7: Students' Participation Decisions for the Police Scenario

 

Class Language
I ASL
a Korean
[3 Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

Students’ Participation Decisions

majority of students in the Spanish and Korean courses stated they would not participate
in this scenario. Positive (yes) responses were obtained from .62 (112/181) of the
students enrolled in the ASL course, .22 (2/9) of the students enrolled in the Korean
course, .45 (34/76) of the students in the Spanish course and .59 (29/49) of the students
enrolled in the Arabic course.

The language instructors agreed that students were not adequately prepared to

51

communicate in this scenario. Although the instructors reported that descriptor and
location words or signs are learned at the introductory level, the words or signs are
learned in isolation not in the type of connected, fluid speech or sign necessary at the
conversational level required in this scenario. The high proportion of students in the
ASL course reporting willingness to participate provided support for the theoretical
hypothesis that they would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students
in the four courses who responded “yes” to participation in the police scenario. The test
results, reported in Table 14, revealed that the effect Of course language was significant
(p=.014). These data provided evidence supporting rejection of the null hypothesis that
no significant differences existed among the participation decisions Of the students in the

ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses.

Table 14: Chi Square Results for Student "Yes" Responses to Participation in the Police Scenario

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 10.540 3 .014
Number of valid
cases 313

 

 

 

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of answering
“yes” was performed using a Bonferroni correction for error rate. The results, reported in
Table 15, revealed significant differences in probabilities for the following courses: ASL
and Korean. The proportion of the students in the ASL course who reported that they
would participate in this scenario was significantly greater than the proportion Of students
in the Korean course that made the same decision. These data provided evidence to

support the theoretical hypothesis that students in the Korean course would demonstrate
52

 

better self-assessment skills than students in the ASL course. However, the performance
of students in the Arabic and Spanish courses did not differ significantly form either
students in the ASL or Korean courses. Thus, there is evidence to reject the theoretical
hypothesis that students in the Arabic and Spanish courses would demonstrate better self-
assessment skills than students in the ASL course.

Table 15: Pairwise Test Results for “Yes” Responses to Participation in the Police Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairwise Test Lower Bound Upper Bound Difference
ASL & Korean 0.02823 0.76577 0.397
ASL & Spanish -0.00884 0.340843 0.166
ASL & Arabic -0.18924 0.219236 0.015

Korean & —0.61735 0.155353 0231
Spanish

Korean & Arabic -0.78251 0.018513 0382

Spanish & -0.3855 0.083499 -0.151
Arabic

 

 

 

 

 

Students ’ Confidence Ratings

Table 16 provides descriptive statistics for the confidence ratings reported by
students in each course. The data revealed that the confidence means for students who
responded “yes” to participation in the police scenario were consistently greater than the
confidence means for the students who responded “no” to participation in the police
scenario.

Figure 8 summarizes the students’ responses concerning their confidence ratings
for the police scenario. The proportions Of students in the ASL course providing these
confidence ratings were: 10 (.03), 9 (.02), 8 (.04), 7 (.10), 6 (.07), 5 (.12), 4 (.14), 3 (.17),
2 (.13), 1 (.07), and 0 (.11). The instructor provided ESCRs of l for typical students and 2
for better performing students. A fifth (.20) of the students reported confidence ratings

53

Table 16: Students' Confidence Ratings for the Police Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  
   

     

 

   

Class Participation Number Confidence Confidence Mean Standard
language in police of rating rating deviation
scenario students minimum maximum
ASL Yes 112 0 10 5.12 2.147
No 68 0 9 1.88 1.857
Arabic Yes 29 1 10 5.38 2.541
NO 19 O 5 1.79 1.584
Korean Yes 2 7 10 8.50 2.121
No 7 0 2 1.00 .816
Spanish Yes 34 2 10 5.21 1.871
NO 41 0 7 1.98 1.651
Figure 8: Students’ Confidence Ratings for the Police Scenario
Class Language
.40 T I ASL
m Korean
flSpanish
IArabic
3 .30 T
8
'u
5
iii
h-I
° —
.g .20
E’ ,
2‘ . 3 I;
i: :5; 5 9 "5
.10 ‘ i: t 5 .5 5
1:5 5 5 5
I; ‘t t t
is t t t -
:=.; t t t =-
3 5 2 '2 E-
.00 T ' l
10

2 3 4
Students’ Confidence Ratings

5 6

54

7 8 9

within the instructor’s ACR. The majority (.68) of students indicated greater confidence
ratings than the instructor considered appropriate, and .11 of the students indicated lower
confidence ratings than the instructor’s ESCR for typical members Of the class.

The proportions of students in the Korean course reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.11), 7 (.11), 2 (.22), 1 (.33), and 0 (.22). The instructor provided
ESCRs of 1 for typical students and 3 for better performing students. The majority (.56)
of the students reported confidence ratings within the instructor’s ACR. A fifth (.22)
of the students indicated greater confidence than the instructor considered appropriate.
The same proportion (.22) of the students indicated lower confidence ratings than the
instructor’s ESCR for typical students.

The proportions Of students in the Spanish course reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.01), 8 (.04), 7(.07), 6 (.07), 5 (.17), 4 (.11), 3 (.12), 2 (.17), 1 (.16), and
0 (.09). One Spanish course instructor provided ESCRs of O for typical students and 2 for
better performing students. The second instructor provided an ESCR of 0 for both typical
and better performing students. Two fifths (.42) of the students indicated confidence
ratings within the instructors’ ACR. The majority of students (.58) reported greater
confidence ratings than the instructors considered acceptable. It was not possible for
students to provide confidence ratings below the instructors’ ESCRs for typical students.

The proportions of students in the Arabic course providing each Of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.06), 9 (.02), 8 (.04), 7 (.10), 5 (.14), 4 (.12), 3 (.16), 2 (.12), 1 (.10), and
0 (.12). The instructor provided an ESCR of 0 for both typical and better performing

students. A tenth (. 12) of the students indicated confidence ratings that matched the

55

instructor’s ACR. The majority of students (.88) reported ratings that exceeded the
instructor’s ACR. It was not possible for students to provide confidence ratings below the
ESCR provided by the instructor for typical students.

Figure 9 provides a comparison of the responses from the students in all four
courses. Each student’s confidence rating was compared to the ACR for his/her course.

Figure 9: Comparison of the Students' Confidence Ratings for the Police Scenario to
the Instructors' ACRs

 

 
        

Class Language
1.00 " I ASL
E Korean
E Spanish
Arabic
.80 T
8
i:
0
E
w .60 ‘
g I;ITI
r: 115.:
O :I'I-
E '3?
c III-I
g- .40 T :::;:
I-x. ‘7
ii: 13:. .
:-:::
:3 :
.20 ‘ :52:-
iii
t-l- '
.00 ‘

 

 

Above Within Below No Response
Students’ Confidence Ratings Compared to the Instructors’ ACRs

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students
in the four courses who reported confidence ratings above the instructors’ ACRs. The
results of this test, reported in Table 17, revealed that the effect of course language was

significant (p=.000). These data provided evidence supporting rejection of the null

56

hypothesis that no significant differences existed among the confidence ratings from

students in the ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses.

Table 17: Chi Square Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings
Above the Instructors' ACRs

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Siggificance
Pearson Chi-Square 20.833 3 .000
Number of valid
cases 314

 

 

 

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of reporting

confidence ratings above the instructorS ACRs was performed using a Bonferroni

correction for error rate. The results, reported in Table 18, revealed significant

differences in the probabilities for the following courses: ASL and Korean, Arabic and

ASL, Arabic and Korean, and Arabic and Spanish.

Table 18: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above the Instructors’ ACRs
Pairwise test Lower bound Upper bound Difference

ASL & Korean -0.82887 -0.09313 -0.461

ASL & Spanish -0.27507 0.06707 0104

ASL & Arabic 0.045041 0.344959 0.195

Korean & -0.02852 0.742523 0.357
Spanish

Korean & Arabic 0.279369 1.032631 0.656

Spanish & 0.109819 0.488181 0.299
Arabic

 

 

 

The proportion of students in the Arabic course who were overconfident was

significantly greater than the proportions of students in the ASL, Korean and Spanish

courses who were overconfident. The proportion of students in the ASL course who

were overconfident was significantly greater than the proportion of students in the

 

Korean course who were overconfident. These data provided evidence to reject the
theoretical hypothesis that students in the Arabic course, who provided significantly more
overconfident ratings than did students in the ASL course, and students in the Spanish
course, who did not significantly differ from students in the ASL course, would
demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities than students in the ASL course. These
data supported the theoretical hypothesis that students in the Korean course would
demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities than students in the ASL course.
Furthermore, the majority Of students in the ASL course did demonstrate overconfidence
and this provided support for the theoretical hypothesis that students in the ASL course
would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities.
Court Scenario
Students ’ Participation Decisions

Figure 10 displays the students’ participation responses for the court scenario. A
proportion of students in each course stated they would participate in this scenario.
Positive (yes) responses were Obtained fi’om .31 (56/ l 81) Of students in the ASL course,
.22 (2/9) of students in the Korean course, .18 (14/76) of the students in the Spanish
course, and .22 (1 1/49) Of students in the Arabic course. These responses were
inappropriate given the instructors’ reports that the students were not qualified to
interpret in a court of law.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students
in the four courses who responded “yes” to participating in the court scenario.

