View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Important Is Studying Languages for Undergraduate Students and Why (Not) Study Languages?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Important Is Studying Languages for Undergraduate Students and Why (Not) Study Languages?
Language: English
Authors: Koen Van Gorp, Emily Heidrich Uebel (ORCID 0000-0002-8447-9703), Felix A. Kronenberg, Dianna Murphy (ORCID 0000-0001-9716-0032)
Source: Foreign Language Annals. 2024 57(4):900-920.
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: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Majors (Students), Language Proficiency, Student Attitudes, Language Enrollment, Career Choice, Student Interests, Correlation, Language Attitudes
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12783
ISSN: 0015-718X
1944-9720
Abstract: This study examines the value undergraduate students (n = 4458) place on proficiency in languages other than English (LOTEs) in terms of their personal interests, major(s), and career plans. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses of large-scale survey data, the study further explores the reasons students outline for (not) enrolling in LOTE courses and what would motivate them to enroll in language courses in the future. Results indicate that students attached most value in relation to personal interests, followed by career plans and major. In addition, students' demographics and prior experience with language can also impact their future enrollment decisions. The results suggest that not only should institutions lead the way by emphasizing the importance of learning languages, but also that language programs need to listen to students' voices and help them establish clear links between their academic majors, their future career and study plans as well as their personal interests.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/g7t5a
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1452827
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHaMGvSREMN8Hjm8EKvRP9TAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFDD2tlua5Sg-Xm-dwIBEICBmwg1nsSAaElAoXwBincbSQ8zy3UHWLUGvBWkc_BpfUtzjHILmM3TZkhKO-M3RicTdu-CpSn9SQqbH8LlGXLJiWSapxYGryH7NVKEP-Zjv212GoJ65Fd9sRo7BkB6ySH3jjmFTNtWPNO8Al2-PKEmF0EuWya2-_WFuPuk7QSC25dWjTg6vLKqS0IrKJrA-yN4o3Hp3JZ-b2Gtw6dh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181569088;fla01dec.24;2024Dec13.04:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181569088-1">How important is studying languages for undergraduate students and why (not) study languages? </title> <p>This study examines the value undergraduate students (n = 4458) place on proficiency in languages other than English (LOTEs) in terms of their personal interests, major(s), and career plans. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses of large‐scale survey data, the study further explores the reasons students outline for (not) enrolling in LOTE courses and what would motivate them to enroll in language courses in the future. Results indicate that students attached most value in relation to personal interests, followed by career plans and major. In addition, students' demographics and prior experience with language can also impact their future enrollment decisions. The results suggest that not only should institutions lead the way by emphasizing the importance of learning languages, but also that language programs need to listen to students' voices and help them establish clear links between their academic majors, their future career and study plans as well as their personal interests.</p> <p>Keywords: languages other than English; survey research; undergraduate students; value of language learning</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01dec24/flan12783-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan12783-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181569088-3">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>As the United States becomes more racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse (Eagan et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]), there is an ever‐increasing need for students who have competency in languages (Commission on Language Learning, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). However, fewer students have opted for language courses in recent years and enrollment in world language courses has been declining, especially when the percentage of overall enrollment is taken into account (Looney & Lusin, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref3">26</reflink>]; Lusin et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]). Lusin et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]) study shows that language enrollments at the university level experienced an unprecedented drop of 16.6% between 2016 and 2021, whereas university enrollments fell by only 8%. Of course, raw enrollment numbers and census data only tell a part of the story about students in the world language classroom. Researchers, instructors, and administrators are still lacking a strong empirical basis demonstrating the breadth and depth of undergraduate student perspectives on language study. Questions remain as to how undergraduates in general value language learning in terms of personal interests, current or intended major, and career plans; what their reasons for (not) studying languages are; and how language learning can be incentivized at the college level.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-4">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181569088-5">The value of language learning</hd> <p>Do college students value language learning? Few studies have addressed this issue empirically outside of language classes themselves. Two exceptions are Price and Gascoigne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref6">34</reflink>]) and Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>]), which examined the opinion of incoming college students about world language study/world language requirements. Both used the same indirect method, that is, by asking incoming freshmen to respond to an essay prompt and explain why students should and should not be required to study languages. Analyzing the essays, Price and Gascoigne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]) found that the support for studying languages was overall "overwhelming" (p. 388). The most popular pro categories were cultural understanding, career success, and broadening of personal perspectives. The most popular con categories were that students "simply did not find it necessary," as well as issues of cost and time (p. 388). The cost of tuition for higher education in the United States, even when adjusted for inflation, has increased between 38% and 50% over the last 20 years (Kerr & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]), which means this concern may well have increased among students since Price and Gascgione's study.</p> <p>That students do not find it necessary to study languages highlights the unique position of language learners in the US context. Unlike other Anglophone countries like the UK, there is no national mandate for world language learning in the United States (Devlin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]), which can reinforce negative beliefs on the usefulness of world language education. Additionally, English speakers learning a language other than English (LOTE) face some different challenges from typical second language learners. Lanvers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]) describe these as socio‐cultural challenges at the micro‐, meso‐, and macro‐level. At the micro‐level, English speakers often struggle to find the intrinsic motivation to learn another language as English is often enough to function in a globalized world; an attitude that strengthens the pervasive English monolingual mindset and accompanying "linguistic myopia" ("English is enough") (Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]). At the meso‐level, they often encounter fewer opportunities to practice their LOTE as speakers of other languages want to switch to English to continue the conversation. At the macro‐level, Lanvers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]) highlight the overall low priority of learning a LOTE in education and society. All of these challenges contribute to the low value attributed to studying LOTEs, leaving English speakers predominantly monolingual.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-6">Language learning: Only motivation?</hd> <p>As seen in the Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]) and Price and Gascoigne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref15">34</reflink>]) studies, students do believe that the usefulness of language, with regard to their personal goals and their future careers, is a reason to study language. The field of motivation study with relation to world languages has created broad frameworks to try to understand why students act the way they do in language classes and why students might choose to study particular languages, but has not addressed students' reasons for (not) studying languages more generally. Prominent frameworks have been created to try to understand L2 motivation, such as Dörnyei's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]) L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS). Most studies of motivation look at the factors that shape learner attitudes, perceptions, and actions in the process of learning languages. However, these studies also can be problematic when applied to the US context of learning LOTEs due to the fact that the bulk of this research (over 70% from 2005 to 2014) focused on learning English as a target language (Ushioda & Dörnyei, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). Mendoza and Phung's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]) research synthesis identified 30 studies, published from 2005 through 2018, that focused on LOTEs. Six of those 30 studies were in the context of higher education in the USA, with three looking at multiple LOTEs (Anya, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; Huensch & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]; Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]), and only one examining overall language learning motivation of university students (Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]). Thompson ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]) applied the L2MSS framework with 195 undergraduate learners of Spanish and other LOTEs. Thompson noted that English speakers in the USA often do not feel the same pressure to learn a LOTE that those in other countries may feel to learn English. They found that students' reasons to study language were mainly related to personal interests, heritage connections, and sometimes even as a reaction to being discouraged on learning another language. This study incorporates these broad themes found in motivational research. Instead of adopting Dörnyei's L2MSS framework or any other motivational framework, it aims to gauge students' perspectives (e.g., opinions, experiences, and preferences) more broadly to determine reasons for (not) studying languages for both students who are currently studying (or have studied) a language at the university level and also extrapolates those themes to those who choose not to study LOTEs.