View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'My Friend Travis Says…': A Look at Enrollment Trends in Language Classes in the United States

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'My Friend Travis Says…': A Look at Enrollment Trends in Language Classes in the United States
Language: English
Authors: Morgan, William Justin (ORCID 0000-0003-3074-4062), Thompson, Amy S.
Source: Foreign Language Annals. Sum 2023 56(2):259-279.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Language Enrollment, Enrollment Trends, Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Student Placement, Student Recruitment, College Second Language Programs, Language Proficiency, Correlation, Student Attitudes, Majors (Students), College Credits, Program Development, College Students
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12683
ISSN: 0015-718X
1944-9720
Abstract: The present study uses data from 1147 university language students from lower-division and upper-division courses from eight different languages. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of course placement, first course enrollment, and personal/professional relationships had on university learners' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a language other than English (LOTE). Respondents completed a survey that included information regarding their first course of study, their prior learning experiences, their perceptions of support they receive for language study from their community, and their reasons for studying or not studying their target language as a major or minor degree program. This study found that there were several potential institutional hurdles associated with language study in the university setting, including first-course placement, conflicting support from personal and academic relationships, and credit hour limitations. Suggestions for recruiting students and strengthening language programs conclude this study.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1381463
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEO6judyXtfkc0wApIdVsMHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCdGTSqVBRnu8_GddwIBEICBmyft1lAH-to4Y7MSHz7KPsNYHpDoX-2vjLs12jEtMrJCXCgirHr2cSfnqI5TQis8pYjPFzuG8rRiXse4PMn4u0WBbD6MhDrO6yLW8fo2Zo8GyX1-JQ9eNHVO-MCruz4uTUGbPrQgYSGvPdRJ4OMOWmptrDuf0tN4CvBM70kXufV_cKOsxBDYtZgbuCq9XBB-bDnKHJiGbgQALxuU
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164352671;fla01jun.23;2023Jun19.06:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164352671-1">"My Friend Travis Says...": A look at enrollment trends in language classes in the United States </title> <p>The present study uses data from 1147 university language students from lower‐division and upper‐division courses from eight different languages. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of course placement, first course enrollment, and personal/professional relationships had on university learners' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a language other than English (LOTE). Respondents completed a survey that included information regarding their first course of study, their prior learning experiences, their perceptions of support they receive for language study from their community, and their reasons for studying or not studying their target language as a major or minor degree program. This study found that there were several potential institutional hurdles associated with language study in the university setting, including first‐course placement, conflicting support from personal and academic relationships, and credit hour limitations. Suggestions for recruiting students and strengthening language programs conclude this study.</p> <p>The Challenge: Postsecondary language programs need to articulate their value to the proper demographic. This study investigates what motivates, and dissuades, students from majoring or minoring in Languages Other than English (LOTEs) in the United States context. This study looks at first‐course placement, prior L2 study, and students' personal and professional learning climate.</p> <p>Keywords: enrollment; evaluation of curriculum; L2MSS; motivation; value of language learning</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>As is the case with most areas of study in higher education, stakeholders in language learning and teaching are interested in understanding the vitality and marketability of their discipline. Over the decades, this process has been met with a great deal of anxiety over shrinking numbers (see Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]; and the Modern Language Association for a detailed look at enrollment trends in the United States), budgetary cuts, and programmatic shifts to match the modern demands of the real‐world application of language learning. As illustration of this point, Bernstein et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]) have outlined a theoretical shift of the profession of language education: "1) Language as a technicized skill. 2. Culture as a commodity. 3. Language teachers as expendable and replaceable knowledge workers. 4. Language learners as entrepreneurs and consumers. 5. The creation of a global language teaching industry. 6. The emergence of new linguistic markets: Global English" (p. 6). The current study is a continuation of this academic ritual of self‐evaluation, self‐affirmation, and self‐critique of Languages other than English (LOTEs) taught at a large Appalachian university. This paper dives into three areas of particular interest to the language department at which the data was collected: first course enrollment, "appropriate" course enrollment (discussed in Methods), and relationship influence on the salability of language study to university students. Salability here reflects the demands of certain stakeholders who fund language programs from both a consumer and administrator perspective.</p> <p>To further contextualize this study, participants' (<emph>N</emph> = 1147) responses reflect a pre‐COVID‐19 pandemic demographic of student and context of learning as the data collection process took place in January and February 2020. This unique insight into the learning experience pre‐COVID, though obviously shaped by the events that still take place at the time of this manuscript's preparation, are still relevant to several issues language programs face today. As such, this study seeks to answer the following: "Does the first course in which students start their language study matter?"; "Is a student more likely to indicate interest in a major or minor language study if they are placed in a course level that best corresponds to their pre‐existing L2 linguistic knowledge (also factoring in prior years of formal language study)?"; and "Does a learner's community (personal relationships and the academic advisor) play a role in the decision process to declare a major or minor in language study?"</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164352671-4">The current state of language study in higher education</hd> <p>In the context of a postpandemic economy, now more so than ever, departments that house language programs need to be able to articulate the value of language learning to internal and external stakeholders. The COVID‐19 pandemic has put university language programs in precarious positions. University instruction had to be re‐envisioned during the pandemic, and the present circumstance is likely one of the more historically pivotal moments in terms of the vitality of higher education institutions (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]). Relatively few publications have come out that depict the impacts of the pandemic on overall enrollment; however, Sahu ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref4">34</reflink>]) articulates the deep impact that the COVID‐19 closures have already had on students and faculty. While most universities are weathering the fallout of the pandemic (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]), departments in humanities and social sciences have seen a disproportionate number of cuts nation‐wide.</p> <p>The pandemic only exacerbated several issues that language departments faced before 2020. For example, Winke and Gass ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]) call attention to the way students are credited for language learning: "[...] many universities, even when there is a specific language requirement, allow students to fulfill the requirement by seat time and by minimally receiving passing grades rather than through a proficiency outcome" (p. 158). While this is partially true, organizational principles of typical US university structures are cause for Winke and Gass' concerns about proficiency and are not necessarily unique to language study. One must also point out that there have been several attempts to follow ACTFL standards and "best practices" by way of creating accessible entry points for students with just enough language L2 linguistic knowledge to skip the lower‐division courses and develop the necessary skills to function in more advanced language classes (i.e., "Bridge Courses").</p> <p>Conversely, language study is not always accessible before arrival to the university language classroom, partly because of inequities for language learning in predominantly non‐white communities (Baggett, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). The issue then becomes the policies in which language departments create as an attempt to adjust curricula to make language learning a viable option in increasingly Anglophone contexts (Lanvers et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>]) when more often the outcome is minimal second language (L2) linguistic development and few prospects for continued language study beyond the minimal course requirements. As such, a continued investment into meeting the ACTFL proficiency standards (Norris & Pfeiffer, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]) is still merited in today's circumstance.</p> <p>Enrollment in language courses has been in steady decline for decades. Looney and Lusin ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]) report a loss of students in languages other than English at nearly 9% (p. 1), as seen in the US postsecondary enrollment data in Table 1.