The test results, reported in Table 19, revealed that the effect of course language was not

58

Figure 10: Students' Participation Decisions for the Court Scenario

 

Class Language

1.00 - I ASL

E Korean
D Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

Students’ Participation Decisions

Table 19: Chi Square Results for Student "Yes" Responses to Participation in the Court Scenario

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 5.300 3 .151
Number of valid
cases 310

 

 

 

 

significant (p=.151). These data provided evidence supporting acceptance of the null
hypothesis that no significant differences existed among the participation decisions from
the students in the ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses. Thus, these data provided
evidence to reject the theoretical hypothesis that students in the Arabic, Korean, and

Spanish courses would demonstrate better self-assessment capabilities than the students
59

 

in the ASL course. In addition, the fact that two thirds Of the students in the ASL

responded “no” to participation in this scenario provided evidence for rejection Of the

theoretical hypothesis that the students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-

assessment skills.

Students ’ Confidence Ratings

Table 20 provides descriptive statistics for the confidence ratings reported by

students in each course. The data revealed that the confidence means for students who

responded “yes” to participation in the court scenario were consistently greater than the

confidence means Of students who responded “no” to participation in the court scenario.

Table 20: Students' Confidence Ratings for the Court Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Participation Number Confidence Confidence Mean Standard
language in the court of rating rating deviation
scenario students minimum maximum
ASL Yes 56 0 10 4.84 2.749
NO 120 0 9 1.53 1.660
Arabic Yes 1 l 2 10 6.82 3.125
NO 37 0 5 1.41 1.384
Korean Yes 2 7 10 8.50 2.121
NO 7 0 2 .86 .900
Spanish Yes 14 2 8 4.57 1.505
NO 61 0 6 1.56 1.533

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11 displays the students’ confidence ratings for the court scenario. The

proportions Of students in the ASL course reporting these confidence ratings were: 10

(.03), 9 (.01), 8 (.02), 7 (.04), 6 (.04), 5 (.07), 4 (.04), 3 (.14), 2 (.19), 1 (.14), 0 (.25).

The instructor provided an ESCR of 0 for both typical and better performing students.

60

 

Figure 11: Students' Confidence Ratings for the Court Scenario

 

Class Language
.40 T - ASL

E Korean
E Spanish
Arabic

     
    

.30 T

    
     

Proportion of Students
N
O
l

     

 
    

I'I'fl'I'I’n‘lTl'n'fl'l'fl'l'l'u'l

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

I. I. .5.Il-I-I.l...l.l.l-l.l.l.l-I-Ill... a.._- u...-
r“ "1“?“ ’3‘; w
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

-'-'a'n'-'-'u'

 

 

'00— 271346-890
Students’ Confidence Ratings

One fourth (.25) of the students indicated confidence ratings that matched the instructor’s
ACR. The majority of students (.74) in the ASL course reported greater confidence
ratings than the instructor considered appropriate. It was not possible for students to
provide confidence ratings lower than the instructor’s rating.

The proportions of students in the Korean course reporting each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.11), 7 (.11), 2 (.22), 1 (.22), and 0 (.33). The instructor of this course
provided ESCRs of 0 for typical students and 1 for better performing students. The
majority (.56) of the students indicated confidence ratings within the instructor’s ACR.
The remaining students (.44) reported higher confidence ratings than the instructor
considered appropriate. It was not possible for the students to provide confidence ratings

lower than the instructor’s ESCR for typical students.

61

The proportions of students in the Spanish course providing each of the
confidence ratings were: 8 (.01), 6 (.03), 5 (.11), 4 (.11), 3 (.11), 2 (.21), 1 (.15), 0 (.28).
One Spanish course instructor provided ESCRs of 0 for typical students and 2 for better
performing students. The second instructor provided an ESCR of 0 for both typical and
better performing students. The majority of students (.63) enrolled in the introductory
Spanish course reported confidence ratings within the instructors’ ACR. The remaining
students (.36) indicated greater confidence ratings than those considered appropriate by
the two instructors. It was not possible for students to provide confidence ratings lower
than the ESCRs the instructors provided for typical students.

The proportions of students in the Arabic course providing each of the confidence
ratings were: 10 (.06), 9 (.02), 8 (.02), 7 (.06), 5 (.02), 4 (.04), 3 (.12), 2 (.20), 1 (.16),
and 0 (.29). The instructor provided an ESCR of 0 for both typical and better performing
students. Almost a third (.29) of the students indicated the confidence rating that
matched the instructor’s ACR. The majority of students (.71) reported greater confidence
ratings than the instructor considered appropriate. It was not possible for the students to
provide confidence ratings lower than the instructor’s ESCR.

Figure 12 provides a comparison of the students’ responses from all four courses.
Each student’s confidence rating was compared to the ACR for his/her course.

A Pearson Chi Square test was performed to compare the proportions of students
in the four courses who reported confidence ratings above the instructors’ ACRs. The

results Of this test, reported in Table 21, revealed that the effect of course language was

62

Figure 12: Comparison of the Students' Confidence Ratings for the Court Scenario Compared
to the Instructors' ACRs

 

Class Language
I ASL
B Korean
Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

Above Within No Response
Students’ Confidence Ratings Compared to the Instructors’ ACRs

significant (p=.000). These data provided evidence supporting rejection of the null
hypothesis that no significant differences existed among the confidence ratings from
students in the ASL, Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses.

Table 21: Chi Square Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings
Above the Instructors' ACRs

 

 

 

 

Test Value df Significance
Pearson Chi—Square 36.331 3 .000
Number of valid 312
cases

 

 

 

 

A follow-up pairwise analysis of the differences in probabilities of reporting

confidence ratings above the instructors’ ACRs was performed using a Bonferroni

63

 

correction for error rate. The results, reported in Table 22, revealed significant
differences in the probabilities for the following courses: ASL and Spanish, and Arabic

and Spanish.

Table 22: Pairwise Test Results for Proportions of Students with Confidence Ratings
Above the Instructors’ ACRs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pairwise test Lower bound Upper bound Difference
ASL & Korean -0.73385 0.135849 -0.299
ASL & Spanish -0.54872 -0.21728 0383
ASL & Arabic -0.21537 0.157368 -0.029

Korean & -0.53389 0.365889 -0.084
Spanish
Korean & Arabic -0.1879 0.727896 0.27
Spanish & 0.134821 0.573179 0.354
Arabic

 

 

 

 

 

The proportion of students in the ASL course who were overconfident was
significantly greater than the proportion of students in the Spanish course who were
overconfident and the proportion of students in the Arabic course who were
overconfident was significantly greater than the proportion Of students in the Spanish
course who were overconfident. These data provided evidence to support the theoretical
hypothesis that students in the Spanish course would demonstrate better self-assessment
skills than students in the ASL course, but to reject the theoretical hypothesis that
students in the Arabic and Korean courses, whose responses were not significantly
different from the responses of students in the ASL course, would demonstrate better
self-assessment skills than students in the ASL course. The majority of students in the
ASL course were overconfident. This supports the theoretical hypothesis that students in

the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities.

64

Summary of Support for Hypotheses One and Two
Hypothesis One

It was hypothesized that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-
assessment capabilities. The students’ responses regarding participation decisions and
confidence ratings for the four scenarios were analyzed to determine their abilities to
accurately assess their skill levels. The language instructor reported that it was
appropriate for students in the introductory ASL course to participate in the babysitting
and store scenarios. The fact that most (.96) of the students in this course stated that they
would participate in both these scenarios provided evidence to reject the theoretical
hypothesis that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-assessment
capabilities. Although a very small proportion (.04) Of the students declined to
participate in these scenarios, their decisions did not necessarily reflect poor judgment.
For example, justifications for not participating in the babysitting scenario included
“worrying about emergencies” and “not liking kids.” These reasons would be acceptable
justifications for not participating in the babysitting scenario, even though the students
had enough skills to interact in this situation. Other students stated that they did not have
enough skills. Because the instructor indicated that typical students had adequate skills
for this task, this reason would be an appropriate justification if it had come from students
who were below average. However, Of the six students who reported “not having enough
skills” as their justification for not participating, one anticipated a grade Of 3.0, two
anticipated a grade of 3.5, and three anticipated a grade Of 4.0. These anticipated grades

do not reflect the scores of below average students. These students demonstrated poor

65

assessment of their language capabilities based on the conflict between their justification
and their anticipated grades for the course.

A quarter Of the students who declined to participate in the store scenario stated
that they were “afraid Of misinterpreting” information. Again, the course instructor
reported that students at the introductory language level were adequately prepared to
effectively communicate in this situation. This reason would be appropriate if it were
listed by students who had reported concern about their skill levels with a low anticipated
grade in the course. However, Of the two students who provided “afi'aid Of
misinterpreting,” one anticipated a grade Of 3.5 and the other anticipated a grade of 4.0.
The six remaining students who declined to participate provided “not having enough
skills” as their justification. Of these six students, four anticipated a grade Of 3.5 and two
anticipated a grade of 4.0. These anticipated grades do not reflect scores consistent with
students who are below average. These students demonstrated poor assessment of their
skill levels based on their high anticipated grades and the instructor’s judgment that
typically performing class members were able to interact in this situation.