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-7">Reasons for studying languages at the postsecondary level in the U.S</hd> <p>It is clear that individual U.S. students' demographics and aspirations impact their language study, which necessitates examining which general and specific reasons might lead different students to enroll in language study. Kondo‐Brown, ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) outlines that students "choose to learn a particular FL because they want to prepare themselves to achieve their goals in personal, local, and global contexts" (p. 131). Students' decisions to enroll or not might be influenced by their opinions about specific languages (e.g., Chavez, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]). Studies have highlighted a variety of reasons related to personal interest (language affinity, personal connections, travel, culture, politics), study (language requirement, a unique learning challenge) and future career goals (employment). Whereas personal interest reasons were more salient in studying languages other than Spanish (Chavez, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]), and specifically less commonly taught languages (Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]); future career considerations were more prominent in studying "highly politicized" languages like Arabic, Chinese, or Russian (Howard et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]) and to some extent for studying Spanish (Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). Looking at study motivations, fulfilling a language requirement was one of the dominant reasons found by Morgan ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]). However, Diao and Liu ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]), following highly motivated learners of Chinese through their first semester of college, noted that scheduling and other institutional barriers prevented engaged language learners from pursuing language learning beyond the first semester.</p> <p>One recent study that warrants special attention is Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref34">33</reflink>]), which was the first large‐scale, comprehensive study exploring undergraduates' opinions to enrolling in LOTEs and was an important precursor of the present study (see below). Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]) administered a full census survey to undergraduate students at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison (responses <emph>n</emph> = 3298). The survey gauged (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>) the value assigned by three different groups of students (currently enrolled, previously enrolled, or never enrolled in a language course) to learning languages in three domains (personal interest, study, or career reasons), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>) the reasons for (not) studying languages, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>) potential incentives for studying or continuing to study languages. Their primary findings were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>) Students who were currently enrolled in LOTE courses valued proficiency in LOTEs more than the two other groups, and students who had studied LOTEs valued proficiency in LOTEs more than students who never studied LOTEs. Furthermore, women attached more value to proficiency in LOTEs than men, and students who identified as Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin valued proficiency in LOTEs more than non‐Hispanic students for study and career reasons.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>) The top‐ranking reasons for studying LOTEs were personal enjoyment, cultural interest, personal growth, and future travel. Reasons for not enrolling had to do with institutional academic policies and scheduling constraints. A small group of students indicated that they did not enjoy language learning or did not find LOTEs useful for their future career.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>) Students would be more incentivized to study LOTEs if there was a clear and direct link between, first and foremost, language study and career plans; secondly, language learning and their academic major; and thirdly, LOTEs and personal interests. Finally, a better fit between course options and study schedules might convince students to study LOTEs.</item> </ulist> <p>The present study builds on the methodology used by Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]). It adopts the same threefold framework of gauging values, reasons and incentives, but adds qualitative data analyses to enrich quantitative findings. It furthermore tests the generalizability of results in Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]) by extending this line of inquiry to a new population of students on a different campus. Overall, these results provide an interesting glimpse into the value of and reasons for studying LOTEs. However, as Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]) indicated that their study only "represents a snapshot in time of students at just one institution" (p. 24). Additional studies are needed to strengthen this body of research, including those at different types of institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-8">RESEARCH QUESTIONS</hd> <p>This study is part of an ongoing effort to chart students' reasons for world language enrollment in higher education. It contributes to the collection of empirical data on general population undergraduate students' perspectives on studying a LOTE by gauging the value students place on learning a LOTE, the reasons for (not) enrolling in a language course, and the incentives that would convince students to study languages. To be able to compare findings between institutions and to improve our understanding of this important topic, this study addressed similar research questions as Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. How highly do undergraduate students value proficiency in LOTEs, in terms of their (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) personal interests, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) current or intended major, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>) career plans?</item> <p></p> <item> a. Are there differences between students who studied (in the past) or are currently studying LOTEs and students that have not studied any LOTEs in the value they place on proficiency in LOTEs in these three domains?</item> <p></p> <item> b. To what extent do students' demographic profiles and study variables impact the value students place on proficiency in LOTEs in the three different domains?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What are undergraduate students' reasons for enrolling or not enrolling in LOTE courses?</item> <p></p> <item> a. What are undergraduate students' reasons for enrolling in LOTE courses?</item> <p></p> <item> b. What are undergraduate students' reasons for not ever enrolling in LOTE courses?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. What would make undergraduate students more likely to enroll in LOTE courses in the future or continue studying a language?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181569088-9">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181569088-10">Survey instrument</hd> <p>This IRB‐approved study builds on the exploratory work done by Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]) as it adopted and adapted the survey that was developed specifically for that study. The survey was adapted for the Michigan State University (MSU) context by the first three authors. Section 1 asks questions about the importance students place on proficiency in LOTEs in terms of their personal interests, current or intended major, and career plans. The questions in Section 2 focus on three groups of students (those who are currently enrolled in language courses; those who were in the past enrolled in language course; and those who never enrolled in a language course) and gauges their reasons for (not) studying languages and their experiences with language courses at MSU. Section 3 asks all respondents to consider factors that would make them more likely to study or continue studying LOTEs. Section 4 contains questions relating to demographics and respondents' background, and Section 5 elicits students' suggestions related to improving language learning at MSU. The survey was administered online through the Qualtrics survey platform and can be freely downloaded on the IRIS Datatbase (https://<ulink href="http://www.iris-database.org/">www.iris-database.org/</ulink>) and at OSFHome (https://osf.io/g7t5a). The original UW‐Madison survey can be found in the appendices of Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-11">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>Participants in the study were undergraduate students enrolled in the spring 2020 semester at MSU, a large, public land‐grant university in the Midwestern United States. The Office of the Registrar emailed the survey to 98.31% of the total undergraduate population or 35,863 undergraduates that had allowed their email addresses to be used for university purposes. The final cleaned data set (removing duplicates and those who did not complete the survey) consisted of 4458 respondents or a response rate of 12.43%. Out of 4458 respondents, 68.