Effects of Delay in Oral Practiceat the Beginning of Second

Language LearningValerian A. PoiTOvsKY

, Defeme Language Institute, West Coast Branch

INTRODUCTION

IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED thai the* initial phase of instruction in foreign languageshould be based on intensive oral practice. Themore vocally active the student is from thevery beginning, the faster, it is assumed, helearns the foreign language.

Jn ihU study I wish to challenge this assump-tion and to suggest a different approach to theinitial phase of instruction.

The rationale on

which this hypothesis is based suggests diatintensive pronunciation practice is not the logi-

cal starting point.1 It Ls proposed that the motorskill involved in production of speech output isan end result of complex and mosdy covertprocesses which constitute linguistic competence.

'No atu-mpi n made in thih Mutly (O minimuc ihc imporuncr of oral practice in a languaKr iiaininK piogram. Ihc4|ui-s[hiii attdresticd m this paper refers to (he diMriWiion ofui ui {iravtiri- aciim (he phases ot msiiucnun taihet lhan tothe imlilv of oral practice per je. The view* of ihe author donor purptjit to reflect the position of the Departtnem o( theArm) or the Department of Defense

VAI1.RIAS A POSTOVSKY

U is furtlicr proiKwcd that the linguistic com-peipmc inclndt-s ai least two reciprocally cor-related events: capacity (o process audilory in-pul and capacity lo generate speech output, andthai the former Is concerned with decodingcapability while the latter is concerned withencoding.

Clearly, decoding capability requires develop-ment of teeosnition knowledge, while encodingcapability requires development of retrievalknowledge. Given this difference between thetwo events, it would appear to be logical lo as-sume thai in the natural learning process, de-velopment of recognition knowledge would pre-cede. noi follow, the development of retrievalknowledge.

When the student is tasked with productionof a foreign sentence, he has 10 retrieve linguisiicinfonnation stored in his long-term memoryand control his speech on phonological, syn-tactic and semantic levels simultaneously andwith the s|)eed of speech output. When he istasked with comprehension of a foreign sen-tence. he has to ilore linguistic information inhi< audilory shori-tcrm memory for a briefperiod of lime until it is further processed andmatched with (he informadon stored in his

long-term memory.* I suggest the lailer processis more productive in the initial phase of instruc-tion and that development of recognition knowl-edge is in fact prci quisite for the developincntof retrieval knowledge.

Priority of aural comprehension in the firstlanguage acquisition process is clearly evident.Children ilemnnsirate comprehension of manyutterances l>efore they develop the ability toproduce any intelligible speech. Empirical evi-dence to substantiate this common sense notion

has been provided by several excellent studies ofchild language 'Smith. Shipley, and Gleiiman,1966; Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown. 1965; Carrow.1968; Bloom. 1970: Lee. 1970.)

Although there are significant diflerences be-tween the process by which a child acquires hisnative language and thai of an adull studentlearning a second language, the principle con-cerning priority of aural comprehension in thelanguage acquisition process appears lo be validlor both conditions

. Indeed, it is implicit in thevery name of die "audio-Uneuar method. The

method, however, as it has developed in recentyears, places much greater emphasis on the"

lingual" part of the training. In the comem-porary methodology of foreign language leach-ing in general, this principle has received only avery superficial interpretation. Usually, it is ap-plied in reference to a single uuerance or ashort passage, i.e.. comprehension of a particularsegmeni of speech is believed to be necessarybefore production of that same segment.

Needless

lo say. development of recognition knowledgeprior to the development of retrieval knowledge,as is understood within the context of this ar-

ticle, implies that comprehension involves ac-quisition of an integrated linguistic systemrmther than acquisition of a single segmeni ofspeech.

In recent years interest in the dynamics ofaural comprehension has been steadily increas-ing. Some ten or fifteen years ago RobertCauthier in Canada introduced the so-called"Tan-Gau" method for leaching French toEnglish-speaking students. The method aliemputo develop aural comprehension by the processof bilingual communication: (he teacher speaksFrench, and the students respond in Englishunul such lime as each student individuallyapproaches the state of "

speaking readiness"jOauthier. 1963).

In 1965 Simon Belasco referred lo aur.il com-

prehension as "the most underestirnaicd and

least understood aspect of foreign languagelearning" I Belasco. 1965). At about die sametime Asher conducted his first experiments in"

the strategy of the total physical response"'Asher. 1963. 1969). attempting to developaural comprehension by requiring sludents loact out situations in response to commands in aforeign language. More recently Winitz andReeds (1971) have developed a totally com-prehension-oriented program in German inwhich meaning of utterances in the foreignlanguage is conveyed by pictorial events Themethod, raited Optimized Habit Reinforcement,

' Ihc protcaing model Imjilied htK ha* Itrcn rcleirnl lobv Ervin I'tipji in her paprr ' Sinu nitr and Procru in Lan-KUflgc' Acqimiiion

"

dfliven-d ai ihc 21m Animal Round Tj

blc in (icxirgfiown (Ervin Tripp. 1*170), AUa icr "Prftate(Orlnl Amuaiir Suiragc (PAS)' by Ciowiki and Morion(19691

EFFECTS Of DELA V

is dwcribed in a paper entitled "Rapid Acquisi-lion of a Foreign Language fGcrman) by theAvoidance of Speaking."