</p> <p>1 Table Nation‐wide language learner enrollment according to modern language association data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Language</th><th align="left">Overall enrollment by semester</th><th align="left">Percent change Fall 2009 to Fall 2016</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Fall 2009</th><th align="left">Fall 2013</th><th>Fall 2016</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Arabic</td><td align="char" char=".">34,908</td><td align="char" char=".">32,282</td><td align="char" char=".">30,296</td><td align="char" char=".">−14.15%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chinese</td><td align="char" char=".">59,876</td><td align="char" char=".">61,084</td><td align="char" char=".">53,069</td><td align="char" char=".">−12.05%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">French</td><td align="char" char=".">215,244</td><td align="char" char=".">197,679</td><td align="char" char=".">175,667</td><td align="char" char=".">−20.25%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">German</td><td align="char" char=".">95,613</td><td align="char" char=".">86,782</td><td align="char" char=".">80,594</td><td align="char" char=".">−17.05%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Italian</td><td align="char" char=".">80,322</td><td align="char" char=".">70,982</td><td align="char" char=".">56,743</td><td align="char" char=".">−34.41%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Japanese</td><td align="char" char=".">72,357</td><td align="char" char=".">66,771</td><td align="char" char=".">68,810</td><td align="char" char=".">−5.03%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Russian</td><td align="char" char=".">26,740</td><td align="char" char=".">21,979</td><td align="char" char=".">20,353</td><td align="char" char=".">−27.13%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spanish</td><td align="char" char=".">861,015</td><td align="char" char=".">789,888</td><td align="char" char=".">712,608</td><td align="char" char=".">−18.86%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Source</emph>: Data was retrieved from https://apps.mla.org/flsurvey_search.</p> <p>Knouse et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]) report the ever‐evolving attitudes and beliefs toward language study across time. Of particular interest to the present study, participants in this study reported a high expectation at the onset of their language study in postsecondary contexts, but this motivation to study dwindled over the course of the semester. Knouse and colleagues report that "downward trend could possibly be attributed to students' increased awareness of the effort involved in achieving the level of proficiency to reap these advantages and, as fledging first‐year undergraduate students, their expectations were perhaps inflated at the onset of their collegiate careers" (p. 15).</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-5">Learner motivation and personal relationships</hd> <p>Motivation is often considered one of the most perplexing, yet fundamental, aspects of second language (L2) acquisition. University students in the United States typically have most language learning experiences in the context of the classroom, and thus, lack most of the rich input present when living in a context where the target language is spoken. The precariousness of motivation, then, causes language educators and researchers alike to place motivation at the pinnacle of observation, as certain types of motivation lead to success in classroom‐based language learning.</p> <p>Gardner ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]) was the first to bridge psychology and language learning in terms of motivation with the social educational (SE) model. The primary focus of the SE model was that of integrative motivation, or motivation to learn a language because of a keen interest in a specific language or cultural group. The instrument that was created to measure motivation in this model, the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), also included other measures; the measure of parental encouragement is particularly relevant for the current study.</p> <p>As a reaction to the emphasis of language learning tied to a specific linguistic group, coupled with the rise of global English, Dörnyei ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]) proposed the <emph>L2 Motivational Self System</emph> (L2MSS), a theory divided into two main parts: selves and the learning experience (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]). Dörnyei ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]) proposed the ideal and ought‐to selves; the ideal self consists of a clear visualization of a future L2 user with full agency in each context, and the ought‐to self is a self that they language learner thinks they should because of factors external to themselves. Others have proposed additional selves; relevant to the current student is the anti‐ought‐to self (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]; Thompson & Vásquez, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]; also see rebellious self, Lanvers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]), which is a self that enjoys challenges and thrives in situations when performance is contrary to expectations. Although validation studies need to be carried out, this concept can potentially be tied to newer concepts brought to SLA, such as resilience (Yun et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]), grit (Teimouri et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]), and buoyancy (Yun et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref21">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>A theme that is common to both the SE model and the L2MSS is that of integration of external factors to motivation. Using the motivational factors questionnaire (MFQ), a questionnaire developed using ideas from the L2MSS, Ryan ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>]) examined several motivational factors of 2397 secondary and tertiary Japanese students learning English, one of which was parental encouragement. Although there were several significant findings related to external influences in this context, one of the findings was that parental encouragement significantly correlated with intended learning efforts at the <emph>p</emph> < .001 level. Thompson and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]) found parental encouragement as one of the factors in the EFA looking at bilingual and multilingual Korean learners of English. However, this latent variable did not predict group membership regarding these students' L2 English proficiency (intermediate vs. advanced) and multilingual status (bilingual vs. multilingual), which was the focus of this study. These findings likely also reflect the influence of cultural standards for multilingualism and participation in an English‐speaking economy as key motivators.</p> <p>Overall, in terms of selves and the relationship to success in learning, strength of the ideal self (Kormos & Csizér, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]), followed by the anti‐ought‐to self (Liu & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]), tends to lead to higher achievements in language learning. In most cases, the external influences encapsulated by the ought‐to‐self have less effect on language learning success. The exception seems to be in certain contexts, such as Huang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]) in the context of Kong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]) in the context of South Korea, which found "that the Ought‐to L2 Self is an equal or stronger predictor of motivated behaviors than the Ideal L2 Self" (Mendoza & Phung, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>], p. 130), unlike similar studies in the European or North American context. Most of the literature about external influences on language learning, including parental influences, involves English as the target language. With the status of English as a global language, motivation to learn languages other than English (LOTEs) needs to be approached differently, as there are more immediately evident reasons to study English. Certainly, there were studies using the SE framework for students learning French in Canada; Gu and Cheung ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]) examined several factors, including parental influence adapted from the SE model, with ethnic minority students in Hong Kong learning Chinese. In this study, motivated learning behavior is significantly predicted by parental encouragement; although the coefficient is smaller, intended effort is also significantly predicted by parental encouragement. Like parents in the North American context who do not speak the LOTEs that their children are studying, likewise, these parents in Hong Kong are also not Chinese speakers, which is the language their children are learning. A suggestion in the conclusion is that "greater efforts should be made to establish a connection between these students' families and the schools, with the aim of increasing parents' understanding of the importance of Chinese learning, so that they might then provide more encouragement to the students" (p. 22). This advice is applicable to the North American context as well; if parents were to better understand the importance of LOTEs to better the future of their children, more encouragement would be given, thus resulting in stronger ideal selves and motivated learning behavior, positively affecting language learning overall. Research has indeed been conducted on the relationship of family influence on study of a heritage LOTE (Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]), although a discussion of this is beyond the scope of the current study.</p> <p>Factors other than parents also play a substantial role in learners' interest in studying languages. For example, cohesion amongst language learners establishes a welcoming, and thus, motivating, learning environment (Clément et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]); this also plays a role in language learning motivation (Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]). In this study of modern language, heritage language, and ESL learners, peers were found to influence motivation both positively and negatively. For example, positive peer influence could be in the form of feedback and encouragement; negative peer influence could be related to the anxiety of comparing oneself to a peer. As Noels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]) note, "while forming bonds with peers is certainly very important, more important for language learning motivation seems to be the feedback that peers provide" (p. 131). While Noels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]) primarily focus on peers within the classroom, there is some evidence to suggest that "friends outside the classroom might be more influential than those in the class" (p. 132, also see MacIntyre et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>External influences for language study within the classroom certainly include the course educators; the relationship between motivation and instruction has been a focal point since the launching of the SE model. However, the role of advisors and language study has rarely, if ever, been examined. As advisors are key in helping students form their programs of study, advisors also have influence on a student's choice to engage in study abroad activities. Luo and Jamieson‐Drake ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>]) explored this topic—advisors' roles in students participating in study abroad. The overall findings indicated that not everyone who entered university with the intention to study abroad ended up doing so. The authors recommend "study abroad professionals and faculty advisors to think about ways to direct students' attention to meaningful, educational activities that might otherwise go unnoticed or be ignored to help students to maintain or develop their aspirations to study abroad" (p. 51). As study abroad is oftentimes linked to LOTE study, the results are connected to the topic at hand.