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 3051) had never enrolled in a language course at MSU, whereas 31.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 1407) were either currently enrolled in a LOTE course (17.2%, <emph>n</emph> = 768) or had enrolled in at least one LOTE course in the past (14.3%, <emph>n</emph> = 639). Table 1 provides an overview of the participants' demographic information and variables relevant to this study. For reporting purposes, 18 colleges at MSU were combined into six distinct groups: Agriculture & Natural Sciences, Business, Education, Engineering, Letters & Social Science, and Medicine & Nursing. A comparison of the sample size percentages with the MSU undergraduate population percentages from spring semester 2020 (last column Table 1) shows that overall, this study's sample is representative of the MSU undergraduate student population—although certain categories appear to be overrepresented, especially women and people of Asian or White ethnicity, while some, like fourth year students, appear to be underrepresented in the sample.</p> <p>1 Table Participant demographic information (N = 4458): sample size per demographic category, n per response category, percentage of total responses in the sample size, undergraduate population percentages of response categories.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th><italic>Sample</italic></th><th><italic>Pop</italic>.</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th><italic>Sample size</italic><ext-link href="a" /></th><th><italic>n</italic></th><th>%</th><th><italic>%</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender (1)</td><td>4409</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Man</td><td /><td>1366</td><td>31</td><td>47.8</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td /><td>41</td><td>0.9</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Woman</td><td /><td>3002</td><td>68.1</td><td>52.2</td></tr><tr><td>Race or ethnicity</td><td>4315</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>American Indian or Alaska Native</td><td /><td>19</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td /><td>461</td><td>10.7</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td /><td>241</td><td>5.6</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin (2)</td><td /><td>182</td><td>4.2</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Eastern or North African</td><td /><td>85</td><td>2</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander</td><td /><td>11</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>White (3)</td><td /><td>3316</td><td>76.8</td><td>66.2</td></tr><tr><td>Language spoken at home when growing up (4)</td><td>4458</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Language(s) other than English spoken at home<ext-link href="b" /></td><td /><td>1024</td><td>23</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Only English spoken at home</td><td /><td>3434</td><td>77</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>First‐generation college student<ext-link href="c" /> (5)</td><td>4454</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td /><td>1031</td><td>23.1</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td /><td>3423</td><td>76.9</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>International student (6)</td><td>4453</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td /><td>169</td><td>3.8</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td /><td>4284</td><td>96.2</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>College (7)</td><td>4406</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Agriculture & Natural Sciences</td><td /><td>1306</td><td>29.6</td><td>28.1</td></tr><tr><td>Business</td><td /><td>579</td><td>13.1</td><td>14.7</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td /><td>279</td><td>6.3</td><td>6.6</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td /><td>623</td><td>14.1</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Letters & Social science</td><td /><td>1489</td><td>33.8</td><td>31.9</td></tr><tr><td>Medicine & Nursing</td><td /><td>130</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Year in school (8)</td><td>4452</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>First year</td><td /><td>1228</td><td>27.6</td><td>18.9</td></tr><tr><td>Second year</td><td /><td>1225</td><td>27.5</td><td>22.8</td></tr><tr><td>Third year</td><td /><td>1037</td><td>23.3</td><td>26.7</td></tr><tr><td>Fourth year</td><td /><td>782</td><td>17.6</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Fifth year</td><td /><td>148</td><td>3.3</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Sixth year or more</td><td /><td>32</td><td>0.7</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Languages studied at MSU (9)</td><td>4458</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>None</td><td /><td>3052</td><td>68.5</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td /><td>1277</td><td>28.6</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td /><td>112</td><td>2.5</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td /><td>11</td><td>0.2</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td /><td>6</td><td>0.1</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Study abroad (10)</td><td>4451</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Study abroad experience or intention</td><td /><td>2338</td><td>53.9</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>No study abroad experience or intention</td><td /><td>2052</td><td>46.1</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Enrollment status (11)</td><td>4458</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td /><td>3051</td><td>68.4</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>In the past</td><td /><td>639</td><td>14.3</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Currently</td><td /><td>768</td><td>17.2</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. Pop. = MSU undergraduate population, <emph>n =</emph> Sample size, % = Percentage; 1–10 = demographic (1–6) and study (7–10) independent variables for multiple regression analysis, 11 = new constructed independent variable.</p> <ulist> <item>2 a The sample size is the number of participants that checked the response categories presented in this table. Not every participant answered every demographic question, or the participants checked a different response category like "Other," "I don't know," "Not listed," "Prefer not to answer" or another similar box.</item> <item>3 b Eighty‐six languages or language varieties were spoken or used at home by participants when they were growing up.</item> <item>4 c For the purposes of this study, first‐generation college students were defined as those who did not have at least one parent or guardian who completed a bachelor's degree.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181569088-12">Data analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive (RQ 1 to 3) and inferential statistics (RQ 1a and 1b) were used to address the research questions. The first research question examined how participants valued proficiency in LOTEs in terms of three dependent variables: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) Reasons of personal interest, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) reasons for current or intended major, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) career reasons. All dependent variables were scored on a 5‐point Likert scale with one being the least important and five being the most important. A new categorical variable "Enrollment status" (See Table 1) was created to indicate students' language course participation: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) "currently enrolled" in a LOTE course (Spring 2020), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) "enrolled in the past," but not enrolled in a LOTE course in Spring 2020, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>) "never (or not yet) enrolled" in a LOTE course. As the data were not normally distributed and violated the assumption of homoscedasticity, a Kruskal‐Wallis H test was run to answer RQ1a.</p> <p>Research question 1b gauges the effect of six demographic (1–6) and four study (7–10) exploratory variables on the three dependent variables (See Table 1). The 10 independent variables were recoded based on exploratory analysis of the original response categories in the survey (see Table 1) or because of a low number of responses (variables 1, 7, 8, and 9) to be used more effectively in a multiple regression analysis. Eight of the 10 exploratory variables (1 to 7, and 10) were constructed and/or re‐coded as dichotomous variables with the largest group of respondents as reference category (0), and the smaller group coded as the focus category (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>). Independent variables 8 and 9 were re‐coded as categorical variables. Next, three multiple linear regressions were run to explore the effect of the 10 background variables on each of the dependent variables. As this is an exploratory study, the effect of all variables was explored at the same time by applying an initial forced entry model, and, next, by deleting nonsignificant variables one by one in a stepwise manner. Because the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were violated, wild bootstrap multiple linear regression was performed, so that robust confidence intervals and significance tests could be computed. No other assumptions were violated and there was no evidence of multicollinearity. Multiple linear regression, rather than multiple ordinal regression, was used as the results of the first are easier to interpret. The final multiple linear regression models were compared against the outcomes of ordinal regression model, and no differences were found.