In this article I wish to report an experimenton effects of delay in oral practice at the be-ginning of second language learning (Poslovsky.19701 conducted for a doctoral dissertation dur-

ing the academic year 1969-70.The principal problem addressed in this study

may be formulated as follows: if processing ofauditory input is essential and intrinsic 10 thenature of the language acquisition process, thenthe linguistic properties of that input are crucialIf it Is true, as I propose, that the student learnsessentially what he hears. But in the audio-lingual class where each student is vocally ac-tive, students hear themselves more than theyhear the teacher. The auditory input which theyare processing, then, is not the authentic lan-guage, but the classroom dialect rich with allthe distortions that are peculiar to ihe beginningstudents' speech output. It is not surprising,therefore, that after extensive study of a foreignlanguage students still experience marked diffi-culty in understanding a native speaker, whiledisplaying considerable fluency in communicat-ing among themselves."

Rased on the above reasoning we may tenta-tively pro)>ose that intensive oral practice is notproductivt' in the initial phase of instructionand should be delayed until the student is betterprepared for the task, that is, until he haslearned to understand the spoken language.Recognition knowledge is prerequisite for thedevelopment of retrieval knowledge.

This thcorciical orientation gives a new di-mension to the old problem of negative transferor interference in second language learning.

In

the production-oriented "audio-lingual" ap-proach. contextual meaning of a foreign utter-ance is viewed as a source of interference in the

initial phase of instruction because it tends todivert the student's altcmion from the phono-logical features presented and thus adverselyaffect his pronunciation. In the comprehension-oriented approach, contextual meaning becomesindispensable because the goal of instructionis to develop processing strategies for decodingof auditory input.

Similarly, in the audio-lingual approach,the

writing system is usually withheld at the be-

ginning of the course for fear of graphic inter-ference. In the comprehension-oriented ap-proach. the argument may be reversed. Con-ceivably. one may argue thai it is just as logicalto present written forms prior to intensive pro-nunciation practice. In a classroom environmentwritten forms are not normally presented inisolation; the student hearn a foreign utteranceand sees its transcription simultaneously. Bytraining the student to write a foreign word inthe presence of an auditory stimulus we arecreating desirable associations

, and possibly re-inforcing his perception of auditory input.

The problem of interference is not limited lothe phonological level alone, as Politzer (1955,

pp. 9-10) clearly demonstrates, it extends tothe morphological, syntactical and semanticlevels. On these levels a written form appearsto be an asset rather than a liability.

Thus, by not requiring students to producevocal output at the beginning of second lan-guage learning, we may reduce interferencefrom the habits of the native language becausethe motor side of the student's linguistic be-havior during the comprehension training willbe minimal.

On the basis of the above argument, it issuggested that delaying oral practice at the be-ginning of the course will significantly enhancethe development of language proficiency andwill enable the student to develop better pro-nunciation and control of grammar than ispresently possible with the audio-lingual ap-proach. It is emphasized that the goal of in-struction remains the development of communi-cative competence and oral fluency.

Intensive

pronunciation practice is merely shifted to thesecond phase of instruction, when the studentis better prepared for the task and. consequently,lias less chance of developing poor habits in oralproduction.

'Simon UfUiNtn (1971). <lescril)ing htt cxpcrirnc*' with iheMlt- A inMiiHicv made a simil.ip ohM-rvahon He Itatfd mI-....

At chtf i-nd ot ihi' 19l>0-I Prnn Siait- Acailcmit Yearl-iriiui Insiiiim'

. 1 wa;* iiuiclv jolicd by ibr icali/Hiionlliai i( is |M>s>ililr lo develop Mt calttyl '$|>tal(ing' abiliivand y«i tic virtually incompel nl in undfryanding ihr>)Kikcii langua i'. .

. .

'

Kvm 41 ltia( limt* 1 Mtongly suspo* ird thai iho ncii-pml Kqiiencc <>f entpbasizlng 'Ifttetfinj;, tpraklog'.n-dilHigi ami writing? in iliai mdrr wai *'"!>. bcinR ob-miimI Miprflicially.