The majority of the students in the ASL course demonstrated the ability to
accurately assess their skill levels by providing confidence ratings within the instructor’s
ACR for the babysitting and store scenarios. Only a fifth of the students provided
overconfident ratings for the babysitting scenario and only a third Of the students
provided overconfident ratings for the store scenario. These data provided evidence to
reject the theoretical hypothesis that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor

self-assessment capabilities.

66

Although most of the students in the ASL course provided appropriate
participation decisions and confidence ratings for the babysitting and store scenarios, the
students in this course demonstrated difficulty assessing their skills concerning the police
and court scenarios. The ASL instructor stated that students in the introductory course
were not adequately prepared to communicate in either the police or the court scenarios.
However, two-thirds of the students in this course reported that they would participate in
the police scenario. These data provided evidence to support the theoretical hypothesis
that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities.
Only a third of the students stated they would participate in the court scenario. These
data provided evidence to reject the theoretical hypothesis that students in the ASL
course would demonstrate poor self-assessment capabilities since the majority of students
declined to participate in this scenario.

The majority of students in the ASL course reported overconfident ratings for the
police and court scenarios. Two-thirds of the students reported overconfident ratings for
the police scenario and three-fourths of the students reported overconfident ratings for the
court scenario. Even when the students made appropriate decisions regarding
participation for the court scenario, they were not always able to accurately assess their
ability to function within the situation. These data provided evidence to support the
theoretical hypothesis that students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-
assessment capabilities.

For the students’ participation decisions and confidence ratings regarding all four

scenarios, the students demonstrated greater accuracy assessing their skills for the two

67

appropriate tasks (i.e., in the babysitting and store scenarios), and less accuracy for the
two inappropriate tasks (i.e., in the police and court scenarios). When responding to the
last two scenarios, at least two-thirds of the students in the ASL course were making at
least one poor participation decision. Given the students’ current skill levels,
participation in the two inappropriate scenarios would result in more serious
consequences for the parties involved than would failure to participate in the first two
scenarios. Data regarding the students’ confidence ratings revealed that at least two-
thirds of the students were providing overconfident ratings for both of the last two
scenarios. These three pieces of evidence (i.e., the poor decision-making for the police
scenario and the overconfident ratings for the police and court scenarios) revealed that
the majority of students in the ASL course were making judgment errors concerning the
last two scenarios which could result in grave repercussions (e.g., misinterpreting
information). These data provided evidence to support the theoretical hypothesis that
students in the ASL course would demonstrate poor self-assessment skills.
Hypothesis Two

It was hypothesized that students in the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses
would demonstrated better self-assessment capabilities than students in the ASL course.
The current study did not support this hypothesis. Only the students in the Korean course
demonstrated better participation decisions than did the students in the ASL course and
then only for the police scenario. This single instance does not provide sufficient

evidence to support the theoretical hypothesis that students in the Arabic, Korean, and

68

Spanish courses would demonstrate better self-assessment skills than students in the ASL
course.

The confidence ratings fi'om the students in the ASL course were compared to
those of the students in each of the other courses for each scenario. Only 11 of the 12
paired comparisons could be assessed statistically because of the small sample size of the
Korean course. In four of these 11 comparisons, students in the three spoken language
courses performed better than did the students in the ASL course. The four instances
included the students in the Arabic course for the store scenario, the students in the
Spanish course for the court scenario, and the students in the Korean course for the
babysitting and police scenarios. In three of the paired comparisons, the students in the
ASL course demonstrated better self-assessment skills than the students in the other
language course. In the remaining four paired comparisons, there were no significant
differences. Thus, the majority of the data provided evidence to reject the theoretical
hypothesis that students in the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses would demonstrate
better self-assessment capabilities than students in the ASL course.

Repeated Measures Testing of Students’ Confidence Ratings
Investigation of the Eflects of Scenario

A two-factor Repeated Measures test (Scenario x Class Language) was
performed to examine the students’ confidence rating responses. The results of the test
revealed that the main effect of class language was not significant (p=.420), but that the
main effect of scenario was significant (p=.000). The interaction between class language

and scenario was not significant (p=.075). These data provided evidence supporting the

69

acceptance Of the null hypothesis related to class language that no significant differences
existed among the confidence rating responses fiom students in the four courses. These
data also provided evidence to reject the null hypothesis that no significant differences
existed among the studentS confidence rating responses for the four scenarios.

An additional two-factor Repeated Measures test was conducted which excluded
the students in the Korean course. This was done to determine if the small number of
students (N=9) enrolled in this course skewed the results. The results were the same as
Obtained in the first analysis. The main effect of class language was not significant
(p=.285), the main effect of scenario was significant (p=.000), and the interaction
between class language and scenario was not significant (p=.151).

Next, a one-factor Repeated Measures test was performed on the revised data-
entry format required for the post-hoe measure to follow-up on the main effect of
scenario. Once again, the main effect of scenario was significant (p=.000). A post-hoe
Tukey test was then used to compare the data for scenario pairs. The results of this test,
displayed in Table 23, revealed that the mean confidence rating for each scenario differed
significantly from the confidence ratings for each of the three other scenarios. An
asterisk (*) indicates each pair for which the mean difference is significant. The mean
confidence ratings for all the students responding to each scenario, displayed in Figure
13, were greatest for the store scenario and then decreased across the babysitting, police,

and court scenarios.

70

Table 23: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students’ Confidence Ratings Across Scenario

Mean Upper
bound

-.1

 

Figure 13: Students' Mean Confidence for the Four Scenarios

 

 

Students' Mean Confidence
O -h N no b 01 a: ‘1 m

Babysitting Store Scenario Police Scenario Court Scenario
Scenario

The Four Scenarios

 

 

 

71

Investigation of the Potential Influence of Student Characteristics

Another Repeated Measures test (Scenario x Class Language x Gender x Family
Use x Previous Exposure x Grade x Other Language Study) was performed to determine
if student characteristics influenced the studentS confidence ratings. The variables of
interest were factors identified in the literature review (J errrigan, 2001; Horowitz, 1988).
These variables were: study of languages other than the target language, previous
exposure to the target language, family use of the target language, and anticipated grade
in the language course.

The results of the Repeated Measures test revealed that the effect of gender was
not significant (p=.991), the effect of family use of the target language was not significant
(p=.118), the effect of previous exposure to the target language was not significant
(p=.625), the effect Of other language study was not significant (p=.374), and the effect of
anticipated grade was not significant (p=.345). The effect of class language was
significant (p=.026) as was the interaction between scenario, gender and other language
study (p=.016).

Follow-up analysis of the main effect of class language was conducted using a
Scheffe post-hoe test. These pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences.
This finding resulted in two conflicts that needed to be resolved. First, the main effect of
class language was significant in one Repeated Measures analysis, but not in the other.
One possible explanation is that the addition of variables for the second Repeated
Measures analysis added cases with missing values. The SPSS program deletes these

missing cases thus creating a new data subset and the potential for a new outcome. As a

72

result, the two Repeated Measures tests were run with different data sets and could
therefore have different outcomes (D. Nichols, personal communication, June 19, 2006).

The second conflict was the failure to find significant pairwise differences in the
Scheffe follow-up test. Failure to find a significant difference in the pairwise
comparisons likely reflects an error in the significant finding for the main effect of class
language. Such an error can occur because of the impact of one Of the multiple variables
being analyzed in the Repeated Measures test. It is likely that no two means for the class
language variable truly differ (Nichols, 1998).

To further explore the interaction between scenario, gender and other language
study, the confidence means across scenario for males and females who had and had not
studied other languages were examined. Tables 24 and 25 provide these data. It is
important to note that all of the female students in the Arabic and Korean courses had
studied other languages in the past. All the male students in the Korean course also had
studied other languages in the past. Thus data points for students without other language
study were available only from male students in the Arabic course and male and female

students in the ASL and Spanish courses. Figure 14 displays the confidence ratings mean

 

 

 

 

in graph form.
Table 24: Mean Confidence Ratings for Students with Other Language Study
by Gender and Scenario
Gender Mean Mean Mean Mean
confidence for confidence for confidence for confidence for
the babysitting the store the police the court
scenario scenario scenario scenario
Male 6.14 7.29 3.89 2.77
=66
Female 6.56 7.07 3.68 2.43
N=201

 

 

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

 

 

Table 25: Mean Confidence Ratings for Students without Other Language Study
by Gender and Scenario
Gender Mean Mean Mean Mean
confidence for confidence for confidence for confidence for
the babysitting the store the police the court
scenario scenario scenario scenario
Male 6.05 6.63 2.47 1.50
N=19
Female 6.97 7.76 4.69 2.86
N=29

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14: Students' Mean Confidence Ratings by Gender, Other Language Study, and Scenario

 

Mean Confidence
O A N (a) -> UI O) \I on to

 

  

Males with

 

—Q— Babysitting
—0— Store

+ Police
—)l(— Court

 

 

 

Females Males Females
Other with Other without without
Language Language Other Other
Study Study Language Language
Study Study

 

 

A post-hoc Tukey test was performed to determine if any significant differences

existed among the confidence ratings from the four groups of students: males with other

language study, females with other language study, males without other language study,

and females without other language study. The results of the test revealed a significant

difference in the confidence ratings between males without language study and females

without language study (p=.015) for the police scenario. Tables 26—29 display the results

74

 

of this test for each scenario. An asterisk marks the one pair for which the mean

difference is significant.