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, and ranking) were used to explore research questions 2 and 3. In addition, a qualitative approach was used to analyze open‐ended responses related to research question 2b. Bottom‐up, two‐step qualitative coding was applied to two open response questions. First, in an open coding phase, an explorative content analysis was conducted, based on the principles of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]). Second, axial coding was conducted, organizing categories and subcategories obtained inductively in the previous phase. By adding a qualitative content analysis of two open response questions relating to why students do not study languages at college, students' own voices were added to the quantitative analysis of prompted reasons in the survey. Coding was performed by the second and third authors independently. Results were compared and a consensus was reached on the final codes.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-13">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181569088-14">RQ1. How highly do undergraduate students value proficiency in LOTEs, in terms of their (1) p...</hd> <p>To provide an overall answer to the first research question, descriptive statistics (See Table 2) and response distributions (See Figure 1) of all participants in the sample were analyzed.</p> <p>2 Table Descriptive statistics for the three motivational reasons for valuing proficiency in LOTEs (maximum value = 5).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">n</th><th align="left">Mean</th><th align="left">Median</th><th align="left">Mode</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">Min.</th><th align="left">Max.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal reasons</td><td>4458</td><td>3.24</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1.23</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Current or intended major</td><td>4290</td><td>2.66</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1.22</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Career plans</td><td>4320</td><td>2.81</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1.21</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; Min., Minimum; Max., Maximum.</item> <item>6 <emph>Note</emph>. Scale<emph>:</emph> 1 Not at all important, 2 Slightly important, 3 Moderately important, 4 Very important, 5 Extremely important.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/FLA/01dec24/flan12783-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="flan12783-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Importance of speaking LOTEs based on personal reasons, major, and career goals." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Overall, students found the value of the ability to speak a language for all reasons to be moderately important. They valued the speaking of languages for personal reasons slightly higher than for career reasons; the latter one being valued slightly higher than for study reasons, that is, relating to the current or intended major.</p> <p>RQ1 explored the value that students attached to speaking LOTEs from two different angles. First, RQ1a asked if enrollment status impacted the value students placed on speaking LOTEs. Table 3 provides an overview of the descriptive statistics for the three motivational reasons (personal interests, current or intended major, and career plans) by enrollment status group and for all groups together.</p> <p>3 Table Descriptive statistics of the motivational reasons per enrollment group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>95% CI for Mean</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic>.</th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic>.</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left"><italic>LL</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>UL</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Personal reasons</td><td>Never enrolled</td><td>3051</td><td>2.93</td><td>1.177</td><td>.021</td><td>2.89</td><td>2.98</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Enrolled in past</td><td>639</td><td>3.64</td><td>1.141</td><td>.045</td><td>3.55</td><td>3.73</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Currently enrolled</td><td>768</td><td>4.11</td><td>.997</td><td>.036</td><td>4.03</td><td>4.18</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4458</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.234</td><td>.018</td><td>3.20</td><td>3.27</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Current or intended major</td><td>Never enrolled</td><td>2902</td><td>2.39</td><td>1.092</td><td>.020</td><td>2.35</td><td>2.43</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Enrolled in past</td><td>630</td><td>2.91</td><td>1.222</td><td>.049</td><td>2.81</td><td>3.01</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Currently enrolled</td><td>758</td><td>3.46</td><td>1.286</td><td>.047</td><td>3.37</td><td>3.55</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4290</td><td>2.66</td><td>1.220</td><td>.019</td><td>2.62</td><td>2.69</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Career plans</td><td>Never enrolled</td><td>2936</td><td>2.56</td><td>1.117</td><td>.021</td><td>2.52</td><td>2.60</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Enrolled in past</td><td>624</td><td>3.11</td><td>1.180</td><td>.047</td><td>3.01</td><td>3.20</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Currently enrolled</td><td>760</td><td>3.55</td><td>1.214</td><td>.044</td><td>3.46</td><td>3.64</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4320</td><td>2.81</td><td>1.207</td><td>.018</td><td>2.78</td><td>2.85</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 Abbreviations: <emph>N</emph>, Sample size; <emph>M</emph>, Mean; SD, Standard Deviation; <emph>SE</emph>, Standard Error; <emph>CI</emph>, 95% Confidence Interval; <emph>LL</emph>, Lower Level; <emph>UL</emph>, Upper Level; <emph>Min</emph>., Minimum; <emph>Max</emph>., Maximum.</p> <p>Table 3 reveals a clear rank order difference between the means of the three groups for all motivational reasons. The currently enrolled students consistently valued speaking a LOTE more than students enrolled in the past, who in turn attached a higher value to speaking a LOTE than students who were never enrolled in a language course at MSU. The distributions of the importance scores were significantly different between enrollment groups, for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) personal interest reasons <emph>H</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) = 664.922, <emph>p</emph> < .001; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) intended or current major reasons <emph>H</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) = 450.532, <emph>p</emph> < .001; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) career reasons <emph>H</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>)2 = 428.671, <emph>p</emph> ≤ .001.</p> <p>RQ1b investigated the effects of demographic and study variables on the importance that undergraduate students attached to the different motivational reasons for speaking LOTEs. We will only present the regression model for the "personal reasons" domain as the regression models for the other two domains show similar results.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>]</p> <p>The wild bootstrap multiple regression model significantly predicted the importance of speaking languages for personal reasons, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>, 4230) = 215.268, <emph>p</emph> < .001, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups><subs>adj</subs> = 0.29. Eight out of 10 variables added statistical significance to the prediction, <emph>p</emph> < .05. The multiple regression model with eight independent variables (Table 4) had a large effect size (Cohen's <emph>f</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.404) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>4 Table Wild Bootstrap Multiple Regression with Importance to speak languages for reasons of personal interest as dependent variable (n = 4239).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="char" char=".">How important is it to you to speak languages other than English?</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">β</th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">BCa 95% CI</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left"><italic>LL</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>UL</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>2.847</td><td /><td>.042</td><td>2.763</td><td>2.927</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (woman, man)</td><td>−.106</td><td>−.040</td><td>.036</td><td>−.179</td><td>−.036</td><td>.002</td></tr><tr><td>Identity Hispanic (no, yes)</td><td>.167</td><td>.028</td><td>.077</td><td>.007</td><td>.317</td><td>.034</td></tr><tr><td>Identity White (yes, no)</td><td>.338</td><td>.116</td><td>.051</td><td>.231</td><td>.439</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Home Language (mostly English, other)</td><td>.758</td><td>.257</td><td>.049</td><td>.665</td><td>.850</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>First generation (no, yes)</td><td>.137</td><td>.047</td><td>.038</td><td>.058</td><td>.215</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Year in College (1 to 5+)</td><td>.029</td><td>.028</td><td>.014</td><td>.000</td><td>.059</td><td>.038</td></tr><tr><td>Number of languages studied (0 to 2+)</td><td>.718</td><td>.307</td><td>.032</td><td>.658</td><td>.782</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>Study abroad (yes, no)</td><td>−.410</td><td>−.167</td><td>.036</td><td>−.481</td><td>−.343</td><td><.001</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup><sub>adjusted</sub></td><td>.288</td></tr><tr><td>F (df)</td><td>215.268 (8, 4230)</td></tr><tr><td>Cohen's f<sup>2</sup></td><td>.404</td></tr><tr><td>Statistical Power</td><td>1.