"

232 VALERIAS A POSTOVSKY

Operalionally, this system implies thai thestudent will he able to write before he speaks.The writing system will be introduced on (he

first day of instruction and all students' re-sponses during the pre-vocal training will be inwriting. Jt is assumed that the dynamics ofcontextual meaning and the facilitiation of thestudent's meaningful response will by far out-weigh the problem of graphic interference.

Description of the Experiment

Objectives. Although the basic tenet, centralto this study, is that in the second languagelearning situation aural comprehension must bedeveloped ahead of production, the presentexperiment was not designed to test this tenetspecifically. Rather, it was limited lo testing dieeffects of delay in oral practice at the beginningof second language learning. And, since thedelay in oral practice in the experimcnlal con-diiion was achieved by requiting students torespond in writing, the second objective of thisstudy was to investigate the efTecdveness of oralversus writing practice.

For this purpose a carefully ronlrolled ex-perimental investigation was conducted, com-paring an experimental condition, a four-weekdelav in oral practice, wilh a control condition.no delay in oral practice. Evaluation was carriedout for all four language skills-listening, speak-ing, reading and writing.

Learning Environment. The experiment wasconducted at the Russian Depanment. De-fense Language Institute. West Coast Branch(DI,,1WC), Presidio of Monterey, California.DLIWC offers a unique learning environmentand an exceptionally favorably cxpeiimentalsetting. The Russian course is an intensive six-hour-a-day program; four of these hours areconducted in small classes of nine or ten stu-

dents, and two in a conventional languagelaboratory.

Subjects. The subjects used in the study wereselected from military personnel who volun-teered for language training and were assignedto learn Russian at (he DLIWC. All native

speakers of English, they came from differentgeographic areas of the continental UnitedSiaies. Most of them were between eighteen andtwenty-four years of age. Their educationranged from high school to six year? of college.

On the average they had approximately 2.75years of college. They represented the samesocioeconomic stratum, that of a middle-class

American family.Experimental Procedure. In order to ensure

internal validity of the experimental procedureand to increase the size of the sample, iwo con-secutive experimenis were conducted. The firstexperiment started on September 9. 1969 andwas completed on November 28, 1969. Thesecond experiment-an exact replication of thefirst-was carried out in the period betweenJanuary 9 and April 3. 1970.

Each of the two classes participating in thestudy was divided into the Experimental andControl conditions. Subjects in the Experimentalcondition were individually matched with sub-jects in the Control condition.* The Septemberclass contained seventy-three students: of these,eleven were disqualified as experimental sub-jects due to prior exposure lo Slavic languages.The remaining sixty-two students were groupedinto thirty-one matched pairs and randomlydivided between the Experimental and Controlconditions. In the January class, following thesame criteria for selection, thirty matched pairswere formed out of seventy-eight students, thusbringing the total si/e of the sample to sixty-onematched pairs. Thar is, counting both classes,there were sixty-one subjects in the Experi-mental group (Es) who were individuallymatched with sixty-one subjects in the Controlgroup iCs;.* The experimental design followedby each of the two classes is graphically pre-sented in Figure 1.

Note that the duration of each experimentwas twelve weeks, but subjects were exposed tothe experimcnlal treatment only during the

'M.ik King WHS based in (ircviouslv obtained mircit on ihc\inn I. rifiurit;1' Apiiiudr I'rsi (Al.AT) and Oils Lfnnmi

t \d\.lined K'nni J) Inielligem r Tcm (Olis L) Age, cduca-nun .ind Itirmer itaininy in tnieiRn UnKuagrs <nihcr rhanSlam l were mcd as addiiiunal eriieiia li)t inaiehitiR Kanlinn unniU-is uerc used U) deirrminc which Mud m tmni

e.uh pail mnild betome a memher nf ihe F.Kperinifnul> undnKin

'Due lo aiiriiion. the imtiibei ol matched paii5 in Sepiiinbi'r cla*s reduced iv ovcmvfighi at the end of the sixthweek and m iweiuv live .11 rhe end ot ihe cwclfih week, lit

ihe I.muatv titss ihe nutnbei of maulied pairs was trilut edIII ItaTniy-arVni and i»rni\ ft>m irspecmely. thus reducing1 hi- i<itjl t.imple 10 fij manhed paiitt f<« ihe mk-week losiingpi-iiod ami 49 lor the twelve-week testing period

EFFECTS OF DELAY

Treatment

Week Experimental Control

1

2

3

A

No oral practice

Equal emphasis on ai

Intensive oral practice

ral comprehension

-*.

i-Regular Russian Program

b Transition 1

6 Integration

Six-Week Comprehensive Test

7

8

9

10

11

1?