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-6">The role of the academic advisor in language study</hd> <p>The academic advisor is, though not exclusively, a role in the US university system that plays a critical role for relationship building, decision making, resource identification, problem solving, and goal setting for university students' personal and professional endeavors (see Swecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). Some have even gone as far as to say that "Good advising might be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful college experience" (Light, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>], p. 81, as cited in Swecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]). Advisors are chosen for students based on several factors. Namely, advisors for incoming first semester/year students who do not have a chosen discipline are assigned to a pool of faculty who specialize in helping learners find their strengths and interests. Conversely, students can also be assigned an academic advisor per each major area of study (i.e., "major") who also assists with completing secondary (i.e., "minor") studies. Not all US higher education institutions operate under the same guidelines, though what is detailed above is most common practice and understood as "traditional" advising.</p> <p>In terms of the dearth of publications focusing on advisors' roles in continuing language study, one potential reason for this is how widely the training and advisor structure varies from university to university. In the US context, types of undergraduate academic advisors range from those in paid positions whose only job is to advise students to faculty members who have a variety of responsibilities and who may or may not be compensated for advising. Regardless of the structure, however, the task of all advisors is to help students navigate the courses needed to successfully graduate in the designated time frame. Advisors within a specific department are focused primarily on having students succeed in that specific major; some might encourage students to double major or minor, but some will not. For professional advisors, the efficiency with which students graduate is oftentimes of utmost concern, particularly those who are situated in a university context that uses performance‐based funding metrics, a model that financially penalizes students who take more credits than they need to graduate with one major (typically 120 credits, although some institutions have worked in some flexibility, see Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thompson ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]) included an example of a student who continued Japanese study, even though the advisor actively discouraged it: "My advisor tells me not to study Japanese since it is an extra class every semester, but I am passionate about Japanese and I love languages, so I will continue to study" (p. 495). In this context the professional advisor model was employed, and the institution used the performance‐based funding model. Thus, it is the case that although not all students follow advisor advice, many do. Jaradat and Mustafa ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]), for example, found that just over half of their respondents were influenced by a university advisor in terms of what major to choose: (<reflink idref="bib227" id="ref43">227</reflink>) 48.4% = no influence; (<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>) 10.7% = minor influence; (<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref45">84</reflink>) 17.9% = somewhat minor influence; (<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref46">56</reflink>) 11.9% = somewhat major influence; (<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>) 11.1% = major influence. This is to say, an academic advisor plays a significant role in the decision‐making process of a student. An academic advisor's decision to promote or dissuade the study of languages is a pressing matter. For example, academic advisors have been shown to impact students' decisions to study abroad (Martínez et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]), which is considered one of the most important tools used for language student recruitment.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-7">The present study</hd> <p>The present study is principally concerned with why university students choose, or do not choose, to major or minor in a LOTE at the university level in the US context. To answer this query, the researchers focus principally on data related to three facets of the university experience: information about course enrollments, the perceived support students receive from personal and academic relationships, and the opinions that the students express directly about language learning. As such, the research questions are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. How does enrollment in postsecondary language courses affect university students' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a Language Other than English (LOTE) in the United States? 1A. Does the first course of enrollment relate to language learners' intention to minor or major (IMM) in a language degree? 1B. Does "appropriate" (see Methods) language placement relate to language learners' intention to minor or major in a language degree?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What is the effect of perceived support from external influences on language learners' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a LOTE?</item> </ulist> <p>2A: What relationship do nonacademic relationships (i.e., Mother, Father, Friend, Grandparents) have with postsecondary learners' intentions to minor or major in a language degree?</p> <p>2B: What relationship do academic relationships (i.e., advisors) have with postsecondary learners' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a language degree?</p> <p>The first research question was designed to look at the role of the course placement itself. Because of the nature of the lower‐division courses, students should complete a proficiency placement test and/or are advised by faculty and academic advisors which course level that best meets the individual student's needs. The respondents in this study are like that of the typical large US university in that students often had 2 years of formal language classes in high school (secondary education) with relatively few exceptions.</p> <p>However, the starting point for most language students does not often reflect prior language learning for several reasons. The difference in language instruction for each student varies based on the quality of the instruction, the amount of exposure, opportunities for usage outside of the classroom, etc. To address the research question, the respondents are counted as "appropriate" if their first language course is above the Introductory 1 (i.e., Spanish 101) course and have had a minimum of 2 years of language learning in a formal context for the specific language of study. A student who has had more than 2 years of prior instruction in the target language and whose first course is the lowest course level is counted as "inappropriate." The rationale behind these designations of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" is such that departments often find that students are less willing to directly enroll in a higher course level for several reasons: insecurity, desire for an "easy grade," among others. The purpose of this study is to understand these specific enrollment trends to determine if there (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) is indeed an underlying issue in large universities, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>) if a solution presents itself should there be an issue.</p> <p>The second research question returns to the issue of self‐reported support for language study based on specific relationship types. Building from Noels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]), the present study investigates the influence of parental figures and friends. The study also includes grandparents; the researchers included grandparents' support as an item in the survey based on a few reasons. Namely, they must still hold some sort of influence given that they are often more historically adjacent to their ancestors from whom they may have heard or spoken their immigrant (or native) family's language. Heritage is also found to be a role in Noels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref52">31</reflink>]), as such this study directly addresses that variable. It is also the case that in the context of Appalachia, grandparents are either in the positions of primary caretakers, or they remain closely involved in family dynamics. Included in this analysis of perceived support is the role of the academic advisor, as described in the literature review. The influence of the "other" in L2MSS research has been found to be less nuanced (Lanvers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref54">38</reflink>]; Thompson & Vásquez, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref55">43</reflink>]); thus, the nuanced view of different types of "others" is an important aspect of the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-8">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164352671-9">Participants</hd> <p>The present study took place in a large, public, R1 Appalachian university in the United States. This institution, with a population of more than 30,000 undergraduate students, includes a language credit requirement for many degree programs. For example, four semesters of language study are required for BA degrees in the College of Arts and Sciences. There are additional majors with required language study as well, and all language courses can be used to satisfy one of the categories of the general education requirements. As such, many of the respondents in this study were enrolled in introductory (first two semesters) and intermediate (second two semesters) courses. Advanced language courses were primarily taught by full‐time instructors with significant language teaching training backgrounds. In contrast, lower‐division language courses were primarily taught by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) with a smaller number taught by full‐time and part‐time teaching instructors. There were also several full‐time faculty members that taught lower‐division courses in the smaller language programs. Respondents (<emph>N</emph> = 1147) were recruited based on their enrollment in a language course at the beginning of the Spring 2020 academic semester. Respondents received extra credit at the discretion of instructors in the advanced courses and the Language Program Coordinators for the introductory and intermediate courses. Respondents qualified for inclusion in the present study based on the following criteria: (a) enrolled in a language course at any level and (b) did not have significant prior language exposure (Heritage users of the language). Heritage language learners were excluded from the present study to form part of a specialized analysis for future investigations.