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 Abbreviations. B, Unstandardized Beta; β, Standardized Beta; SE, Standard Error; BCa 95% CI, Bias corrected accelerated 95% Confidence Interval; LL, Lower Level; UL, Upper Level.</item> <item>9 <emph>Note</emph>. Bootstrap results are based on 2000 wild bootstrap samples. First word in each variable is the reference category.</item> </ulist> <p>In order of effect size,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>] the results indicated that students who (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) had already learned LOTEs, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) had another home language than English, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>) had studied abroad, and identified as (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>) nonwhite, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>) first‐generation student, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>) women, or (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>) Hispanic, and (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>) those with more years in college attached importance to proficiency in LOTEs for personal reasons.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-16">RQ2. What are undergraduate students' reasons for enrolling or not enrolling in LOTE courses?</hd> <p>Research question 2a looked at the students that were enrolled in the past and were currently enrolled in LOTE courses (<emph>n</emph> = 1, 407) at MSU. Both groups were presented with a choice of 10 reasons for studying languages and one "Other" category. The students were asked to check all the reasons that applied to them. Table 5 provides an overview of the percentage, frequency count, and rank of the reasons and the "other" reasons category for both groups.</p> <p>5 Table Percentage, frequency count, and ranking of positive responses to prompted reasons for studying languages at MSU per enrollment category (in the past and currently).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Enrollment</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Currently</th><th align="left">Past</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">%.</th><th align="left">Freq.</th><th align="left">Rank</th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left">Freq.</th><th align="left">Rank</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>...you enjoy learning languages?</td><td>76.4%</td><td>587</td><td>1</td><td>64.2%</td><td>410</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>...you hope(d) to travel in a country in which the language(s) is spoken?</td><td>70.6%</td><td>542</td><td>2</td><td>55.45%</td><td>354</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>...you are (were) interested in the culture(s) in which the language(s) you are studying is spoken?</td><td>68.1%</td><td>523</td><td>3</td><td>54.5%</td><td>348</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>...language learning contributes to your personal growth and development?</td><td>64.6%</td><td>496</td><td>4</td><td>46.9%</td><td>300</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>...you are (were) continuing to study the language(s) you studied in high school or elsewhere?</td><td>53.5%</td><td>433</td><td>6</td><td>50.1%</td><td>320</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>...the language(s) you are (were) studying will be useful or necessary in your career?</td><td>59.1%</td><td>454</td><td>5</td><td>42.1%</td><td>269</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>...you hope(d) to study abroad in a country in which the language(s) is spoken?</td><td>54.8%</td><td>421</td><td>7</td><td>29.7%</td><td>190</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>...you are (were) completing a foreign language requirement?</td><td>43.5%</td><td>334</td><td>8</td><td>39.4%</td><td>252</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>...you have friends who speak the language(s) you are studying?</td><td>25.5%</td><td>196</td><td>9</td><td>18.6%</td><td>119</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>...the language(s) you are (were) studying is part of your family heritage?</td><td>16.4%</td><td>126</td><td>10</td><td>16.9%</td><td>108</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Other reason</td><td>3.8%</td><td>29</td><td /><td>3.1%</td><td>20</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The students currently studying languages consistently marked more reasons for studying LOTEs, as evidenced by the higher percentages in their category. However, the ranking of the reasons between the two groups was very similar. Two reasons ranked higher for past students as opposed to current students: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) continuing to study the language(s) studied in high school or elsewhere, ranking four for past students and six for current students, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>) completing a language requirement, ranking seven for past students and eight for current students (Table 5). Usefulness of language for a career ranked higher for current students, ranking at position five as compared to position six for past students.</p> <p>Overall, the 10 prompted reasons included in the present study seemed to capture the reasons for LOTEs by undergraduate students who have studied languages well, as only 3.5% of the students (<emph>n</emph> = 49) felt the need to add another reason. Looking at the ranking of the 10 reasons, the top rankings aligned to personal interests (enjoyment, travel, and culture) and growth; confirming that personal interest was a stronger motivator than career plans or program requirements. LOTEs for career opportunities were ranked 5 (for current) and 6 (for past students), while study reasons ranked toward the lower half. Finally, rankings 9 (talking to friends) and 10 (heritage language learning) accounted for a smaller (around 20%) group of students with more specific language learning needs.</p> <p>Research question 2b looked at why students never enrolled in a language course at MSU (<emph>n</emph> = 3051). Table 6 provides an overview of the percentage, frequency count and ranking of the 12 prompted reasons the students reported for not studying languages at MSU.</p> <p>6 Table Percentage, frequency count and ranking of positive responses to prompted reasons for not studying languages at MSU by students who never enrolled in a language course at MSU (n = 3051).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th><italic>Did you decide not to study a language at MSU because...</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>%</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Freq</italic>.</th><th align="left"><italic>Rank</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>...language courses are not required for your major?</td><td>76%</td><td>2319</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>...language courses do not fit your schedule?</td><td>42.5%</td><td>1297</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>...you feel like you do not have an aptitude for learning languages?</td><td>36.3%</td><td>1109</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>...you did not do well in language classes you took in high school or elsewhere?</td><td>25.9%</td><td>790</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>...language course(s) you took before coming to MSU did not meet your interests or expectations?</td><td>19.3%</td><td>588</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>...you do not enjoy learning languages?</td><td>15.1%</td><td>460</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>...you already speak a language(s) other than English well?</td><td>14.7%</td><td>450</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>...you do not think that a language other than English will be useful or necessary for your career?</td><td>11.6%</td><td>355</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>...you were discouraged from studying language(s) by family or friends?</td><td>7.8%</td><td>239</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>...the language(s) you are interested in learning was not available at all?</td><td>6.7%</td><td>203</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>...the language(s) you are interested in learning was not available at the level you need?</td><td>4.2%</td><td>127</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>...you were discouraged from studying language(s) by an advisor?</td><td>4.1%</td><td>125</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>...other reason?</td><td>28%</td><td>854</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The first identifiable cluster of reasons focused on program or curricular aspects. The two highest ranked reasons related to program requirements (R1, reason ranked 1) and hurdles (R2) as reasons for not studying languages. In addition to the first two reasons, the three lowest ranked reasons (R10–R12) identified hurdles relating to curricular thinking. A second cluster of reasons (R3–R6) indicated a troubled to negative relationship with LOTEs. Students indicated that they did not have a talent for language learning (R3), that their previous experiences with LOTEs were negative (R4), that the classes at MSU did not match their interests (R5), and that they did not enjoy language learning (R6). R9 also touched upon the personal domain but in this case referred to negative advice students received from people with whom they have a close personal bond. The two remaining reasons related to the fact that students did not think LOTEs would benefit their career opportunities (R8) or, on a more positive note, that they already spoke another language than English (R7).