Regular

Russian

program

Regular

Russian

program

Twelve-Week Comprehensive Test

Fig. 1-Experimental Design

initial four wocks of instruction. Both the Es

and the Cs were exposed to the same mstmrtorsthroughout the experiment," both followed thesame daily cycle of instruction and had exactlythe same number of contact hours per day, theonly difference bcin j in the methodology ofinstruction.

Upon completion of the pre-vocal phase ofinstruction

, the Rs were merged with the Cs inthe regular Russian program. Common exami-natiom were administered at the end of the

sixth week and again at the end of the twelfthweek of instruction. The test scores on all four

language skills (listening, speaking, reading, andwriting) were statistirally treated.

Methodology. The delay in oral practice inthe Experimental condition was achieved byrequiring students to respond in writing. Thedevelopmenl of writing skill from the very be-ginning of the course in the Experimental con-dition was considered important for two rea-sons, First, it provided students with a meaning-ful mode of response during the pre-vocal phaseof instruction; and second

, it was believed that

there is a high degree of positive transfer fromwriting to speaking, since both skills are pro-ductive. Hence, the Es were introduced to the

conventional writing system (Cyrillic alphabet)from the very first day of instruction. To estab-lish association between Russian sounds and

symbols, the students were given some pronun-ciation practice along with the alphabet duringthe initial three days of instruction, but immedi-ately thereafter and until the end of the fourthweek, all students' responses were in writing.

'In boih Project Classes, ihc E*. aiul (hr Cs were carh dividctl imo four scciiom A

, B, C, and D- with eiKhi ornun- suuk-ms per wiiinn, (hus making a mul r>r eight scc-lltHW in each class. Ten imiruciot* were assigned co ifadiiliew- secimnv, each instructor was teaching four hours daily- two in the Experimental group and two in the Control

j{(mi|-, A typical whedult for an iiBtructor may be as follows

8:00-8:50 a.m. Section A(E)10:00 10:50 a m Srtlion B(E)l;00 l;50 p.m Seciion A(C)2:]0 S:00 p.m. Section B(C)

In manner, the "instructor variable' across sen ions was

minpleu'lv controlled.

Z34 VALERIAS A POSTOfSKY

That is. oral imilaiion drill was subsliluled bydiciation pracdce, pattern drills by writingpractice of pattern-drill responses, recitation ofdialogues by writing out dialogues from memory.

The Cs from the beginning followed theregular DLIWC Russian program with greatemphasis on habit-forming drills and oral prac-tice. It was basically the audio-lingual approach.However, short explanations of grammar weregiven before pattern-drill sessions, and theCyrillic alphabet was wiihhcld only for the firstthree days of instrucdon. Thus, die C's had anintensive oral practice from the beginning ofthe course, while the Es had a delay in oralpractice during the initial four weeks of in-struction.

In an attempt to reduce the difference be-tween conditions to the mode of siudent re-

sponse, eijual emphasis was made in both groupson development of aural comprehension. Cover-ing identical tearhinii materials, both groupswere exposed 10 exactly the same vocabulary,

grammar, and lesson content. The same dia-logues were first presented in both grtmps ascomprehension exercises by the teachen.

And

only after comprehension of the dialogue wasachieved, the oral rcpelition praciiti" in theConlrol condition and dictation pr;iriice in iheExperimenial rondilion would start

Achicvemcni Tesls and Telling,

Piticfdiire.

The two comprehensive tests especially devel-oped for this experiment were similar in formalto the MLA-Coopcrativc Foreign LanguageTests. These tests were designed tn provideseparate measures of listening, speaking, reading.

and writing skills at Iwo levels of acfiievemenl-the six-week and die twelve-week grading

periods in the DI.IWG Russian program. Ad-ministering and scoring of the tests followed theprocedure recommended for MLA Tests bythe Educational Testing Service (1964).

I lie test validity was established bv comput-ing the Pearson Product-Moment correlationcoefficients between ihe scores obtained by thestudents on the lests and their classroom per-formance grades. The correlation coeHlcientsfor the oral part of the lest wen- .72 at the six-week level and .8- at the twelve-week level. Forthe written part of the test, they were .84 and.87 respectively.

The lest reliability measure was obtained bycomputing odd and even item correlation andapplying the Spearman-Brown correction (Guil-ford, 1954). The results are given in Table 1.

TABLE I

Toi Keliability

B'Wks l2r*E

Ltsirning -"6 -89

SpfakmR -88 -91Resiling 7fl .68Wriilng 90 -90

The tests were administered to both die Es

and Cs assembled together in a single languagelaboratory. All students' responses during theSpcaking Tesi were recorded on tape. To en-hance reliability of the Speaking Test, threeraters were used to score each individual stu-

dent tape. The raters were senior instructors.naiivr speakers of the Russian language, andskilled in scoring this type of test by previousexperience. They were not members of theProject Class faculty and did not know thesnidenis. FuttluTinon'. students were identified

on tape bv code number only, and the order oflistening 10 tapes was randomized.