Table 26: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students' Confidence Ratings with the Contributing

Variables of Gender and Other Language Study for the Babysitting Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other language study Mean Standard Significance Lower Upper
comparison pairs difference error bound bound
Females Females -.65 .453 .475 -1.82 -.52
with without
Males .55 .331 .339 -.30 1.41
with
Males .50 .548 .796 -.91 1.92
without
Females Females .65 .453 .475 -.52 1.82
without with
Males 1.21 .513 .089 -.12 2.53
with
Males 1.15 .673 .318 -.59 2.89
without
Males Females -.55 .331 .339 -1.41 .30
with with
Females -1.21 .513 .089 -2.53 .12
without
Males -.05 .598 1.000 -1.60 1.49
without
Males Females -.50 .548 .796 -1.92 -.91
without with
Females -1.15 .673 .318 -2.89 .59
without
Males .05 .598 1.000 -1.49 1.60
with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

Table 27 : Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students' Confidence Ratings with the Contributing

Variables of Gender and Other Language Study for the Store Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other language study Mean Standard Significance Lower Upper
comparison pairs difference error bound bound
Females Females -.79 .453 .299 -1.96 .38
with without
Males -.27 .331 .845 -l.13 .58
with
Males .14 .547 .994 -1.27 1.55
without
Females Females .79 .453 .299 -.38 1.96
without with
Males .52 .513 .740 -.80 1.85
with
Males .93 .673 .509 -.81 2.67
without
Males Females .27 .331 .845 -.58 1.13
with with
Females -.52 .513 .740 -1.85 .80
without
Males .41 .598 .901 -1.13 1.96
without
Males Females -. 14 .547 .994 -1.55 1.27
without with
Females -.93 .673 .509 -2.67 .81
without
Males -.41 .598 .901 -1.96 1.13
with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

Table 28: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students' Confidence Ratings with the Contributing

Variables of Gender and Other Language Study for the Police Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other language study Mean Standard Significance Lower Upper
comparison pairs difference error bound bound
Females Females -1.20 .510 .089 -2.52 . 12
with without
Males -.26 .373 .902 -1.22 .71
with
Males 1.08 .616 .295 -.51 2.68
without
Females Females 1.20 .510 .089 -. 12 2.52
without with
Males .94 .578 .362 -.55 2.44
with
Males 228* .758 .015 .32 4.24
without
Males Females .26 .373 .902 -.71 1.22
with with
Females -.94 .578 .362 -2.44 .55
without
Males 1.34 .673 . 194 -.40 3.08
without
Males Females -1.08 .616 .295 -2.68 .51
without with
Females -2.28* .758 .015 -4.24 -.32
without
Males -1.34 .673 .194 -3.08 .40
with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

 

Table 29: Post-Hoe Tukey Test Results for Students' Confidence Ratings with the Contributing

Variables of Gender and Other Language Study for the Court Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other language study Mean Standard Significance Lower Upper
comparison pairs difference error bound bound
Females Females -.62 .503 .608 -1 .92 .68
with without
Males -.33 .368 .812 -l.28 .62
with
Males .89 .608 .461 -.68 2.46
without
Females Females .62 .503 .608 -.68 l .92
without with
Males .29 .570 .956 -1.18 1.76
with
Males 1.51 .747 .184 -.42 3 .44
without
Males Females .33 .368 .812 -.62 1.28
with with
Females -.29 .570 .956 -1.76 1.18
without
Males 1.22 .664 .261 -.50 2.93
without
Males Females -.89 .608 .461 -2.46 .68
without with
Females - l .51 .747 . 184 -3 .44 .42
without
Males -l .22 .664 .261 -2.93 .50
with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students’ Justification Responses for Their Participation Decisions in the Four Scenarios

Students were asked to provide a reason for each decision regarding participation

in the four scenarios. Responses were reviewed and categorized by theme. For each

participation decision (“yes” or “no”), the three most frequently cited justifications were

identified. Each is listed below along with the proportion Of students that provided that

justification.

78

 

Babysitting
Figure 15 summarizes the students’ justifications for participating in the
babysitting scenario. Figure 16 summarizes the students’ justifications for not
participating in the babysitting scenario.

Figure 15: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the Babysitting Scenario

 

        

    

 
      

 

 

_ Class Language
50 IASL
a I E Korean
5 ‘ Spanish
40 _ a . .Arabic
3 5 .'
E l .'
O ’ I'
e 5 -:
5 5 1:3.
(I: .30 ‘ I :-II
b.- V .-
0 g I::.'
fl {3’ i'
o 4.; -:
E 1: t i:
e .20 ‘ :-‘I :-
1 I' ’ a.
6 ii; -:I
h I. ’ 'a
a. :- g :4,
:1 r :1 I
.10 ‘ :i 5 F!‘
.I I .r. 5
:1 5 :: I ;.
.: 5 gig
:' I :' ’ gr
00 4 M M 4
° 1 3 4 5 6 5 s 15 16

Students’ Justifications

Figure 15 Key: 1=Enough Skills, 3=To Help, 4=Short Time Period, 5=0ther
Ways to Communicate Possible, 6=Good Experience, 7=Fun Challenge, 8=Right Thing to
Do, 15=Has Experience Babysitting, & l6=Likes Kids

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the ASL
course were: 1) having enough skills (.32), 2) a short period of time (.30), and 3) other
ways to communicate possible (. 12). For the students who chose not to participate, the
top three reasons were: 1) not having enough skills (.75), 2) worrying about emergencies

(.13), and 3) not liking kids (.13).

79

Figure 16: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the Babysitting Scenario

 

       

 

 

Class Language
1.00 T I ASL
E Korean
Spanish
3 . 8 0 _ g Arabic
:1
Q l
E -'
w - if
'3 .60 - ‘
1: J
-° -"
e ' i"
flu ' _.
.20 ‘ 53555;
:55?
.00 ‘
2 14 17 18
Students’ Justifications

Figure 16 Key: 2=Not Enough Skills, 14=Worries about Emergencies, l7=Not Liking Kids, & 18=Not
Liking Babysitting

Tire three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the
Korean course were: 1) a short period of time (.38), 2) having enough skills (.25), and 3)
to help (.25). The student who declined to participate gave‘hot having enough skillS’as
the reason.

The three reasons for participating most fi‘equently listed by students in the
Spanish course were: 1) a short period oftime (.47), 2) having enough skills (.29), and 3)
fun challenge (.08). Students who declined to participate most frequently listed these
three reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.64), 2) worrying about emergencies (.29),

and 3) not liking babysitting (.07).

80

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Arabic
course were: 1) having enough skills (.46), 2) other ways to communicate possible (.18),
and 3) a short period of time (.13). The three reasons most frequently listed by students
who chose not to participate were: 1) not having enough skills (.67), 2) worrying about
emergencies (.22), and 3) not liking babysitting (.10).

Store

Figure 17 displays students justifications for participating in the store scenario.

Figure 18 displays students justifications for not participating in the store scenario.

Figure 17: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the Store Scenario

 

 
  

  
     

        
       

 

 

Class Language
' I ASL
? E Korean
50 — g I Spanish
:5 Arabic
*3 '52
s “a
5 .. «g
(I) _ II I
u- .40 U /
° 'IvI
a -:-W .-
II I II
P 954; '
E 15:45
g. :5:; :-:*
II I III
2 FM 5%
3‘ 10 ' :525 5:1
:5:? :5:} _.
55:; 55:2 :5:
H I 2': I 2':
-:- 5 -:- 5 -:-
1': I 14‘ I III
:5: 5 :5: i :5:
.00 '

l

3 5 6 8 13 19
Students’ Justifications

Figure 17 Key: 1=Enough Skills, 3=To Help, 5=0ther Ways to Communicate Possible, 6=Good
Experience, 8=Right Thing to Do, 13=Fingerspell, & 19=To Get out of Store

81

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the ASL
course were: 1) having enough skills (.46), 2) to help (.36), and 3) the right thing to do
(.07). Students who declined to participate most frequently listed these reasons: 1) not
having enough skills (.75) and 2) afraid of misinterpreting (.25). These two reasons were
combined under the classification of‘hot being prepared’for this type of interaction due to
the fact that being afraid of misinterpreting could be due to not having enough skills. In
this case,“not being prepared’was the response provided by all (1.00) of the students not
willing to participate.

Figure 18: Justifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the Store Scenario

 

Class Language
I ASL
E Korean
Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

2 10
Students’ Justifications

Figure 18 Key: 2=Not Enough Skills & 10=Afraid of Misinterpreting

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the
Korean course were: 1) having enough skills (.43), 2) to help (.43), and 3) other ways to
82

communicate possible (.14). The students who declined to participate gave “not having
enough skills” as the reason.