</p> <p>The percentage of students who added information in the open‐ended follow‐up question for reasons for <emph>not</emph> enrolling was high at 854 students (28%). To give the students who provided additional reasons a voice, we analyzed their responses and developed the following codes: Accessibility, Advising, Alternatives, Anxiety/Fear, Approach/Curriculum, Awareness, Cost, Desire/Interest, Difficulty, Future, Language Availability, Previous Experience, Requirement, Time, and Value. The answers for "cost" and "time" were relatively consistent: many respondents voiced their opinion that incurring additional cost for more credit‐bearing classes was not worth it, while others simply could not fit an extra class into their schedules, either because of scheduling issues or because they wanted to avoid too many contact hours.</p> <p>Other labels were more varied and complex, a full exploration of which falls beyond the scope of this paper. However, to give one example, the 20 responses coded with "Alternatives" revealed various possibilities to language learning outside of traditional for‐credit courses offered by the university. The answers fell into three categories:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Alternatives to credit‐bearing classes that cost less or are free (e.g., "There are free resources such as Duolingo on the App Store that allow me to learn a language without paying expensive tuition.")</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Alternatives perceived as faster and easier (e.g., "There are cheaper and faster ways to learn a language than the university route.")</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Alternatives perceived as actually more effective than language courses (e.g., "I plan on learning on my own for a more effective way of learning.")</item> </ulist> <p>Many students' open answers combined multiple reasons. For example, when they feared a language course would impact their grade average, they formulated an alternative: "I would have loved to study a language, but I would rather have done it on my own time and not at a university just in case it affected my GPA." Another telling example expresses one student's clear view of a clash between the actual value of learning a language versus the curricular approach: "My experience with the way we teach language in the United States is that no matter how many years you spend learning it you will never be able to speak it fluently and as such [it] is just a waste of time as conversational language is the only thing that is relevant." Overall, a complex picture of very different and diverse reasons emerged.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-17">RQ3. What would make undergraduate students more likely to enroll in LOTEs in the future or c...</hd> <p>Finally, to address research question 3, students identified incentives that would motivate them to either enroll or continue to learn a language at MSU. Table 7 displays the most frequently selected responses from the never enrolled group and the past and current enrolled group.</p> <p>7 Table Highlights from the percentage, frequency count and ranking of incentives to start (for the never enrolled group, n = 3051) or continue (for the past and current enrolled group, n = 1407) studying a language at MSU.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Never enrolled</th><th align="left">Past and currently enrolled</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">%</th><th align="left">Freq.</th><th align="left">Rank</th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left">Freq.</th><th align="left">Rank</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>...you received a scholarship to study a language?</td><td>58.3%</td><td>1779</td><td>1</td><td>65.3%</td><td>919</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>...you saw more direct links between language study and your academic major(s)?</td><td>48.7%</td><td>1487</td><td>2</td><td>43.6%</td><td>614</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>...you saw more direct links between language study and your career plans?</td><td>47.2%</td><td>1439</td><td>3</td><td>51%</td><td>717</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>...there were course options that worked better with your schedule?</td><td>46%</td><td>1403</td><td>4</td><td>49.9%</td><td>702</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>...language courses were offered fully online?</td><td>38.1%</td><td>1162</td><td>5</td><td>34%</td><td>479</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>...you could study abroad in a country in which the language is spoken?</td><td>35.6%</td><td>1085</td><td>7</td><td>46.3%</td><td>651</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>...you could do an internship where you use your language skills?</td><td>25%</td><td>762</td><td>14</td><td>44.1%</td><td>621</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>...you could take intensive language courses to develop proficiency faster, such as one year of language study in one semester?</td><td>24.6%</td><td>750</td><td>15</td><td>40.9%</td><td>575</td><td>9</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>While the ranking of the 21 incentives was largely similar in both groups, that is, the never enrolled versus the past or currently enrolled students, Table 7 highlights some similarities and mismatches. The main three incentives on which both groups agreed were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) receiving a scholarship (Ranked 1, both groups), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) more direct links between language study and career plans (R3 in the never enrolled group vs R2 in the past/currently enrolled group), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) course options that better fit students' schedules (R4 and R3, respectively). These incentives aligned with the three motivations outlined in this study: personal interests (receiving a scholarship), career, and study or program aspects. However, there were some noticeable differences in ranking between the two groups of students. The students that were previously or currently enrolled in LOTE courses indicated that the three incentives that would motivate them to continue studying a language included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>) internships where they could use their language skills (R7 vs. R14 in the never enrolled group), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>) taking intensive language courses to develop proficiency faster, such as 1 year of language study in one semester (R9 vs. R15 in the never enrolled group), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>) studying abroad (R4 vs. R7); all incentives that point to students wanting to develop proficiency faster and make use of that proficiency in a real‐life, authentic context. Conversely, compared to the never enrolled group, students who were previously or were currently enrolled in LOTE courses played down the role of direct links between language study and academic major (R8 vs. R2) and online courses (R15 vs. R5); indicating a higher intrinsic motivation to continue studying a language for the sake of learning the language, and willingness to overcome some hurdles (e.g., going to class in person) if needed.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-18">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181569088-19">Institutional commitment matters</hd> <p>The picture that arises of U.S. undergraduate students' reasons for (not) studying languages is a complex and multilayered one. The present study reiterates that language learning is largely important to students. Over 69% of participants reported that learning a LOTE was at least moderately important for personal reasons. Only 7.8% of study participants reported that it was not at all important for personal reasons. Students found fewer reasons to study languages for career purposes or considering their majors, with 53% (career) and 48% (majors) finding those reasons at least "moderately important" and 13% (career) and 18% (majors) finding them "not at all important." Although the ranking of reasons resonated with the ranking in Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref85">33</reflink>]), the perceived value for all three reasons was lower in this study. Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>]) documented that 81% of the student population valued proficiency in LOTEs at least somewhat for personal reasons, 63% for career reasons, and 53% for study reasons. These considerable differences in percentages may point to the fact that the institutional context matters, and that generalizability of findings from one context might be limited. Two factors that may explain this difference is that UW‐Wisconsin Madison has more language requirements in place than MSU and is a Language Flagship university (see www.thelanguageflagship.org); both factors which indicate a strong(er) institutional commitment to and investment in language learning, that, in turn, may be mirrored in students' commitment to and motivation for language learning. That an institutional commitment to language learning might lead to a stronger student interest in language learning is noteworthy especially in the present‐day climate where many smaller language programs are under threat or already eliminated at Institutions of higher education (e.g., West Virginia; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The MSU results for study reasons are particularly striking when viewed in comparison with the results from RQ3, which examined what would make students more likely to enroll. Almost half of the students who had never enrolled in a LOTE course said that they would be more likely to take a language if they saw more direct links between language study and their academic major. This finding suggests that a fruitful arena for promoting language learning would be in showing nonlanguage majors how proficiency in another language can link to and strengthen their area of study. One interesting example of this is the Mekong Culture WELL project at MSU, a Henry Luce Foundation's Initiative that focuses on promoting environmental justice along the Mekong River in Southeast Asia. Students and researchers can learn Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese to help them connect with local communities and gain a better understanding of the local perspectives of both food and environmental justice. This is a strong example of meaningful, joint projects that build community beyond the typical language classroom (see Fritzsche et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref88">17</reflink>]) and showcase the importance and relevance of LOTEs for future career opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-20">Take into account identities and trajectories of learners</hd> <p>The current study also brought to the foreground the many demographic and institutional variables that have a unique impact on the value students attach to learning a LOTE. Interestingly, all these variables contributed to some extent to the importance students attach to LOTEs, explaining between 18% and 29% of the variance across the three dependent variables. In comparison with Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>]), we found a slightly higher percentage (2%–6%) of explained variance, an effect for the variables "Home Language" and "International student" that were excluded from the Murphy et al. study, and a significant effect of "First Generation Student" (vs. a nonsignificant in Murphy et al.). Therefore, our study, with a slightly higher response rate and a sample of an additional 1160 undergraduates, indicated that the picture is even more complex and varied than the Murphy et al. study suggested.</p> <p>It might be no surprise that women, students with another home language than English and international students think studying language is important. Some research has shown that gender should be considered as an important variable in motivation to study languages (see Akram & Ghani, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]; Baker & MacIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>], and MacIntyre et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>], <emph>inter alia</emph>). Similar to Cortés ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref93">10</reflink>]), we found that individuals with a home language other than English had more positive attitudes toward language learning, as they probably have a greater awareness of the importance of learning languages. However, it was unexpected that variables including identifying as nonwhite and Hispanic, in addition to using home language other than English, and being a first‐generation student impacted the value students attached to learning a LOTE. Traditionally, first‐generation students tend to choose majors that are often considered to be sure paths to a well‐provided future like computer science or medicine (see Trejo, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref94">38</reflink>]). The fact that students with ethnicities other than white acknowledge the importance of LOTEs more than white students confirms the "linguistic myopia" of English monolingual speakers (Lanvers et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref95">24</reflink>]) and points to a cultural difference that needs to be explored more thoroughly. If one conclusion stands out, it is that so many variables related to language and identity (or how students identify) seem to contribute in a unique way to students' enrollment in LOTE courses. Administrators and language instructors can use this information to their advantage to further think of language advocacy and target promotional campaigns. However, to fully understand the impact of these background and study variables, more qualitative research into how precisely these variables impact language learning motivations is needed.</p> <p>Following Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>]), it comes as no surprise that currently enrolled students consistently valued language learning more than students enrolled in the past, who in turn attached a higher value to language learning than students who never enrolled in a language course. It makes sense that students would find more connections to the language as they progress toward higher levels. However, the fact that years in college has a small, but significant contribution on top of other study variables implies that as students' progress through their college trajectory, they seem to attach more importance to LOTEs at least for personal interest and career reasons. Institutions of higher education need to be aware of this so they can cater to these changing needs as their student body evolves.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-21">Create positive language learning experiences across K‐16 education</hd> <p>When it came to student reasons for enrolling in LOTE courses, the reasons provided in the survey, such as studying for enjoyment, hope to travel/study abroad, interest in the culture, career goals, and personal connections (friends/family) seemed to encompass most of the student reasons for enrollment (see also Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref97">33</reflink>]). When it came to <emph>not</emph> enrolling in courses, students varied widely in their responses, but by far, students indicated the lack of foreign language requirement as the number one reason for not enrolling. Beyond that, issues of scheduling and a general feeling of inaptitude for languages or poor experiences in previous language learning classes were reasons for at least one quarter of respondents (the top three reasons again echoing Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref98">33</reflink>]). The interesting cluster of negative experiences in Table 6 (ranks 3–6) in combination with over 53.5% of students indicating they were continuing to learn a language they learned in high school or elsewhere emphasizes that we cannot consider LOTEs enrollment in higher education in isolation. The present data indicate that it is crucial for those invested in LOTE programs at institutions of higher education to be invested in developments and efforts to support positive LOTEs experiences in K‐12 education. More than mere promotional campaigns, we would like to suggest real strategic partnerships between universities and K‐12 schools to bring about educational improvement and foster positive language learning experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-22">Implications</hd> <p>What can departments, programs, and universities do to address the issues brought to light in this examination of student voices? Some reasons, ranging from larger societal trends to highly personal reasons, are more profound and difficult to address than others. In addition, some structural decisions, including implementing language requirements for a college, simply cannot be accomplished at the department or program level. Nevertheless, the many student voices in this study provide some direction that can be addressed at the different levels.</p> <p>A first recommendation at the institutional and program level is to invest in understanding the language needs of their diverse student body as they start and progress through college. The fact that language (i.e., other home languages than English) and identity (i.e., nonwhite and Hispanic; also first‐generation students) factors seem to play an important role in students' choice to study languages invites us not only to develop promotional strategies targeting specific groups, but also to develop stronger strategies at all levels (from the individual faculty member to the institutional level) to counter the monolingual mindset to which white students seem to be more prone. Also, students' K‐12 positive and negative language experiences do matter. Through K‐16 strategic partnerships, students could experience longer positive language learning trajectories that help them reach advanced language proficiency levels (Winke et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref99">40</reflink>]). A collaboration may more effectively address students, teachers and school district goals and needs while providing university faculty and graduate students with real opportunities to contribute to world language education in the schools. Whereas strong examples of such partnerships exist in science education, we know of few examples in language education. One English language arts initiative that could show the way for LOTE programs is the project Online Curriculum Consortium for Accelerating Middle School (OCCAMS), an accelerated English language arts curriculum and delivery model for high ability middle school learners in Ohio (Boyle & Carpenter, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>A second recommendation would be to clearly show students how knowing languages are relevant for and strengthen their areas of study. The Mekong Culture WELL project is one illustration. Another more systematic way, suggested by an undergraduate student in the survey, would be to provide internship opportunities where students can make use of their language skills while getting work experience. Showing a clear link between future workplaces and proficiency in a LOTE will increase the value of learning languages and might be a strong motivational driver for students to enroll in LOTE courses.