Analysis and ResultsThe data collected on each pair of subjects

in this study represent several interdependentdimensions- listening, speaking, reading, andwriting scores, Therefore, the principal statisti-cal procedure used in the analysis of the datawas to eniplov ihe Multivariate Matihcd Pair TTest. The Motelling TJ statistic appeared to beihe mosi apptopiiaie insimment i Morrison,19671 , one of the mosi conservative statistical

procedures available for an experiment in for-eign language leaching meihodology. becausein testing for variance between the Experi-mental and Control condilions, it simultaneouslyaccounts for covariance in all four related

language skills.As mav be recalled, two consecutive expen-

mcnts were conducted in which students'

per-formance was measured at two dilfereni levels

of achiivement: {I) at the end of the six weeksof instruciion, and (2) at ihe end of the twelve.weeks of instruction. Mean scores obtained by

EFFECTS OF DELAY 233

each project class at each of the two levels ofachievement are reported in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLES

Mean Scores Obiaincd on the Six Week Tesi

cal analysis as a one-sample problem. Thus, ifwe take the difference I Experimental (E) -Control |'C) 1 for each matched pair in ourcombined sample, the data may be summarizedas is shown in the following diagram:

Clasi ConO)l>on Listening Speaking Reading Wnting

ScpiembeiN - 2R

Expcrimemal 28.78 Sz.W 87 03Comrol 28.50 44.92 34.32 81.07

JanuarvN - 27

Experimental 31.33 47.15 36.37 87.37Comrol 29.9b 45.33 35.15 82.b7

TABLES

Mejn Scoie* Oliiained on the Twelve-VVeek TeM

Class CorflittOn Listening SoeaWing RBWing Wr.rtre

SeiiHrmlwrN - 2h

ExiM'rimemal 24.64 48.56 31,92 81.20Comrol 23,20 44.84 31.68 77.44

JjnuarvN - 24

Expernm-mal 26,66 49.92 33.08 79.92Control 23.66 48.38 32.79 78.67

6 Week Level 12-Week Level

E - C E - C

N =55" N = 49'

In order to ensure that the two groups repre-sented the same population ol students, theSeptember and January classes were tested forequality, and upon finding no significant differ-ence between the groups (/» = .62 at the six-week level, and p = .58 at the twelve-weeklevel) the data obtained from both projectclasses were merged to form a larger sample. Ina matched-paii design, the data obtained fromthe Experimental and Control conditions may-be reduced to the difference in observed values

for the paired members and subjected to statisli-Ptofile

.See Note 5

For easy visual comparison, mean scores forihe Es and Cs on listening (L), speaking (S),reading (R), and writing (W) were trans-formed to the common scale and presented in aprofile plot below.

Although one might begin with investigationof the difference between the six and the twelve-

week levels, it was of interest in this study todetennine first whether or not there was anydifference between the Experimental and Con-trol londitions at each of the two levels of

achievement.

The analyses of the daia wen? accomplishedon the C.D.C. 6-tOO computer at the Universityof California Computer Center, Herkrley. Theprogram ulili/ed was that of Dr. Jftcmy Finn.University of New York. Buffalo (Finn, 1968),

Plot

6-Week 12-Week

E

N = 55 N-49

90-

80-

70 -

60-

c

vv\\\\\\\\\\

v'

\

///11i

li

J i1111j i

J i\ 11v '

»

v.

Sign.

li-Jl N

,S

.

p<:.09s /

yp-<

.01

50 -_

i )_

1 1 1 1 1

w

Figure 2.

236 VALERIAN A POSTOVSKY

From the1 profile plot above, ii can be seenthat (he difTerence between groups favored theExpcrinientai condition on all criterion mea-sures, but the slalistically significant differencetil p < .01 level was observed only ai the six-week level of achievement. At the twelve-week

level, when all language skills were consideredsimullaneously, a similar trend was observed-the direction of the difference on all criterion

measures was in favor of ihe Es, bul ai less than

statistical level of significance. However, furtheranalysis of the data (confidence iniervals) re-vealed that the E's at the twelve-week level were

significantly superior to the Cs in listeningcomprehension (/)<.008), while at the six-week level, the most significant dideionces be-tween groups was in speaking, reading, andwriting skills.

The observed difference in reading and writ-ing skills was not surprising. The Es receivedmore practice in these skills, therefore,

their

superiority on these criterion measutes was an-ticipaled. Of more interest was the difference inspeaking. For this reason the speakini; score foreach subject was broken into its componentparts (see MLA Scoring Form for SpeakingTest) and subjected (o further analysis with theaim of determining which specific elenient(s)

contributed to the observed difTerence.