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the
Spanish course were: 1) having enough skills (.60), 2) to help (.32), and 3) other ways to
communicate possible (.03). The student who declined to participate gave “not having
enough skills” as the reason.

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Arabic
course were: 1) having enough skills (.67), 2) to help (.24), and 3) other ways to
communicate possible (.07). The students who declined to participate in this scenario
gave “not having enough skills” as the reason.

Police

Figure 19 displays students’ justifications for participating in the police scenario.
Figure 20 displays the students’ justifications for not participating in the police scenario.

The three reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the ASL
course were: 1) to help (.73), 2) officer needs the whole story (.09), and 3) the right thing
to do (.08). Students in this course who declined to participate most frequently listed the
following reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.63), 2) afraid of misinterpreting (.20),
and 3) not wanting to get involved (.09). The reasons “not having enough skills” and
“afraid of misinterpreting” were categorized together in the “not being prepared”
classification. This became more than three-quarters (.83) of the students’ reasoning for

not participating.

83

Figure 19: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the Police Scenario

Class Language
I ASL

H Korean
5 Spanish
Arabic

 

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

1356811121320
Students’ Justifications

Figure 19 Key: 1=Enough Skills, 3=To Help, 5=Other Ways to Communicate Possible, 6=Good
Experience, 8=Right Thing to Do, ll=Serious Situation, 12=Requires Interpreter, 13=Fingerspell, &
20=0fficer Needs Whole Story

The two students in the Korean course who agreed to participate in the police
scenario both gave‘to help’as the reason. The students who declined to participate most
frequently listed these reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.71), 2) not wanting
to get involved (.14), and 3) requires an interpreter (. 14).

The reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Spanish
course were: 1) to help (.79), 2) having enough skills (.12), and 3) other ways to
communicate possible, the right thing to do, or officer needs the whole story (.03 each).

Students in this course who declined to participate most frequently listed these reasons:

84

Figure 20: J ustifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the Police Scenario

 

Class Language
I ASL
3 Korean
E] Spanish
Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

 

2 5 9 10 l l 12
Students’ Justifications

Figure 20 Key: 2=Not Enough Skills, 5=Other Ways to Communicate Possible, 9=Not Wanting to
Get Involved, 10=Afraid of Misinterpreting, ll=Serious Situation, & 12=Requires Interpreter

1) not having enough skills (.66), 2) afraid of misinterpreting (.15), and 3) not wanting to
get involved (.12). The responses‘hot having enough skills’and‘afraid of misinterpreting’
were categorized in the‘int being prepared’classification which then became more than
three-quarters (.81) of these responses.

The reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Arabic
course were: 1) to help (.61), 2) having enough skills (.21) and, 3) other ways to
communicate possible or requires an interpreter (.07 each). Students who declined to
participate most frequently listed the following reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.79)

and 2) afraid of misinterpreting (.21). The students responses including‘hot having

85

enough skills’and‘hfi'aid of misinterpreting’were combined into the‘hot being prepared’
classification and became 1.00 of the reasoning for those who declined to participate.
Court
Figure 21 displays the students’ justifications for participating in the court
scenario. Figure 22 displays the students justifications for not participating in the court
scenario.

Figure 21: Justifications for Students’ Decisions to Participate in the Court Scenario

 

Class Language

1.00 _ ' .ASL
E Korean
3 Spanish
80 _ Arabic

Proportion of Students

 

 

'I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
MI
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
'5
I.

 

1 2 3 6 8 12 13 21
Students’ Justifications

Figure 21 Key: 1=Enough Skills, 2=Not Enough Skills, 3=To Help, 6=Good Experience, 8=Right
Thing to Do, 12=Requires Interpreter, 13=Fingerspell, & 21=Everyone Deserves a Fair Trial

The reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the ASL course
were: 1) to help (.69), 2) can fingerspell or not having enough skills, but still willing to
participate (.08 each), and 3) a good experience, requires an interpreter, or everyone
deserves a fair trial (.04 each). Students in this course who declined to participate most

86

frequently listed the following reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.56), 2) afraid of
misinterpreting (.27), and 3) requires an interpreter (.08). The responses of students who
listed‘hot having enough skills’ and‘afraid of misinterpreting’were combined into the
classification of‘hot being prepared’ and became more than three-quarters (.83) of the
responses.

Figure 22: J ustifications for Students’ Decisions not to Participate in the Court Scenario

 

Class Language
.80 ‘ I ASL

a Korean
Spanish
Arabic

  
  

5555555!

 

      

I II:

I55555555555!I55555555

 
  
    

  
 

Proportion of Students
'3
l

     

 

 

555555
N 15151.net: 11.!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’

.00 —
2 5 9 10 11 12

Students’ Justifications

Figure 22 Key: 2=Not Enough Skills, 5=Other Ways to Communicate Possible, 9=Not Wanting to
Get Involved, 10=Afraid of Misinterpreting, ll=Serious Situation, & 12=Requires Interpreter

The two students enrolled in the Korean course who agreed to participate in the
court scenario stated‘to help’as the reason. The remaining students who declined to
participate most frequently listed the following reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.71),

2) not wanting to get involved (.14), and 3) requires an interpreter (.14).

87

The reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Spanish
course were: 1) to help (.69), 2) everyone deserves a fair trial (.15), and 3) having enough
skills or the right thing to do (.08 each). Students who declined to participate most
frequently listed the following reasons: 1) not having enough skills (.48), 2) afraid of
misinterpreting (.33), and 3) serious situation (.08). The responses of students who listed
“not having enough skills” and “afraid of misinterpreting” were combined into the
category of “not being prepared” and became more than three-quarters (.81) of the
responses.

The reasons for participating most frequently listed by students in the Arabic
course were: 1) to help (.60) and 2) having enough skills (.40). Students who declined to
participate in this scenario listed the following most frequent reasons: 1) not having
enough skills (.65), 2) afraid of misinterpreting (.27), and 3) requires an interpreter (.05).
The responses of students who listed “not having enough skills” and “afraid of.
misinterpreting” were combined into the category of not being prepared” and became
nearly the entire set of responses (.92).

The majority of students in each course who agreed to participate in the two
inappropriate situations justified their decisions with the reason, “to help.” These data
provided evidence supporting the acceptance of the null hypothesis that no significant
difference existed among the justification responses reported by the students in the four
courses. These data also provided evidence to reject the theoretical hypothesis that

students in the ASL course would be more likely than students in the Arabic, Korean, and

88

Spanish courses to justify their decisions by reporting a need “to help” their
communication partners.
Post-Hoe Comparison to the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein Data Set

This study was modeled after aspects of the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein (1994)
study in that it replicated the four scenarios and midterm time frame used in the previous
study. This was done in order to provide for comparison of the data sets. The following
section is a post-hoe comparison of the current study’s findings to those observed in the
Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study.

“Yes ” Participation Decisions

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein surveyed 57 post-secondary students enrolled in an
introductory Signed English course at the University of Iowa. Table 30 provides a
comparison of the participation decision data from the current study to the data from

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein’s comparable subgroup, the No Discussion Group.

Table 30: Percentage of Students Responding “Yes” to Participation in the Four Communication
Scenarios in Comparison to the Lodge-Miler and Elfenbein (1994) Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Babysitting Store Police Court
Signed English 100% 100% 96% 86%
(N=28)
ASL 96% 96% 62% 3 1%
(N =1 8 1)

 

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein found that, at midterm, 100% of their students stated
that they would babysit for a child and interpret for a customer in a store, 96% of these
students stated that they would interpret for a police officer and 86% of the students

stated that they would interpret in a court of law. In the current study, the percentages of
89

 

students in the ASL course who agreed to participate in the babysitting scenario (96%)
and the store scenario (96%) were comparable to the percentages of students in the
Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study who made the same decision. These scenarios were
appropriate for student participation given their skill levels. In contrast, the percentages
of students in the current study willing to participate in the police scenario (62%) and the
court scenario (31%) were lower than those in the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study.
These scenarios were judged by the instructor to be inappropriate even for the better
students; therefore, evidence of poor decision-making by one to two thirds of students is
of concern.

When comparing the two courses it is important to note that the students in the
Signed English course learned a manually coded English system in which signs are in
English word order. This system is typically used in school by children learning to read
and write English. Deaf adults who sign typically use ASL not Signed English to
communicate. Students in the ASL course learned a true language with a unique syntax
that differs from English word order. This may have caused the ASL students to view
signed communication as more challenging than the Signed English students did. It is
possible that the higher percentage of students in the Signed English course willing to
participate in the police and court scenarios may have been due to a lack of understanding
of the difference between ASL and Signed English. As a result, the Signed English
students might have believed that most deaf individuals sign in English word order. It is
also possible that the Signed English students were not fully aware of the English

language deficits demonstrated by some deaf children and adults and thus incorrectly

90

believed that the deaf individuals in the scenarios could be expected to understand any
English word that was fingerspelled.