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-10">Instrument</hd> <p>The authors collected and stored the data using <emph>Qualtrics</emph> questionnaire online platform. The 26‐item survey included several different topics, such as respondents' demographic information, their previous experience with language learning, major, year in school, among several other topics. The present study uses data from a subset of the survey to answer the specific research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-11">Procedures</hd> <p>After receiving approval for research from the internal review board, the researchers distributed the survey link and invitation email to the instructors so that they may recruit respondents for the present study. Respondents were given a 2‐week period at the beginning of the semester to complete the survey. The 1147 respondents' target language information and grouping for analysis can be seen in Table 2:</p> <p>2 Table Languages, number of respondents per language, and language groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Language</th><th align="left">Count</th><th>Language group</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Arabic</td><td align="left">2</td><td>LCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Chinese</td><td align="left">29</td><td>LCTL</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td align="left">169</td><td>MCTL</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td align="left">78</td><td>MCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Italian</td><td align="left">76</td><td>MCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Japanese</td><td align="left">38</td><td>LCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Russian</td><td align="left">39</td><td>LCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td align="left">716</td><td>Spanish</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="left">1147</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: LCTL, Less Commonly Taught Languages; MCTL, More Commonly Taught Languages.</p> <p>The respondent responses were divided into three categories for the purpose of analysis: Spanish (<emph>n</emph> = 716) served as its own group, French, German, and Italian were grouped together as the More Commonly Taught Languages (MCTLs; <emph>n</emph> = 323), and Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian made up the Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs; <emph>n</emph> = 108) group. Th language divisions followed Thompson ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]); Spanish formed a group by itself because of the numbers of responses, plus the sociopolitical role of Spanish in the United States. The MCTL group is composed of languages that use a Roman alphabet, which is easier for L1 English speakers, particularly at the introductory levels. The LCTL category is comprised of the languages with a script that would be novel to L1 English speakers. Additionally, although Italian is overall decreasing in popularly nation‐wide, the strong Italian heritage in West Virginia continues to make is a popular language to study at the introductory levels.</p> <p>The researchers divided the respondents among three groups based on their self‐reported intention to major or minor (IMM) in a language degree program: (a) those that intended to major or minor in a target language (i.e., "Yes"), (b) those that were potentially interested (i.e., "Maybe"), and (c) those that were certain they would not want to study a language as a minor or major degree program (i.e., "No"). Using these classifications of the respondents, a series of statistical analyses were conducted to answer the research questions for the present study. The findings are divided by language group (Spanish, MCLT, and LCTL). The researchers employed a series of  <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> tests of independence for RQ 1A and 1B and a one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for RQ2. The researchers used SPSS Version 27 (<ulink href="http://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics">www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics</ulink>) for the quantitative data analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-12">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164352671-13">Intention to minor or major based on participants' first language course</hd> <p>RQ 1A investigates the relationship between the IMM groups and the first course in which the respondents enrolled. The cross tabulation was used for a  <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> test of independence to determine the relationship (Table 3).</p> <p>3 Table Respondents' intention to minor or major and first course.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Language group</th><th align="left">Course level</th><th align="left">IMM groups (%)</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Yes</th><th align="left">Maybe</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>101</td><td align="char" char="(">15 (5.96%)</td><td align="char" char="(">83 (32.94%)</td><td align="char" char="(">154 (61.11%)</td><td align="left">252</td></tr><tr><td /><td>102</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (8.48%)</td><td align="char" char="(">45 (27.27%)</td><td align="char" char="(">106 (64.24%)</td><td align="left">165</td></tr><tr><td /><td>203</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (17.20%)</td><td align="char" char="(">23 (24.73%)</td><td align="char" char="(">54 (58.06%)</td><td align="left">93</td></tr><tr><td /><td>204</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (11.68%)</td><td align="char" char="(">27 (19.71%)</td><td align="char" char="(">94 (68.61%)</td><td align="left">137</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Advanced</td><td align="char" char="(">67 (97.10%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (2.90%)</td><td align="left">69</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char="(">128 (17.87%)</td><td align="char" char="(">178 (24.86%)</td><td align="char" char="(">410 (57.26%)</td><td align="left">716</td></tr><tr><td>MCTL</td><td>101</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (6.19%)</td><td align="char" char="(">36 (37.11%)</td><td align="char" char="(">55 (56.70%)</td><td align="left">97</td></tr><tr><td /><td>102</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (7.06%)</td><td align="char" char="(">30 (35.29%)</td><td align="char" char="(">49 (57.65%)</td><td align="left">85</td></tr><tr><td /><td>203</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (9.38%)</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (50.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">13 (40.63%)</td><td align="left">32</td></tr><tr><td /><td>204</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (19.05%)</td><td align="char" char="(">19 (22.62%)</td><td align="char" char="(">49 (58.33%)</td><td align="left">84</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Advanced</td><td align="char" char="(">22 (88.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (8.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (4.00%)</td><td align="left">25</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char="(">53 (16.41%)</td><td align="char" char="(">103 (31.89%)</td><td align="char" char="(">167 (51.70%)</td><td align="left">323</td></tr><tr><td>LCTL</td><td>101</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td /><td>102</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (25.81%)</td><td align="char" char="(">30 (48.39%)</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (25.81%)</td><td align="left">62</td></tr><tr><td /><td>203</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (100%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td /><td>204</td><td align="char" char="(">13 (46.43%)</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (21.43%)</td><td align="char" char="(">9 (32.14%)</td><td align="left">28</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Advanced</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (94.12%)</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (5.88%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="left">17</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char="(">46 (42.59%)</td><td align="char" char="(">25 (23.15%)</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (34.30%)</td><td align="left">108</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Abbreviations: IMM, intention to major or minor; LCTL, Less Commonly Taught Languages; MCTL, More Commonly Taught Languages.</p> <p>The first notable finding for this research question is that each language group showed that language learners are more likely to self‐report as being interested in language study based on their first course enrollment. There was a significant relationship between respondents' first language course in which they enrolled and its relationship with university students' IMM classification for the Spanish group, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 716) = 339.82, <emph>p</emph> < .001, and the MCTL group, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 323) = 114.81, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The expected counts for the three sets of analyses did not meet the minimum requirements for the statistical analysis' assumptions in the case of the LCTL group. As such, the maximum likelihood ratio statistic (McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]) was used to determine that the LCTL group also showed a significant relationship between IMM and first course placement, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 108) = 34.34, <emph>p</emph> < .001. In terms of recruitment, course placement is important for the vitality of language programs. This is further evidenced by the effect sizes: Spanish (Cramer's <emph>V</emph> = 0.49; large effect), MCTL (Cramer's <emph>V</emph> = 0.42, large effect), and the LCTL group (Cramer's <emph>V</emph> = 0.37; large effect).</p> <p>RQ 1B expands on the importance of first course placement by looking at respondents' self‐reported data of their previous learning experiences and if they enrolled in the lowest possible course level. In the case of this research site, the institution's policy is that the 101 course is designed for "true beginners" of the target language with no prior learning experiences. To determine this relationship, respondents' data was coded as "1 = No Prior L2 Experience" if the learner had fewer than 2 years of formal course instruction and was enrolled in the first semester course (e.g., Italian 101). Respondents with 2 or more years of prior formal instruction in the target language and enrolled in a 101 course were coded as "2 = Prior L2 Experience." The cross tabulation in Table 4 shows that Spanish students were the most likely to enroll in a 101 course, even with prior experience. It is also the case that overall, students were most likely to have prior experience with Spanish more so than with the other languages. It should also be noted that the quality of the prior experience was not evaluated, nor was the number of students who took a placement test. As such, some of the students with 2 years (or more) of formal language instruction should indeed have been in the 101 classes; most, however, should have started in a more advanced class.