The seven components of the speaking scoreare given below:

1. Mimicry (Mim.)2. Reading aloud (Read.)3

. Answering questions (Q.A.I4

. Free narralion (Nar.)j. Control of grammar (Gram.i6

. Control of vocabulary (Vocab.)7. Fluency (FU)

Mean scores for the Es and ihe Cs on each

of these variables were transformed to the com-

mon scale and plotted on the profile graphwhich is presented in Figure 3.

tl must be noted thai the difference betweengroups on these criterion measures was found tobe signifiram at the .0001 level of confidence.The two variables dial contributed most to this

ouicomc were control of grammar and readingaloud. For a more detailed treatment of data

the reader is referred (0 (he original dissertation(Postovsky, 1970).

Discussion

This study can be described as a broad com-parison between two radically different ap-proaches to the initial phase of foreign language

Six-Week Level

70-

60-

50-

M- r -

-- ~

.

~

Sign.

p<,C001

40 1 1 III .1- 1

Mim Read OA. Nar. Gram Vocab

Fig. 3. -Components ot the speaking score, six-weeklevel of achievement.

EFFECTS OF DELAY 217

insiruction. One approucli concenlraies on ihedevelopment of pronunciation and oral fluencyfrom the very beginning, while the other treatsoral production as one of the more difficultaspects and, therefore, not an appropriateslardng point. Il attempts to reduce complexityof the learning task by deiayinc oral practice.

In the experimental design, overall languageproficiency is viewed as a function of method.The tests employed for measuring listening,speaking, reading, and writing skills yieldedglobal scores for these skills, favoring the Es ineach instance. Although not all differences werestatistically significant, the data obtained clearlysuggest thai the experimental method provokeda greater amount of learning. The results ob-tained are quite uniform for both project elas-ses.but due to grossness of measures, the datagenerated by this investigation can be inter-preted only in general terms. Any attempt todraw specific conclusions about the second lan-guage- acquisition process without additionaland more detailed research would be purespeculation. In this respect, the present studyraised many more questions than it suppliedanswers.

However, let us look at the outcome of this

study in greater detail. At the end of six weeksof training, the Es were found to be significantlybetter than the Cs in speaking, reading, andwriting skills. The last two are not surprising-the Es had more written practice and theysimply learned what they were taught. However,

the same generalization cannot be applied tothe observed difference in speaking. In this case,

the Cs had far more oral practice, but theirperformance on the test was inferior to that ofthe Ks. The data generated by this experimentactually showed negative correlation betweenthe amount of oral practice and quality of per-formance on the test. This outcome clearly re-quires some plausible explanation.

We may recall that absence of oral practicein the Experimental condition did not meanabsence of practice f>rr se. but rather a different

kind of practice. In ihe Experimental conditionoral practice was substituted by written re-sponses. Let us, then, look at the difference be-tween the oral and the written response.

Ob-

viously, several oral responses can be made inthe time required for a single written response.

Therefore, while practicing the same drill ma-terial. the Cs had a clear advantage over theEs in terms of the number of studeni trials peritem. This advantage becomes less apparentwhen we consider some of the positive featuresof writing practice from spoken input. First, the

Es heard only authentic Russian speech,while

the Cs heard both the authentic models and theimperfect student imiiations. It is possible, there-fore, that the Es stored more precise acoustic datain their memory. Secondly, a written responserequires longer storage of auditoiy input inshort-ierm memory. Students' attentional focus

on auditory surface is increased and they aregiven more time for processing the message.Thirdly, il is possible that subvoealization dur-ing writing practice plays a significant role inassimilation of linguistic structure, particularlyduring dictation practice when students hear acorrect model every time (he sentence is re-peated by the teacher. Investigation of the roleof <ubvocali/ation in foreign language learninghas been suggested by Scherer (1965),

who felt

that its conscious application increases the learn-ing potential of the student

. And. finally, wemust remember that writing practice providesvisual reinforcement.

The visual reinforcement hypothesis is sup-ported by earlier research by Dunkel (1948)and by Crothers and Suppes (196?), Dunkelcompared three methods-auditory, visual, andconcurrent auditor) and visual-for teachingPersian vocabulary and grammar. He foundthat vocabulary learning was not retarded bythe absence of visual information, but that the

learning of grammatical structure was. Crothersand Suppes, in their experiments on learningRussian grammatical patterns, suggested thatby virtue of having more opportunity to observehow a continuous How of speech in a sentenceis segmented, the students may have been moreresponsive to specific grammatical features in-volved.