The ways in which the students in the Signed English and ASL courses were
taught also differed. The Signed English students were taught by hearing instructors who
learned to sign as adults and used simultaneous speech and sign during some portions of
the class and sign alone during others. The ASL students were taught by a Deaf native
signer who used ASL throughout each class. ASL was the primary language of
instruction; however, an interpreter was present during each class period to facilitate
interactions between the students and the instructor (e.g., signing for students who did not
have the sign vocabulary to ask questions regarding the exam schedule). The experience
of learning signs from a native speaker and observing the communication between a deaf
individual and her interpreter offered students a variety of opportunities to compare their
sign skills to those of skilled signers. This had the potential for either positive or
negative outcomes. Two possibilities include: 1) students were unable to comprehend the
fluid, connected signing which occurred between the deaf instructor and her interpreter,
thus providing them with a better understanding of their receptive signing skill deficits, or
2) they were not able to understand all of the signing, but when the interpreter voiced the
instructor’s signs, students believed they understood more signs than they truly knew
because they had the addition of voicing to clarify any missed signs. Students who had
the second experience may then have felt overconfident in their signing abilities because
they believed they could understand the communication interactions between a deaf adult I

and her interpreter. This, in turn, may have resulted in students feeling willing to

91

participate in scenarios beyond their current skill levels and/or overconfident about their

abilities to interact with the individuals involved.

Confidence Ratings

The Signed English students provided the highest mean confidence ratings for the

store scenario, and then their confidence decreased across the babysitting, police and

court scenarios. In the current study, the confidence rating means for students in the ASL

course were also greatest for the store scenario and then decreased across the babysitting,

police and court scenarios. Table 31 provides a summary of the ASL students’

confidence rating means compared to the Signed English students’ confidence rating

means.

Table 31: Students’ Mean Confidence Compared to the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein Data

 

 

 

 

Class Babysitting Store Police Court
confidence confidence confidence confidence
mean mean mean mean
Signed English 4.7 6.3 4.1 3.9
ASL 6.80 7.24 3.89 2.60

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes ” Participation Justifications

Substantial percentages of students enrolled in both the Signed English and ASL

courses made the inappropriate decision to participate in the police and court scenarios.

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein found that many of their students justified participation in

these scenarios by stating a need “to help people who are deaf” (p. 287). In their study,

40% of the students who agreed to participate in the police scenario gave the “to help”

reason as justification and 30% of the students who agreed to participate in the court

scenario gave the “to help” reason as justification. Based on these findings, it was

92

 

hypothesized that if students enrolled in the ASL course viewed the characters in the
scenarios as disabled by their deafness, and thus in need of help, these perceptions could
influence their participation decisions.

Table 32 provides a comparison of the percentages of students who justified their
“yes” response to participation in the four scenarios with the reasoning of “to help” from
the ASL course and the Lodge—Miller and Elfenbein study.

Table 32: Percentage of Students in the ASL Course who Reported "To Help" as Their Justification
for Participation in Comparison to the Lodge-Miller & Elfenbein data

Scenario English ASL
participation participation

100% 96%

Store 100% ‘ 96%

Police 96% 62%

Court 86% 31%

 

In the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study all of the students were willing to
participate in the babysitting and store scenarios and in the current study almost all of
students were willing to participate in these scenarios. Although “to help” would be an
acceptable justification for participation in these two scenarios, none of the students hour
the previous study justified their participation in the babysitting scenario with this reason
and only 5% of the students in the current study justified their participation in this
scenario with this reason. In the store scenario, “to help” was the second most frequently
listed reason to justify participation in this scenario for students in both the previous and

current study. “Minimal sign skill required” (Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein) and “having
93

enough skills” (the current study) were the number one reasons provided for the decision
to participate in both the babysitting and store scenarios. It was clear that feeling a need
or desire “to help” was not the primary motivating factor for most students’ decisions
about participating in these two relatively simple interactions.

The percentages of students willing to participate in the police and court scenarios
were lower in the current study than in the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein study; however,
the percentage of the students in the current study who justified participation by citing a
need “to help” was higher than that demonstrated in the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein
study. In both studies, “to help” with or without a specific reference to individuals who
are deaf, was the most frequently listed justification for participation in the police and
court scenarios.

It is not clear whether the students in the ASL course viewed deaf individuals as
disabled or in greater need of help than individuals who were not deaf. In the Lodge-
Miller and Elfenbein study, students’ “to help” justifications included responses such as:
“important to help people who are deaf ’ and “need to help people who are deaf.” In the
current study, students in the ASL course did not make specific references to deaf
individuals as being in need of help, but rather stated they would help the individual
described in the scenario. The police and court scenarios are situations in which
unskilled help has the potential to cause more harm than good. There is insufficient
evidence to determine whether the students’ desire to help overrode any knowledge of

laws that require interpreters for the police and court scenarios.

94

DISCUSSION
Students’ Self-Assessment Abilities

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the abilities of students
enrolled in introductory language courses to self-assess their new language skills. The
data revealed that students in both the visually-based language course (i.e., ASL) and
students in the spoken language courses (i.e., Arabic, Korean, and Spanish) demonstrated
difficulty assessing their skill levels. Students in all four of the language courses
demonstrated willingness to enter two situations for which they were not prepared (i.e.,
the police and court scenarios), and overconfidence in their judgments about their
abilities to function in these situations. The students’ difficulties raise concern about the
abilities of the general population of students who are enrolled in introductory language
courses to self-assess their capabilities and limitations in the target language.

When students fiom the four courses made inappropriate participation decisions
for the police and court scenarios, the primary motivation that they voiced was “to help.”
The Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein students used the more specific justification of “to help
deaf people.” The researchers hypothesized that this justification might be related to their
students’ views of their communication partners as disabled. In the current study, none
of the students in the ASL course mentioned a need to help deaf people in their
responses. It is unlikely that students in the Arabic, Korean, and Spanish courses viewed
the characters in their scenarios as disabled in the way that Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein’s
Signed English students viewed the deaf characters in their scenarios. Thus, there is

evidence that a perception of disability was not the primary contributing factor for the

95

students’ decisions. There must be an additional factor or factors contributing to the
students’ responses and their willingness to participate in interactions for which they
were not prepared.

Although it is unlikely that students would ever be placed in a situation in which
they had an opportunity to interpret for the police or in a court of law, the numbers of
students willing to participate in these scenarios raise concerns regarding students’
abilities to comprehend the limitations of the skills they learn in introductory language
courses. The majority of students in the ASL and Arabic courses were willing to
participate in the police scenario. Almost half of the students in the Spanish course and a
fifth of the students in the Korean course were also willing to participate in this scenario.
A third of the students in the ASL course, a fifth of the students in the Arabic and Korean
courses, and almost a fifth of students in the Spanish course were willing to participate in
the court scenario. With over 1.3 million students enrolled in introductory language
courses every year across post-secondary institutions in the United States, even a small
percentage of students making errors in self-assessment could have serious repercussions
in the activities of everyday work life.

Implications of Students Participating in
Communication Interactions Beyond Their Skill Levels

The implications of students who have learned only basic survival vocabulary
trying to interpret for a speaker of another language are far reaching. First, they would be
violating common sense practices for most business and social settings. Second, the
students could be violating the individual’s right to a trained interpreter. Although the

students may feel they are “helping” another individual, they may actually cause more

96

harm by misinterpreting messages. It is fortunate that in some instances (e.g., the court
system) legal controls are in place to provide professional interpreters to individuals who
communicate in languages other than English. However, it is important to note that
students taking introductory language courses were willing to participate in an interaction
which required an extremely high level of language proficiency. Whether or not laws
apply, students need to know their limitations.

With ever-gowing linguistic diversity in the United States, students need to be
cognizant of their second language skills so that they are not participating in
communication interactions which could cause communication breakdowns or violate the
rights of others. For example, students who major in international business may be
engaged in communication interactions with speakers of another language concerning
legally binding contracts during their professional careers. These individuals need to be
aware of their capabilities and limitations so that they are not providing misinformation
which could nullify a business contract or cause a monetary loss to the individual or to
the company.

Students in the education and health professions such as speech-language
pathology also need to be aware of their second language abilities and limitations. Their
students/clients will likely include both individuals who are multilingual and individuals
who are monolingual. The language(s) used by the individual(s) may or may not be
shared by the professionals. These individuals may seek assistance for a multitude of
issues. During these times, young professionals need to be conscious of what types of

communication they can handle and when they need to partner with an interpreter.

97

For example, a speech-language pathologist (SLP) who had completed just one
language course in his/her client’s language would have very limited expressive and
receptive skills in this language. This would compromise the SLP’s ability to obtain the
client’s case history and to determine whether the individual presents with a speech
and/or language disorder. If the individual did have a speech and/or language disorder,
the speech pathologist’s limited knowledge of the individual’s language would make
providing treatment and counseling services to the individual or to his/her family
regarding the disorder very difficult. In such instances, the services of an interpreter
would be required in order to deliver effective therapy services.

When assisting individuals who speak another language, a clinician must not only
be aware of his/her linguistic competency in the language, but also his/her cultural
competency. According to Battle (2002), “it is estimated that 6.2 million culturally and
linguistically diverse Americans have a communication disorder” (p. 21). Battle
suggested that in order for clinicians to be culturally competent they need to be aware of
factors that may affect client assessment and therapy service delivery. Factors the
clinician needs to be mindfir] of when treating clients from a range of cultural populations
include their nonverbal and verbal communication styles, their views concerning
appropriate social relationships, their views on orientation to time, and their views on
individualism or goup collectivism. This advice indicates that effective communication
with a speaker of another language requires more than knowing basic vocabulary. Young
professionals must also be aware of their clients’ cultural beliefs. If the clinician’s intent

is to be able to communicate directly to the client without an interpreter, then one

98

introductory language course is only a beginning to the years of language study necessary
to attain the type of proficiency required to interact with speakers of another language on
an effective level.