</p> <p>4 Table Prior L2 experience versus no prior L2 experience for placement into introductory 101 courses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Language group</th><th>Placement type</th><th align="left">IMM count (<italic>%</italic>)</th><th align="left">Total</th><th align="left">Percentage</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Yes</th><th align="left">Maybe</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>No prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">80 (37.74%)</td><td align="char" char="(">34 (16.04%)</td><td align="char" char="(">98 (46.23%)</td><td align="left">212</td><td align="left">29.61%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">48 (9.52%)</td><td align="char" char="(">144 (28.57%)</td><td align="char" char="(">312 (61.90%)</td><td align="left">504</td><td align="left">70.39%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td align="char" char="(">128 (17.89%)</td><td align="char" char="(">178 (24.86%)</td><td align="char" char="(">410 (57.26%)</td></tr><tr><td>MCTL</td><td>No prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">39 (17.33%)</td><td align="char" char="(">76 (33.78%)</td><td align="char" char="(">110 (48.89%)</td><td align="left">225</td><td align="left">70.66%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (14.29%)</td><td align="char" char="(">27 (27.55%)</td><td align="char" char="(">57 (58.16%)</td><td align="left">98</td><td align="left">30.34%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td align="char" char="(">53 (16.41%)</td><td align="char" char="(">103 (31.89%)</td><td align="char" char="(">167 (51.70%)</td></tr><tr><td>LCTL</td><td>No prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">41 (41.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (37.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">22 (22.00%)</td><td align="left">100</td><td align="left">92.60%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Prior L2 experience</td><td align="char" char="(">5 (62.50%)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.00%)</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (37.50%)</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">7.41%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Total</td><td align="char" char="(">46 (42.59%)</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (34.26%)</td><td align="char" char="(">25 (23.15%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Abbreviations: IMM, intention to major or minor; LCTL, Less Commonly Taught Languages; MCTL, More Commonly Taught Languages.</p> <p>The Spanish group respondents that began in language courses below their representative L2 linguistic knowledge (or previous learning experience) were significantly less likely to be interested in minoring or majoring in a language degree program, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 716) = 82.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The MCTL group did not show this same relationship, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 323) = 2.35, <emph>p</emph> = .308, and this is likely due to there being a much more accurate representation of prior knowledge in the MCTL Introductory 1 courses. The LCTL group was excluded from this analysis due to unrepresentative sampling for statistical analysis. Descriptively, the data suggests that Spanish students are equally likely to consider majoring or minor in language study if they had no prior learning experiences and enrolled in the Introductory 1 course. In comparison, they are much less likely to be interested in language study if they have had more than 2 years of experience and enrolled in Spanish 101 for their first course. The MCTL group seems to have equilibrium between the IMM groups and their prior learning experience, meaning that this is not an important variable to consider for this group. The LCTL group likely benefits from 101 courses in similar ways to the MCTL group in that many students do not come with prior learning experience and are self‐selecting for these language disciplines. It is also likely the case that, in the context of the current study, the students in the LCTL group are the least likely to have been exposed to the target language before the university classes. It is important to note here that their first course is not necessarily their current course.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-14">Perceived support and intention to minor or major in postsecondary language study</hd> <p>The second research question investigates whether, and to what degree, language learners' perceived support from others influences their interest in a minor or major. Respondents used the survey to answer a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from "1 = Not supportive at all" to "5 = Completely supportive." Respondents answered questions about five different groups of people: Mother, Father, Grandparents, Friends, and Academic Advisor. A series of one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to compare the three IMM groups (yes, maybe, and no). Each language group underwent a one‐way ANOVA independently from each other after all tests of homogeneity were satisfied for the present analysis. Results from these three analyses are reported in Table 5, along with post hoc analyses.</p> <p>5 Table ANOVA results for perceived support for language study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Language group</th><th align="left">Group 1 IMM yes (<italic>n</italic> = 128)</th><th align="left">Group 2 IMM maybe (<italic>n</italic> = 178)</th><th align="left">Group 3 IMM no (<italic>n</italic> = 410)</th><th align="left">ANOVA statistics</th><th align="left">Tukey post hoc result</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th>SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>Df (X, Y)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>η2</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left">Yes and no</th><th align="left">Yes and maybe</th><th align="left">No and maybe</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Spanish</td></tr><tr><td>Mother</td><td>4.62</td><td>0.92</td><td>4.23</td><td>1.22</td><td>3.57</td><td>1.47</td><td>(2, 713)</td><td>36.74</td><td>.09</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Father</td><td>4.35</td><td>1.68</td><td>3.97</td><td>1.37</td><td>3.40</td><td>1.47</td><td>(2, 713)</td><td>27.19</td><td>.07</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.050</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Friend</td><td>4.52</td><td>0.96</td><td>4.08</td><td>1.29</td><td>3.36</td><td>1.43</td><td>(2, 713)</td><td>44.53</td><td>.11</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.171</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Grandparents</td><td>4.01</td><td>1.38</td><td>3.71</td><td>1.44</td><td>3.18</td><td>1.46</td><td>(2, 713)</td><td>19.65</td><td>.05</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Academic advisor</td><td>4.39</td><td>1.11</td><td>4.19</td><td>1.22</td><td>3.52</td><td>1.43</td><td>(2, 713)</td><td>29.46</td><td>.08</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left">Group 1 IMM yes (<italic>n</italic> = 53)</th><th align="left">Group 2 IMM maybe (<italic>n</italic> = 103)</th><th align="left">Group 3 IMM no (<italic>n</italic> = 167)</th><th /><th /><th /><th /><th align="left">Tukey post hoc result</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>Df (X, Y)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>η2</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left">Yes and no</th><th align="left">Yes and maybe</th><th align="left">No and maybe</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>MCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Mother</td><td>4.49</td><td>1.01</td><td>4.29</td><td>0.95</td><td>3.95</td><td>1.08</td><td>(2, 320)</td><td>7.18</td><td>.04</td><td>.001</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.485</td><td>0.021</td></tr><tr><td>Father</td><td>4.09</td><td>1.26</td><td>4.12</td><td>1.03</td><td>3.83</td><td>1.14</td><td>(2, 320)</td><td>2.43</td><td>.01</td><td>.090</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.112</td></tr><tr><td>Friend</td><td>4.38</td><td>.90</td><td>4.09</td><td>0.95</td><td>3.89</td><td>1.02</td><td>(2, 320)</td><td>5.16</td><td>.03</td><td>.006</td><td>0.048</td><td>0.725</td><td>0.126</td></tr><tr><td>Grandparents</td><td>4.08</td><td>1.11</td><td>3.94</td><td>0.98</td><td>3.69</td><td>1.05</td><td>(2, 320)</td><td>3.64</td><td>.02</td><td>.027</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.251</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Advisor</td><td>4.26</td><td>0.81</td><td>4.07</td><td>0.87</td><td>3.87</td><td>0.99</td><td>(2, 320)</td><td>3.99</td><td>.02</td><td>.019</td><td>0.021</td><td>0.421</td><td>0.271</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left">Group 1 IMM yes (<italic>n</italic> = 46)</th><th align="left">Group 2 IMM maybe (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</th><th align="left">Group 3 IMM no (<italic>n</italic> = 25)</th><th /><th /><th /><th /><th align="left">Tukey post hoc result</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>Df (X, Y)</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>η2</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left">Yes and no</th><th align="left">Yes and maybe</th><th align="left">No and maybe</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>LCTL</td></tr><tr><td>Mother</td><td>4.63</td><td>0.93</td><td>4.65</td><td>0.68</td><td>4.20</td><td>0.91</td><td>(2, 105)</td><td>2.59</td><td>.05</td><td>.080</td><td>0.106</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.106</td></tr><tr><td>Father</td><td>4.52</td><td>0.89</td><td>4.30</td><td>1.02</td><td>4.16</td><td>0.90</td><td>(2, 105)</td><td>1.33</td><td>.02</td><td>.268</td><td>0.272</td><td>0.527</td><td>0.839</td></tr><tr><td>Friend</td><td>4.59</td><td>0.62</td><td>4.35</td><td>0.89</td><td>4.12</td><td>0.83</td><td>(2, 105)</td><td>3.08</td><td>.06</td><td>.050</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.192</td><td>0.479</td></tr><tr><td>Grandparents</td><td>4.17</td><td>1.00</td><td>3.78</td><td>1.08</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.92</td><td>(2, 105)</td><td>4.08</td><td>.07</td><td>.020</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.352</td><td>0.479</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Advisor</td><td>4.61</td><td>0.773</td><td>4.00</td><td>1.13</td><td>3.72</td><td>0.89</td><td>(2, 105)</td><td>8.52</td><td>.14</td><td>.