We may recall at this point that the analysisof the speaking score components in the presentstudy revealed thai the greatesi difference be-tween ihe Es and Cs was in the control

1!38 VALERIAN .1 POSrOfSKY

of graminaiical siniclure.1 The second signifi-

cant diirercncc between groups al (he six-weeklevel was in reading aloud. On the test, thesubjects Were rated on two criterion measures-Critical Features and Reading Fluency. How-ever. in analyzing the data, the Reading Fluencyrating was merged with Kluency in Narration,thus leaving Critical Features alone in theReading score. Critical Features are defined asL'Propet stress and accuracy of pronunciationwithin individual words and groups of words

'"

(MLA. 1961). In a 66-word reading passage.ten critical features were selected for evalua-

tion. Raters scored each of these ten items as

right or wrong, A sum of right responses asrated by each of the three raters ronstimted theraw Reading Aloud score.

Critical Features in a reading test provide ameasure of pronunciation when graphic inter-ference is present. It is a production of speechfrom symbol to sound. Clearly, die test mustmeasure ihc student's ability to control graphicinterference. The superiority of the Eb on thiscriterion measure seerns in support an argumentpresented here earlier. That argument sugiresieda reversal of the sequence of events, presentingwritten forms prior to oral practice and usingdictation as an exercise in sound discrimination

VVe may note that Mace and Keisler ' 1963). intheir study on discrimination and pronunciationof French phonemes, found that training invisual discrimination facilitated pronunciation.

The discussion thus far has concentrated onthe results obtained at the si\--week level of

achievement. Twelve-week results were nuite

similar, but the diflVreiices between groupstended to be smaller except for the difTerncein iislening. Analysis of the difTercncc in therate of learning between groups in the periodbetween the six and iwelve-weet; tests indicated

that the Es tended to progress faster in thelistening and speaking skills, while die Cs gainedmore in ihe reading and writing skills. Thisoutcome clearly reveals the efTects of treatmentduring the first four weeks of instruction; skillsinitially de-emphasized tended lo level put wheninstruction became more balanced. However,

the training in listening comprehension was notde-emphasized in the Experimental condition.therefore, the difference in the rate of learning

in this area cannot be explained by the differ-ence in the initial emphasis of instruction.

A more plausible interpretation, and onewhich conforms with subjective observation, isdiat during the initial phase of instruction',when the Es were learning to use the Cyrillicalphabet, their attention and effort were con-sumed by the new writing system and the learn-ing rate in aural comprehension was correspond-ingly reduced. In the second six-week period,however, the writing system presented no prob-lem: on the contrary, it was likely to aid in thedevelopment of other language skills. Thus, it ispossible that writing practice from spoken inputmay have latent elTects on subsequent develop-mem of other language skills.

Conclusions

Such conclusions as follow must of necessity

apply lo learning Russian as a second language.Furthermore, they apply specifically to thesample population and the learning environ-ment of this investigation. However, some char-acteristics of the sample, such as age. educa-lional background, and socioeconomic status,indicate that the sample was in many respectsrepresetnative of a general population of collegestudents, thus makins the findings and conclu-

sions of this study more generalb applicable.On the basis of the data reported, the fol-

lowing conclusions are made:

1 In Icaining Russian, aduh studenii developbetter overall langiiaj r prolicicilty when oralpraciiee is delayed in the initial phase of in-situetion, proiided that ihn pre-vocal period udelated to training in aural comprehensionand wr/lten practice from spoken input

2. There is high po>itive transfer ol learning from

wridng to speaking, provided that writtenpracnec is from spoken input.

3. In the initial pha.se of insirueiiim. when writtenpraniec from spoken input is compared withoral practice of the same drill material, writtenpractice develops benet control of grammaii-caUduciure.

1. hitruduction ol the wming syMem (Cyrillic at-

1 he i aw score mi il>i> riitenmi measure was obuincd by

.i.MniK lamigsoii a 0 :> Seal* fm j' Ii "I Uie nva narraiioiBJi-hiiihint: pn lures in ih*- 1pm liooklrt Thp MLA 119641rruvria I'" KOdM »js liilluwrd lo (omml Hdiirctmty.iimr iitdcpcmimi xAt/en arorvd each siudcm up*?.

THE CI.O/.F TEST AS A MEASURE Of ENCUSH PRUHCIENCY 2S9

ph.ibrt prior 10 intrtisivr pronunciation ptac-ticp dor$ not crcatr a grratrr problem ofgraphic imrrffrener than normally crratrd bythe reverse sequeiue ui presentation.

REFERENCES

Asbcr, Jjmrs J.. I he sitatrgy «! ihr pbvtu al tcsponsrAm .ipplioiion i>i kjiimig laji.nit-y- IRALi Vol III, NoI U%5|.

I'

hc tout phvmal rcsponM- approach losrtnnd latiguagr U-arniii>r. Thf Madfrn Ijtn uti i laumnt, VolUU No 1 (Ji.m1.1ry. IW )

BrlaM.o Sirnoti Nucleation and (lie audio lingual appioach I he Mndi rn LanguuKrJournal. Vol XLIX. No.8|IVtemher I'tfi'i).