Giving Students a Clearer View of Their Proficiency Levels

The data in the current study revealed that students taking introductory language
courses demonstrated difficulty assessing their capabilities and limitations. It is essential
that educators find ways to assist students in recognizing both their current language skill
levels and the levels needed to effectively communicate in situations requiring geater
proficiency than that achieved in introductory language courses.

Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein (1994) investigated the impact of a one-hour lecture
on interpreter ethics, sign systems, ASL, and deafness on students’ responses to the four
scenarios. They found that the discussion reduced the numbers of students making poor
participation decisions, but it did not eliminate errors in judgnent. These findings also
revealed that while a single lecture of this type improved some students’ abilities to
assess their confidence ratings, it did not prevent all students fiom reporting
overconfidence.

An alternative approach could be to provide multiple classroom lectures covering
topics concerning interpreter training, proficiency and how it is measured, individuals’
rights to interpreters, and the ethical and legal ramifications of giving communicative
assistance to someone when the student is not authorized or trained to do so. A series of
lectures related to these subjects over the time flame of a course might provide the

repetition of material needed to solidify it in the students’ minds. It is also possible that a

99

series of lectures would offer students an open forum in which to ask questions about the
subject matter thus creating the potential for a better understanding of the content.

Another option for dealing with the problem of students’ overconfidence could be
to provide activities which allow the students to observe their proficiency levels relative
to those of fluent communicators. Students could be required to participate in
conversational activities with fluent speakers of the target language so they have a better
understanding of how much speech or sign they can comprehend and their abilities to
alternate conversational turns. Such activities may help students replace their beliefs
about what they can do with a clear perception of their actual skills.

To assist students in experiencing the skills needed to effectively communicate in
various situations, students could also be required to participate in multi-modal
communication activities. For example, students might be asked to read aloud or sign a
story in the language during a timed activity. These activities may give students a better
gasp of the skill level required for the fluid, connected speech or signing needed to meet
the sort of time limitations that will be encountered when communication exchanges are
rapid. This would give the student a better understanding of their language capabilities in
everyday interactions outside of the classroom.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of the study was the unequal sample sizes of the four courses,
particularly between the Korean course and the other three language courses. The small
sample size of the Korean course raises questions concerning the potential for

generalizing the data to the larger population of students studying Korean. This small

100

sample size also created problems in regard to the statistical analysis. For the “yes”
participation decisions concerning the store scenario the data from the students in the
Korean course had to be excluded in order to meet cell size requirements for the Chi
Square testing. The sample sizes of the courses also limited the recruitment of students
with characteristics of interest such as the lack of study of other languages. Data were not
available regarding this characteristic for male students in the Korean course and for
female students in the Arabic and Korean courses.

Another limitation of the study was that only four language courses participated.
Spanish is the only one of the languages that is typically offered at the high school level;
however, the number of high schools offering ASL has gown in recent years. Therefore,
students taking the ASL and Spanish courses could have taken these courses or other
language courses at the high school level. Arabic and Korean courses are less likely to be
offered at the high school level, so any of the student participants who took high school
language courses likely studied languages other than Korean or Arabic. This may explain
the absence of data regarding other language study for the female students in the Arabic
and Korean courses and male students in the Korean course.

An unexpected finding regarding the backgound of some of the students in the
ASL and Arabic courses was that they reported fluency in the target language. Five
students were from the Arabic course and two students were from the ASL course. One
student from the Arabic course reported that he enrolled in the introductory course to
attain proficiency in writing and reading the language. The motivations of the other six

students were not clear. When the questionnaire was developed no consideration was

101

given to asking students enrolled in introductory language courses if they were fluent in
the target language. Only students who volunteered this information were identified. If
these students were the only ones fluent in the target language, they make up
approximately 10% of the students in the Arabic course and 1% of the students in the
ASL course. They were not removed from the data set because they met the criterion of
enrollment in one of the target classes and there were not sufficient data available to
assure removal of all such students from the study.

Future Research

This study was designed to follow-up on the findings of Lodge-Miller and
Elfenbein (1994) that students in an introductory Signed English course had difficulty
assessing their language skill levels. Survey results from the current study revealed that
students in four different introductory language courses demonstrated self-assessment
problems similar to those observed by Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein. When the students
made inappropriate decisions regarding their skills (e.g., ageeing to attempt to interpret
for a car accident witness and a police officer), they, like the Lodge-Miller and Elfenbein
subjects, often reported that these decisions were based on the need “to help” another
person.

It is possible that students may have gouped the four scenarios into two
categories: daily life activities and legal arenas. Students may have felt comfortable
participating in the babysitting and store scenarios because these situations were
experiences the students had previously encountered (e.g., babysitting for a family

member or friend, or helping another person while shopping in a store). Students were

102

much less likely to be familiar with the two legal situations. It is clear from their
justifications that helping the character in the scenario was a key factor in the decision to
participate in the police and court scenarios. Even though the students realized they were
not adequately prepared to participate in these two scenarios, as evidenced by low
confidence ratings, they may have felt an obligation to participate. Indeed, some justified
this involvement by noting that the skills they had were better than doing nothing at all.

The study does not provide the information needed to determine why students in all four

 

courses would feel such an obligation to help unfamiliar conversational partners in
difficult communication situations.

Follow-up research could explore the reasons why students felt obligated to help
speakers of another language. A potential way to accomplish this would be to change the
wording of the scenario questions. In the current study, students were asked if they
would attempt to participate in each scenario and then to give a reason for their answers.
An alternative might be to ask the students if they would help the individual and to give a
reason for this answer. This wording would shift the student’s focus from the scenario to
the actual character he/she would be attempting to help. Students would then elaborate on
their reasoning of “to help,” providing the additional detail needed to understand their
motivation.

Future studies could also change the way in which the students are questioned.
The current study surveyed students with questions written in English. Instead, the
scenario questions could be read or signed by a native or fluent speaker/signer to make

the nature of the communication task clearer to the students (i.e., the communication

103

demands would be evident because students would need to comprehend what is
said/signed to them in order to answer the question). It is also possible that students
could view a videotape setting the stage for the scenario (e. g., watching communication
attempts between the police officer and the witrness). A multi-modal depiction may assist
the students with placing themselves in the scenario and thus help them to better assess
their skills for dealing with that situation.

F ollow-up researchers could collect a larger sample size of students. In order to
do this, researchers would likely need to collect data over multiple semesters of
introductory language courses. It is also possible that data could be collected from
another university that might offer a different population of students (e. g., a university in
California that serves students who had access to Asian language courses in high school).
This could improve the ability to obtain samples of students with and without
characteristics of interest such as the study of other languages.

Expanding the scope of research to include languages other than the ones in the
current study would increase opportunities to investigate any commonalities or
differences among students of a wide variety of languages. F ollow-up research with
these languages could examine the students’ views of different cultures and opinions of
learning these languages. For example, the responses of students studying Asian
languages could be compared to the responses of students studying European languages.

There is a need for continued study concerning students’ willingness to participate
in activities beyond their skill level, especially for situations in which miscommunication

during the interaction could result in serious consequences for the individuals involved.

104

For instance, future studies could expand the scenario areas to include work-related and
medically related situations which students may encounter in their daily life activities. If
the scenarios include these circumstances, researchers would gain insight into students’
beliefs about their behavior in a broad range of typical real-world situations.

With over 47 million people in the United States speaking a language other than
English, it is likely that English speaking students will encounter these individuals in
their daily lives. The current study provides evidence that some of the 1.3 million
students who are taking language courses every year in the United States would attempt
“to help” individuals who speak another language in a variety of communication
situations including some judged inappropriate by instructors of introductory language
courses.

Approximately fifty percent (160/315) of the students in this study stated that they
were learning the target language for career advancement purposes in fields such as
business, nursing, and deaf education. However, of those students 17% (27/160) were
not sure if they would continue on with more advanced language courses. It is disturbing
to note that, while these students want to use the target language in their professional
careers, they might not pursue advanced coursework. This is an indication that students
are not aware of the proficiency level necessary to communicate in everyday interactions
with the target language.

The problem of students with limited proficiency in a language attempting “to
help” individuals who are fluent in that language needs to be addressed in introductory

language courses. It is necessary for educators to help students understand their

105

capabilities and limitations. This krnowledge, in turn, will help students to avoid creating
communication breakdowns or violating another individual’s rights to skilled interpreters.
It is also necessary for researchers to continue to explore the topic of self-assessment so
that improved understanding of the problem can serve as the foundation for developing
solutions. These solutions could then provide language instructors with information to be
used in their curricula not only when guiding students through the language learning
process, but also when helping students understand what they can do with these skills

after completion of their introductory language course.