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.482</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Abbreviations: IMM, intention to major or minor; LCTL, Less Commonly Taught Languages; MCTL, More Commonly Taught Languages.</p> <p>There are significant differences seen for nearly all the measured variables for perceived support from external relationships. Of significant importance are those with mid‐ to large effect sizes. For Spanish, the <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> value indicated that all external relationships showed a medium effect on respondents' IMM classification (Mother = 0.09; Father = 0.07; Friend = 0.11; Academic Advisor = 0.08) except for the Grandparents (small effect, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .05). In the case of the MCTL respondents, external relationship support yielded a small effect on their IMM (Mother = 0.04; Father = 0.01; Friend = 0.03; Grandparents = 0.02; Academic Advisor = 0.02). The LCTLs were less consistent; Mother (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .05) and Father (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .02) showed small effects, Friends (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .06) and Grandparents (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .07) had a medium effect, and the Academic Advisor (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = .14) had the largest effect size seen for this group.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-15">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study calls attention to some of the predetermined institutional policies that seem to influence university students' likelihood for language study. Namely, RQ 1A found that language learners that start at the lowest possible course level are much less likely to persist through all course requirements to achieve a minor or major degree in the target language. Arguably, language learners' interest in their integration (Bernaus & Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>]) into language study is impacted by the institutional policy. Academic policies that affect learners' abilities to complete the required degree credits, such as the amount of financial aid awarded and its relation to the limited available course credits over the course of an eight‐semester study period are major culprits for difficult language study recruitment.</p> <p>A likely solution to the results of RQ 1A may be inferred based on RQ 1B's findings. Specifically, this analysis shows that language learners' initial course of enrollment is an important variable to consider for the vitality of language programs. For example, Spanish group respondents (approximately 70%) were the most likely to be inaccurately placed in the lowest possible introductory course in Spanish (a prerequisite of no prior L2 linguistic knowledge) and were the least likely to continue with a minor or major beyond the course requirements. This is likely an important finding for many language programs, given that accessibility—financial aid and time at the institution—to courses is a predetermined variable outside of the control of departments that house language study. As universities increasingly feel pressure to measure profitability and immediate employment postgraduation that is directly related to the major (i.e., Busch, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]; Hyatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref65">14</reflink>]; Slaughter & Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]), language programs are feeling the pressure to increase enrollments among dwindling resources and support. Similarly, students, especially those with federal aid, are strong‐armed into only enrolling in courses that external stakeholders deem immediately relevant to their majors. Those with personal financial resources have the added privilege of course choice, as we see the relative power of money in terms of academic choice and freedom. To that end, students with limited resources are further harmed by being advised to take coursework that they have the skills to circumvent. Accurate placement, per the parameters of the present study, is a crucial component of enrollment that requires further investigation. As Upcraft et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref67">44</reflink>]) puts it: "overwhelming evidence that student success is largely determined by student experiences during the first year" (p. 1). Language programs may benefit from explicitly communicating the benefits of the appropriate course level at an individual level. For many, the challenges associated with a first‐year college experience likely dissuade students from enrolling in courses beyond an introductory level. As results from this study indicate that Spanish students are most likely to be inappropriately advised in terms of level, Spanish programs should increase monitoring of student profiles, particularly in the first semester Spanish courses. Systems of relative power and institutional regulations (i.e., advisors, funding regulations, forced curricular reform) continue to shape enrollment in LOTEs.</p> <p>The second research question further explores external variables to the language classroom—language learners' perceived support from their community. As was seen before (Gu & Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]; Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]), family and friends play a significant role in university students' continued interest in language study. Interestingly, the only language group that did not express this same perception was the MCTL group; their scores suggest that personal and academic relationships did not matter in terms of their decision process. In contrast, the LCTL group clearly favored the opinions and support of the academic advisor with a large effect size. This finding may give insight into how certain language groups must use strategic planning in terms of what is most effective for their language group. While these strategies for recruitment likely work for all language groups, the data suggests that LCTLs could benefit from partnerships with academic advisors, while also engaging those students who have a strong anti‐ought‐to‐self (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]). The MCLT group could potentially benefit from a focus on the professional opportunities that come with language study. In other words, students who study MCTLs seem to be less influenced by what others may perceive with regard to their language study.</p> <p>This study reaffirms what has been previously stated in that there are several external variables that play a significant role in university students' IMM, such as family and friends (Gu & Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]; Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref72">31</reflink>]). We see that the distinction between language groups is important. The academic advisor's influence for supporting language study in the LCTL group is an interesting avenue of investigation for language programs. Many of these programs often include no more than one instructor and are difficult to promote to the broader student population, which is likely a result of learners believing they would not be successful at acquiring these languages, as is the case in a variety of Anglophone settings (Lanvers, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]; Lanvers et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref74">22</reflink>]). As argued previously, these learners often have a unique source of motivation for language study (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref75">39</reflink>]), and recruitment of these students could potentially improve with more buy‐in from academic advisors in other disciplines. However, educators and researchers must take note that, as was the case of Lanvers' ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref76">21</reflink>]) findings, MCTLs and LCTLs reported significant differences in our study. This supports East's (2009) findings that LCTLs perceived the globalized language as a "killer language" based on monolingual English perspectives of the world. Moreover, both Spanish and LCTLs evidenced the direct pathways between language study and parental encouragement (Bernaus & Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>]), and this relationship could potentially further support language study in a variety of contexts.</p> <p>The effect on language study in the K‐12 context and the link to continued support and study at the university level cannot be ignored. In an extensive 2017 report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, it was found that K‐12 language programs are oftentimes canceled due to a lack of qualified teachers. When students do not have the opportunity to study language in high school, they may be less inclined to study a language once they reach university. This, coupled with the large influence of advisors, may result in increasingly fewer students engaging in language study. Also discussed in this report was the relatively lower number of Americans who have experience with a LOTE (about 20%) as compared to the multilingual profiles of those in other countries. It was pointed out that these linguistic shortcomings result in a variety of economic and social losses.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-16">Action plan items resulting from this study</hd> <p>A synthesis of the research question findings points to the learning environment as the most significant contributor to IMM. This leads to five possible action plans: (i) support the instructor‐student relationship, (ii) use effective measurements for first‐course placement in the university system, and (iii) place significant emphasis on instructor development, (iv) specifically articulate the pathways from language degree completion to job market success, and finally (v) address the barriers toward language study in a strategic manner.