The fejsibtlitv of learntnj; a sec ond lani{ua e in anatiificial unicuhural siluadon. Tht P\\fhology n; .S.. .n.rfIjimtua t Learning. Editpd by Paul Pimdeui ami leieiifr ( uinn f

'

anibrid e, TIm* I'

mverciiy Presj.l?>JI

lllo..in. 1. M. Languagi lynrlopmrnl Enrti and huntiioiitn Enn rguin Criimtiutry. Camlnicl|;e. Mass. The M 1.1.I'less ll?!!

Cairoll |ohn H . I he conmbutious 01 psvchulugicil the4>rv.tod tducaiiooal research to the te thio o( totei>;n IanKUaKi s. Tin- Moi/trn I nnguaiii- jnunint. \ ol XI.IX No.t (Mav, lt|t$l 281

r.tirow M \ I he deielopment ol auditors comprehension of lattijuaije snuciure in children. / Speech Hear/)« IS (1!«>«I W ill,

Ctctiher Edward and Patrick Suppes, E.xpfrimenti in Sic-cunii languvue l.eorntnn New Yotlt; Acailemn Prns.Ittfi".

(.iMwciit R G. andJMorton Pircalejt;orkal acoustic stor-

.ij!e t I'AM Vrrceplion and Piyrhophyuex. Vol. V 110691.

Hiri v75.

Dottlt-I M U . .Sdcowr/ EanauiW Lvuming Boston: liinn.I<HH

I tcin 1 tipp. Susan M.. Stiutiute and piu<e£> in bU pujlifeatiHiisiiiiitt, ONmwmM I 'mn riUy Monograph 21si Annual Round I able No. jM (1970)

I mn [iTemv Mulltvatiaiice utucariate aiul nlulltvari

ate anaKsisof variance, rosanance and re Tession. A For

tran IV I'toRrjin [une 19hK

li.isc-i (,. I'rsula Bellugt and K Brown. Control ot grammar in imttatton. < tmiptehriisioti, and pioduction Thepuiinal nl I'erhal Learning and I'erhal Brhanior. Vol II

iivOy,, Hi is.(.authiec. Robert. Ian Cau a natural method foi learn

mi; a second language. Teacher f Guide In AccomftanyIhr Tan Gau Melhctd. lotomo: W J Cage l.iinitrdIWi*.

(.uillotd. j . I'Mchomelrtc Methods. 2nd Ed.. New York:Mc Craw Hill (Mft,

I i t- 1 I A scjeentng test KM ttyntax development JSfMdi Hear Da . S5 (IH70I 103 112

Mace I Jtiv and Evan K. Ketsler. "Reversibilttv ol Stimulus

.tttil Rfsponsc I c-itus Following Ihsciimination Learningol Fient h I'honemev Journal of Lducalional Psychol-og\ LVKiofinj

\U .1 C.nofietain'e Enreign Ijlngtuigi- Tei/i Ih'reclfOns ofAitrntHfilering and Sconng Educational 1 estmi; Service,

VjaitpetaxiiH! lest DivtaiiM PiinccMR. NJ. Beikelev.( ihroitita. I%'l.

Moitisoti, UonaldF,. Muttiianale Stalistical Method*. New

Vink Mc Craw Hill. 1967.

I'olii/ei Kobeit L Eonign Language Learning A Lirt-

gutstif tntroductton En lewood Cltlls. NJ.. Prentice-iiaii inc.. iita

Posonskv Valenan, A.. Edlects ot clel.cv 111 otal ptaclice atiln- beginning ol second language leatrung.

Pit I), dtsser

tutiod t imetsttv ol Califoinia. Betkeles (19701

Sctiiier Ceoige A C:.. lowaid mote ellecme mchsidual-t/< d It .lining. Lunguage Learning I he Indnidual andthe />"<'*'.» Edited b\ Edward W. Najam Bloomirtgton.ImiI. Indiana Untsersils. Mouton & (ai,. I96fi

Ntiiiih. 4 :,tiIota S. I wo studies ol ibessntaciic knowledge of

'..tun 1 InUlien. Presemed .11 the Linguistic C'olloqutum.

I aytetil Peltosslvanta Psychtaiiic Instnole M.LI . 19fit>.Wttiii/ I latits antl jame-. Rei-tts, Rapitl at quisition of a for

. ign language ilteimant bv the avoidance of speaking.Kansas Cits Wotkmg Papers m Speei li StM iite and Lht-guistii s Ninnbi-t I wo. Lfniyenhl ol MisM.nin Kansas CityiSt jii. mliet 1971).