106

APPENDIX

Student Questionnaire

By completing this questionnaire, you are giving consent to participate in the study Post-
secondary students ' perceptions of their skill acquisition during introductory language
courses that is being conducted by Michelle McMullen-Hohnke and Jill L. Elfenbein
from MSU’s Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences. A description of the study
accompanies the questionnaire.

Please do not put your name on this questionnaire. You can answer most of the

questions on this survey by circling the appropriate response. At several points in the

questionnaire, there are questions that require write-in responses. Please put those

answers in the space provided.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Personal Information

1. What is your gender? A) male B) female

2. What is your age? A) 18-23 B) 24-29 C) 30-35 D) 36-39 E) 40 & beyond

3. From what ethnicity/racial backgound do you consider yourself to be? A) Caucasian
B) African-American C) American Indian/Alaskan Native D) Asian E) Asian/
Pacific Islander F) Hispanic G) Other

4. If you chose “other” in the previous question, please specify your ethnicity/racial
backgound:

 

5. What do you consider your hearing status to be? A) within normal limits B) hard-
of-hearing C) deaf

6. Is English your native language? A) yes B) no

7. Does anyone in your family speak the language you are currently studying? A) yes
B) no

8. If yes, what is the relationship of this person to you? A) parent B) gandparent
C) sibling D) aunt/uncle E) niece/nephew F) other

9. Have you ever lived with this person? A) yes B) no

10. If yes, did this person use this language in your home environment? A) yes B) no

107

l 1. Is this language part of your family, heritage or culture? A) yes B) no
Educational Information

12. What language are you studying? A) American Sign Language B) Korean
C) Spanish D) Arabic

13. What is your interest in this class? A) learn a language used by a relative or friend
(Circle all that apply) B) career advancement
C) friends taking the course
D) required for my major
E) like the instructor
F) class fits into my schedule

14. Which of the factors listed below had the geatest influence on your decision to take
this course? (Pick only one)

A) learn a language used by a relative or friend D) required for my major
B) career advancement E) like the instructor
C) friends taking the course F) class fits into my schedule

15. Is this class required to complete your major? A) yes B) no

16. Do you plan to continue learning this language after completing the introductory
course? A) yes B) no

17. Do you think it is important for MSU students to learn a language other than
English? A) yes B) no

18. Prior to taking this course, had you ever studied a language other than English?
A) yes B) no

Perception of Current Abilities

Provided below are multiple scenarios. Please consider each situation and determine
whether or not you would participate if these situations occurred today and provide a
reason for your decision. Then, regardless of whether you would participate, indicate
the level of confidence you would feel if placed in this situation.

To rate your confidence, use the following scale on which 0 equals no confidence and 10

equals totally confident. Use only whole numbers. Do not use fi'actions. Write your
answer in the space provided.

108

 

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(no confidence) (totally
confident)

Scenario One: You are asked to babysit for a six-year-old child whose only language is
the language you are currently studying. The child’s parents need to run an errand for 30
minutes. You would likely get the child a snack and/or play a simple game.

19. Would you babysit for this child? A) yes B) no

Please provide a brief reason for your answer to # 19:

 

 

 

p .. .

 

20. Rate your level of confidence in participating in this activity? Use the numbers 0 to
10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

Scenario Two: You are at a drugstore and the customer in front of you can’t understand
the clerk. The customer speaks only the language that you are currently studying. S/he
needs to know the total amount due?

21. Would you attempt to help the customer and the cashier? A) yes B) no

Please provide a brief reason for your answer to # 21 :

 

 

 

22. Rate your level of confidence in participating in this activity? Use the numbers of 0
to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

Scenario Three: You walk up to an accident five minutes after it has happened. Two
cars collided. The only witness is a person whose only language is the one you are
currently studying. A police officer is talking to the witrness in English. The officer
wants specific information about which car went through the stoplight, how fast each car
was going, etc.

23. Would you attempt to help the witness and police officer? A) yes B) no

109

Please provide a brief reason for your answer to # 23:

 

 

 

24. Rate your level of confidence in participating in this activity? Use the numbers 0 to
10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

Scenario Four: You and a friend are in small claims court waiting to present your case.
In the case before yours, the only witrness to a fistfight was a person whose only language
is the language you are currently studying. The lawyers are having trouble asking
questions that the witness can understand. Your friend says that you know the witrness’s
language. If you agee to help, you need to communicate the lawyers’ questions to the
witness and the witrness’s answers to the lawyers so that they can be entered in the court
record.

25. Would you attempt to assist the lawyers and the witness? A) yes B) no

Please provide a brief reason for your answer to # 25:

 

 

 

26. Rate your level of confidence in participating in this activity? Use the numbers 0 to
10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

Perception of Abilities at the End of the Course

Now we want you to consider how you think you would feel in a set of situations that
occur AFTER you complete this course. Please use the same confidence scale that you
used for the previous questions. Use only whole numbers. Do not use fractions.

 

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
( no confidence) (totally
confident)

27. Would you attempt a casual conversation with another student who is a native
speaker of the language you are currently studying? You would be using that
language not English. A) yes B) no

110

28. Rate your level of confidence in participating in this casual conversation? Use the
the numbers 0 to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

29. Would you attempt to order in a restaurant where the wait-staff use only the language
you are currently studying? You would be using that language not English. A) yes
B) no

30. Rate your level of confidence in participating in ordering in this restaurant? Use the
numbers 0 to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

31. Would you attempt to watch a movie presented only in the language you are
currently studying? There would be no subtitles. A) yes B) no

32. Rate your level of confidence in understanding the content of the movie? Use the
numbers 0 to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

33. Would you attempt to give directions to someone whose only language is the one
you are currently studying? A) yes B) no

34. Rate your level of confidence in participating in giving directions? Use the numbers
0 to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

35. Would you attempt to take a class (e.g., history, math, biology) taught only in the
language you are currently studying? A) yes B) no

36. Rate your level of confidence in understanding the content of the course? Use the
numbers 0 to 10 to indicate your level of confidence on the scale shown above.

 

Additional Questions to be Answered on this Sheet

The questions listed below require further explanation. Answer where appropriate.

37. What is your major?

 

38. What is your class year (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, first-year MA
student)?

 

39. Have you had any exposure to the language you are currently studying or people who
use it? If so, please explain:

 

111

 

 

40.

Have you ever spent time in a country or community that uses this language? If so,
where and how long did you stay?

 

 

 

41.

If you have studied another language, which language(s) did you study and how long
did you study them/it?

 

 

 

42.

Which languages do you feel are important for MSU students to learn and why?

 

 

43.

Based on your performance to date, what gade do you expect to earn in this class
(e.g., 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc.).

 

112

REFERENCES

Battle, DE. (2002). Communication disorders in multicultural populations (3rd ed).
Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.

Bomstein, H. (Ed.). (1990). Manual communication: Implications for education.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Capriccioso, R; & Epstein, D. (2006). Bush push on “critical” foreign languages. Inside
Higher Ed. January 6, 2006.

Damast, A. (2005, July 10). Schools respond to call for more Arabic classes. Stamford
Advocate.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106.

Graddol, D. (2004). The future of language. Science, 303, 1329-1331.

Hafferty, F., & Foster, S. (1994). Decontextualizing disability in the crime mystery genre:
The case of the invisible handicap. Disability & Society, 9, 185-206.

Hoffrneister, R. (1996). Cross-cultural misinformation: What does special education say
about Deaf people? Disability & Society, I I, 171-189.

Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.

Huber, B. (1993). The MLA’s 1987-1989 survey of foreign language progams:
Institutional contexts, faculty characteristics and enrollments. ADFL Bulletin, 24,
5-38.

J emigan, C. (2001). The role of beliefs, attributions, and perceived goal attainment in
students’ motivation. In G. Brauer (Ed.), Pedagogy of language learning in
higher education: An introduction (pp. 23-45). Westport: Ablex Publishing.

Johnson, F. (2000). Speaking culturally: Language diversity in the United States.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Irnc.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Foreign languages for a global age. ADFL Bulletin, 25, 5-12.

Lightbown, P. (2003). SLA research in the classroom/SLA research for the classroom.
Language Learning Journal, 28, 4-13.

113

Lodge-Miller, K., & Elfenbein, J. (1994). Beginning signers’ self-assessment of sign
language skills. Journal of Communication Disorders, 27, 281-292.

MacIntyre, P., Noels, K., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265-287.

Morrison, S. (2003). Arabic language teaching in the United States. LanguageLink.
Retrieved January 14, 2006 from
http://www.cal.org/resources.langlink/iune03feature.html

 

Nichols, D. (1998). My tests don’t agee! SPSS Keywords, 66, 1-2.

Phillips, J. (1985). Outcomes and expectancies in a proficiency oriented progam:
Toward realistic objectives. ADFL Bulletin, 16, 9-12.

US. Census Bureau (2000). Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000. Census
2000 Brief October 2003, pgs. l-l 1.

US. Census Bureau (2004). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004—2005. (124th
Edition). Washington, DC, 2004.

United States Government Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Focusing on the
nation’s priorities. Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007. Retrieved
July 21, 2006 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fv2007/education.htrnl

 

Welles, E. (2004). Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher
education, fa112002.ADFL Bulletin, 35, 1-26.

114