</p> <p>First, it is likely the case that the general university student will concern themselves with how their community views language study, as was evidenced by the RQ2 data analysis. The importance of the academic advisor was salient in this study because it was an isolated variable; however, this influence toward or away from language study likely comes from myriad interactions between language instructors, peer groups, etc. As Luo and Jamieson‐Drake ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref78">26</reflink>]) note for the importance of directing students toward meaningful learning experiences, it is in the best interest of language educators to consider how external variables may impact the ability to recruit and retain language students in degree programs. In the case of the present study, in the case of many respondents articulated the importance of their language instructor as a primary source of motivation, thus placing significant importance on the educator's role within the L2 learning environment (Dörnyei, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]). This finding implies the possibility that language learners may have to contradict (i.e., embrace an anti‐ought‐to self) the advice from the academic advisor (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref80">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref81">39</reflink>]). Language educators can support this anti‐ought‐to self by raising language learners' awareness of their developing multilingual identity (Forbes et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Next, language disciplines could benefit greatly from more effective language proficiency measurements. The case for Spanish in the present study likely represents most large language programs. Seventy percent of the Spanish 101 students had prior language learning experience and likely should have enrolled in a more advanced course. As it would be now, the Brigham Young University proficiency tests (https://info.flats.byu.edu/) are the most accessible for language programs; thus, they are commonly used. Other proficiency measurements, though more targeted and effective, are less applicable because of the resources needed (e.g., trained educators to perform the Oral Proficiency Interview). Alternatively, university students often have records of their previous language learning experiences (i.e., their transcripts). Language programs may find it useful to investigate possible relationships with university admissions offices to determine how to improve first‐course placement. This would also be an area of concern for them, as well as registrar offices.</p> <p>Third, language programs will find it beneficial to focus more heavily on language teacher development. This was a particularly marked topic for this study's respondents; language learners are quite attuned to the capabilities of their language instructor. Respondents' comments were favorable toward language teachers that saw their learning holistically and in a humanistic manner. Moreover, the language educator seems to facilitate a learning "experience," which can be further supported by experiences outside the language classroom. Thought outside of the scope of the present study, it is important to denote the relevance of study abroad as consistent benefit for language degree recruitment (Luo & Jamieson‐Drake, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]). What's more, language departments are already under pressures of the types of employment (tenure‐track, non‐tenure‐track, graduate teaching assistants, etc.), which is certainly an underlying variable (Colburn, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]) for programmatic vitality.</p> <p>The next plan of action, bridging the gap between language study and professional applicability, can be accomplished with strategic curriculum design. Specifically, courses for special purposes (medical, business, engineering, etc.) are increasingly common (Doyle, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]). Moreover, bridging this mental divide for students is likely feasible with hands‐on experiences, such as study abroad programs and internships. Many language programs now offer service‐learning programs during which language learners complete community projects either domestically or internationally. The development of these types of programs in lower‐division programs, given that this is often the largest recruitment pool for language departments may result in better recruitment for future language majors or minors.</p> <p>Finally, language departments need to address the idiosyncratic barriers, particularly those stemming from institutional policy. The first area for concern is the increased constraints on learners' time to complete a complementary degree in language study. Instructors may be partly responsible for articulating that language learning is a life‐long process that requires active engagement beyond the classroom and minimal course requirements. As evidenced in this study, an important finding was that respondents in this study believed that L2 acquisition was beyond their capabilities which may be a result of an increasingly Anglophone world in which learners will not see a necessity for language study (Lanvers et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]) and the misconception that language study will result in complete proficiency. As such, language instructors may find it fruitful to create pathways for their students (e.g., internships and study abroad) to cultural immersion, which may in turn ameliorate the utilitarian understanding of language acquisition that many respondents expressed in this study. In other words, it may be in the interest of monolingual contexts, such as that of the Appalachian university research site (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]) to conceptualize the language beyond their communities so that they do not have insecurities with their learning. Ultimately, more contact with the language learning community should result in future access integration (Bernaus & Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]) and recruitment toward the minor or major.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-17">Applications of this study for broader contexts</hd> <p>First, and foremost, the present study does not represent an all‐encompassing interpretation of the language learning environment. Rather, this project was meant to serve as action‐analysis research for the betterment of the research site. As such, the findings in this study cannot be translated to all learning contexts. Arguably, the present study's findings mostly apply to language departments at large universities with graduate degree programs and GTAs. Language departments housed in (small) liberal arts colleges will certainly perceive instructor‐student relationships, recruitment, and department vitality in more diverse ways than the current data can help articulate. This study is meant to provide language departments with the necessary tools for self‐analysis. For example, language programs may find it fruitful to follow this study's approach to self‐analysis by investigating learners' choices about programs of study and curricular choices as they relate to systems of power and institutional barriers. As a return to the original motivator of similar studies is the economic model of education, which in turn produces more neoliberal views of language education (Bernstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>]). For this reason, self‐analysis of systems of influence and institutional barriers pertaining to IMM recruitment are crucial to departmental vitality in an ever‐evolving educational arena.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-18">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The results of the current study can be contextualized and compared to future research in terms of value judgments of language learning, perceptions of support from personal and academic relationships, and institutionalized obstacles that keep our learners from thriving in the language learning community. This project is meant to provide language departments with the necessary tools for self‐analysis. Now is a time in which all academic departments find themselves pondering how they will reinvent themselves for a postpandemic student body. Given the universal issues of inequalities among university students (Husky et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref91">13</reflink>]), and the general anxieties of recent memory, we all face what could be a rejuvenated interested in the humanistic strengths of the language classroom.</p> <p>As part of our look toward the future, we suggest that other researchers join us in the quest to better understand our language learners. The results of the current study, coupled with Noels et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>]) findings relating to friend group's influence over intention to study a language, provide a better understanding of the demographic of US university students who are more likely to major or minor in a language. However, more research is needed to understand why students choose to continue (or not) with advanced language study. Social interactions and influences are nuanced; we need a better understanding of the social contexts in which students find themselves that either motivate or demotivate language study. Similar types of influences will impact students in different ways. For example, a student taking a German 204 class continued language study despite the resistance of a good friend: "My friend Travis says I'm wasting my time and money, but he's been working at a local grocery store in our small town and living with his mom since high school, so what does he know?" which is in line with the small effect size of the "friend" influence for MCTLs and the concept of the anti‐ought‐to self. Other students in the same group might have been discouraged from continuing language study with the same type of peer pressure. The effects of external influences embodied by the ought‐to an anti‐ought‐to selves is an area ripe for future research. We can all start by asking: "Who are you; what are your career goals; and what nearly kept you from enrolling?" Language departments could benefit from a renewed understanding of learners' motivations and how their language courses could help them achieve both personal and professional goals. Certainly, there is much still to be done.</p> <hd id="AN0164352671-19">OPEN RESEARCH BADGES</hd> <p>This article has earned an Open Materials badge for making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis. All materials are available at https://<ulink href="http://www.iris-database.org/details/d5An2-SnnPj">www.iris-database.org/details/d5An2-SnnPj</ulink>.</p> <ref id="AN0164352671-20"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baggett, H. C. (2016). Student enrollment in world languages: L'égalité des chances? Foreign Language Annals, 49 (1), 162 – 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. C. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student perceptions, student motivation, and English achievement. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (3), 387 – 401.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, K. A., Hellmich, E. A., Katznelson, N., Shin, J., & Vinall, K. (2015). Introduction to special issue: Critical perspectives on neoliberalism in second/foreign language education. L2 Journal, 7 (3), 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Busch, L. (2017). Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education (1st ed.). The MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self‐confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44 (3), 417 – 448.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Colburn, H. L. (2018). Not what it used to be: The future of Spanish language teaching. Hispania, 100 (5), 87 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9 – 41). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref58" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Doyle, M. S. (2018). Spanish for the professions and specific purposes: Curricular mainstay. Hispania, 100 (5), 95 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref82" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Forbes, K., Evans, M., Fisher, L., Gayton, A., Liu, Y., & Rutgers, D. (2021). Developing a multilingual identity in the languages classroom: The influence of an identity‐based pedagogical intervention. The Language Learning Journal, 49, 433 – 451.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. Edward Arnold.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gu, M., & Cheung, D. S. (2016). Ideal L2 self, acculturation, and Chinese language learning among South Asian students in Hong Kong: A structural equation modelling analysis. System, 57, 14 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, H. T., Hsu, C. C., & Chen, S. W. (2015). Identification with social role obligations, possible selves, and L2 motivation in foreign language learning. System, 51, 28 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Husky, M. M., Kovess‐Masfety, V., & Swendsen, J. D. (2020). Stress and anxiety among university students in France during Covid‐19 mandatory confinement. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 102, 152191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyatt, S. B., Shear, B. W., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (2017). Learning under neoliberalism: Ethnographies of governance in higher education (1st ed.). Berghahn Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaradat, M., & Mustafa, M. (2017). Academic advising and maintaining major: Is there a relation? Social Sciences, 6 (151), 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, H., Krishnan, C., Law, J., & Rounsaville, T. (2020). Covid‐19 and U.S. higher education enrollment: Preparing leaders for fall. McKinsey & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knouse, S. M., Bessy, M., & Longest, K. C. (2021). Knowing who we teach: Tracking attitudes and expectations of first‐year post‐secondary language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 54, 50 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, J. H., Han, J. E., Kim, S., Park, H., Kim, Y. S., & Park, H. (2018). L2 motivational self system, international posture and competitiveness of Korean CTL and LCTL college learners: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 72, 178 – 189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age‐related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 58 (2), 327 – 355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanvers, U. (2016). Lots of selves, some rebellious: Developing the self discrepancy model for language learners. System, 60, 79 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanvers, U. (2017). Language learning motivation, global English and study modes: A comparative study. The Language Learning Journal, 45 (2), 220 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanvers, U., Thompson, A. S., & East, M. (2021). Language learning in Anglophone countries. Palgrave MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Y., & Thompson, A. S. (2018). Language learning motivation in China: An exploration of the L2MSS and psychological reactance. System, 72, 37 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2019). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Summer 2016 and Fall 2016: Final report. Modern Language Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, J., & Jamieson‐Drake, D. (2015). Predictors of study abroad intent, participation, and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 56 (1), 29 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language‐learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (3), 369 – 388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez, M. D., Ranjeet, B., & Marx, H. A. (2009). Creating study abroad opportunities for first generation college students. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 527 – 542). Routledge and Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi‐square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23 (2), 143 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendoza, A., & Phung, H. (2019). Motivation to learn languages other than English: A critical research synthesis. Foreign Language Annals, 52 (1), 121 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noels, K. A., Vargas Lascano, D. I., & Saumure, K. (2019). The development of self‐determination across the language course. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (4), 821 – 851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norris, J. M., & Pfeiffer, P. C. (2003). Exploring the uses and usefulness of ACTFL oral proficiency ratings and standards in college foreign language departments. Foreign Language Annals, 36 (4), 572 – 581.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 Self. Multilingual Matters. 120 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 12 (4).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets state, and higher education. John Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first‐generation college students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33, 46 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teimouri, Y., Sudina, E., & Plonsky, L. (2021). On domain‐specific conceptualization and measurement of grit in L2 learning. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 3 (2), 156 – 165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S. (2017a). Don't tell me what to do! The anti‐ought‐to self and language learning motivation. System, 67, 38 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S. (2017b). Language learning motivation in the United States: An examination of language choice and multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 101 (3), 483 – 500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S. (2021). LOTEs in U.S. universities: Benefits, trends, motivations, and opportunities. In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language learning in anglophone countries: Challenges, practices, ways forward. Palgrave MacMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S. (2022). Language learning in rural America: Creating an ideal self with limited resources. In A. H. Al‐Hoorie & S. Fruzsina (Eds.), Researching language learning motivation: A consise guide (pp. 99 – 110). Bloomsbury.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S., & Lee, J. (2018). The Motivational Factors Questionnaire in the Korean EFL context: Predicting group membership according to English proficiency and multilingual status. The Language Learning Journal, 46 (4), 398 – 414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S., & Vásquez, C. (2015). Exploring motivational profiles through language learning narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 158 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds.). (2005). Challenging and supporting the first‐year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winke, P., & Gass, S. M. (2018). Individual differences in advanced proficiency. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yun, S., Hiver, P., & Al‐Hoorie, A. H. (2018). Academic buoyancy: Exploring learners' everyday resilience in the language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40 (4), 805 – 830.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By William Justin Morgan and Amy S. Thompson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib227" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref91"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1381463
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'My Friend Travis Says…': A Look at Enrollment Trends in Language Classes in the United States
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morgan%2C+William+Justin%22">Morgan, William Justin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3074-4062">0000-0003-3074-4062</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thompson%2C+Amy+S%2E%22">Thompson, Amy S.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Foreign+Language+Annals%22"><i>Foreign Language Annals</i></searchLink>. Sum 2023 56(2):259-279.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Enrollment%22">Language Enrollment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment+Trends%22">Enrollment Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Placement%22">Student Placement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Recruitment%22">Student Recruitment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Second+Language+Programs%22">College Second Language Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Credits%22">College Credits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Development%22">Program Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/flan.12683
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0015-718X<br />1944-9720
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The present study uses data from 1147 university language students from lower-division and upper-division courses from eight different languages. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of course placement, first course enrollment, and personal/professional relationships had on university learners' intentions to minor or major (IMM) in a language other than English (LOTE). Respondents completed a survey that included information regarding their first course of study, their prior learning experiences, their perceptions of support they receive for language study from their community, and their reasons for studying or not studying their target language as a major or minor degree program. This study found that there were several potential institutional hurdles associated with language study in the university setting, including first-course placement, conflicting support from personal and academic relationships, and credit hour limitations. Suggestions for recruiting students and strengthening language programs conclude this study.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1381463
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1381463
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/flan.12683
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 259
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Language Enrollment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Placement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Recruitment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Second Language Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Credits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'My Friend Travis Says…': A Look at Enrollment Trends in Language Classes in the United States
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morgan, William Justin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thompson, Amy S.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0015-718X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1944-9720
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Foreign Language Annals
              Type: main
ResultId 1