</p> <p>A third recommendation relates to providing more flexibility to students to engage with LOTEs. Scheduling issues can be complex to address at the program level. For example, departments that hold language courses 5 days per week may consider changing their schedules, shifting some of the work online so that the 2 or 3‐day per week classes students take on alternating days do not conflict with language courses (see also Miller & Crowther, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref101">30</reflink>]). Alternatively, departments could consider offering courses fully online. Additionally, some learners expressed an interest in autonomous language learning. Exploring how language learning apps like Duolingo and other resources could be integrated to cater to that need and how effective they are would be an interesting avenue for teaching and research (e.g., Jiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref102">21</reflink>]; Loewen et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Lastly, one of the biggest barriers indicated by students to not enrolling in LOTEs was time, followed by cost. With both financial and other pressures to graduate in less time, some students voiced their difficulty in fitting in language courses in otherwise busy courses of study. As MSU has recently shifted to "flat‐rate" tuition (e.g., tuition costs the same for 12–18 credits), some instructors have been designing smaller, 1 or 2‐credit courses that could "top off" a student's course of study without costing them more. Another approach would be to address the financial pressures that students face. Students indicated that scholarships would encourage (further) language study.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-23">Limitations</hd> <p>This study only shows one institution and one snapshot in time – in early 2020. As we all experienced, the COVID‐19 pandemic changed many things about how both students and faculty approach courses. Opinions that students expressed pre‐COVID may have changed, especially regarding perspectives on online delivery of courses.</p> <p>The participants in our study are a limited subset of the total student population. As we demonstrated in Table 1, our participants were largely representative of the total student population, but as with all studies where people opt‐in to participation, some bias could be present.</p> <p>Although there are more similarities than differences in the findings of the Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref104">33</reflink>]) study and our study, the differences between the two studies show how difficult it is to generalize findings from one institutional context to another. Therefore, more (partial) replication studies that corroborate, provide nuance, or reject these findings in other contexts are needed.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>In this exploratory study, we adapted the survey instrument developed by Murphy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]) to gauge the value undergraduate students assigned to proficiency in LOTEs and their reasons for studying or not studying languages in a new context. Students' personal interests, including their enjoyment of learning language, hopes to travel, and interest in other cultures, all outweighed considerations of career plans or curricular motivations when it came to enrollment. In addition to their personal interests, demographic characteristics and background variables impacted the value students assigned to language learning. Also, the experiences that students have before enrollment in university language learning courses and the way language learning is promoted or embedded (e.g., stronger language requirements) within the institution matters. Therefore, whereas bottom‐up initiatives and advocacy at the level of the language programs and departments are a worthwhile endeavor, sending a clear message that language learning matters, establishing clear links between language learning for personal, study and career interests, and raising the bar for language learning at the institutional level might be even more important.</p> <hd id="AN0181569088-25">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://osf.io/g7t5a/.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting information</p> <ref id="AN0181569088-26"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> If you are interested in the results from the other regression analyses, please contact the first author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Standardized Betas (β) are directly comparable and can be interpreted as effect sizes: the bigger the absolute value, the more important the predictor. A positive β value indicates that the focus category places more value than the reference category, and a negative one indicates lower value.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181569088-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Akram, M., & Ghani, M. (2013). Gender and language learning motivation. Academic Research International, 4 (2), 536 – 540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, N. (2023). After uproar, WVU to keep some foreign language classes, but not all. Washington Post. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/29/west-virginia-university-cuts-foreign-languages/">www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/08/29/west-virginia-university-cuts-foreign-languages/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anya, U. (2011). Connecting with communities of learners and speakers: Integrative ideals, experiences, and motivations of successful black second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 44 (3), 441 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01142.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref72" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language learning, 50 (2), 311 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref73" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle, C. S., & Carpenter, A. Y. (2023). Leveraging school and university partnerships to provide accelerated English language arts instruction to gifted and high potential middle school learners. Gifted Child Today, 46 (3), 201 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231168440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chavez, M. (2010). Motivations to study and NOT to study German, French, Spanish, and Japanese: Reports by learners and non‐learners. Paper at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chavez, M. (2020). German in the marketplace of languages: Why students of German and of four other languages say that they and others might choose German. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 53 (2), 151 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref66" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Commission on Language Learning, The American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016). The state of languages in the US: A statistical portrait. https://<ulink href="http://www.amacad.org/publication/state-languages-us-statistical-portrait">www.amacad.org/publication/state-languages-us-statistical-portrait</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortés, K. H. (2002). Youth and the study of foreign language: An investigation of attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 35 (3), 320 – 332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01857.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devlin, K. (2015). Learning a foreign language a 'must' in Europe, not so in America. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/07/13/learning-a-foreign-language-a-must-in-europe-not-so-in-america/">www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/07/13/learning-a-foreign-language-a-must-in-europe-not-so-in-america/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diao, W., & Liu, H. Y. (2020). Starting college, quitting foreign language: The case of learners of Chinese language during secondary‐postsecondary transition. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20 (2), 75 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Ed.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9 – 11). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Rios‐Aguilar, C. (2016). The American freshman: Fifty‐year trends, 1966‐2015. Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, E. M. (2008). Defining and investigating monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2 (3), 311 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fritzsche, S., Giupponi, L., Heidrich Uebel, E., Kronenberg, F., Long, C. P., & Van Gorp, K. (2022). Languages as drivers of institutional diversity: The case of less commonly taught languages. The Language Educator, 2022, 45 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, K., Reynolds, R., & Deák, J. (2009). Who studies which language and why? A cross‐language survey of first‐year college‐level language learners. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 7, 1 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01020.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huensch, A., & Thompson, A. S. (2017). Contextualizing attitudes toward pronunciation: Foreign language learners in the United States. Foreign language Annals, 50 (2), 410 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang, X., Rollinson, J., Plonsky, L., Gustafson, E., & Pajak, B. (2021). Evaluating the reading and listening outcomes of beginning‐level Duolingo courses. Foreign Language Annals, 54 (4), 974 – 1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, E., & Wood, S. (2023). A look at 20 years of tuition growth at national universities. U.S. News. https://<ulink href="http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities">www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kondo‐Brown, K. (2013). Changes in affective profiles of postsecondary students in lower‐level foreign language classes. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 122 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanvers, U., Thompson, A. S., & East, M. (2021). Introduction: Is language learning in Anglophone countries in crisis? In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language learning in Anglophone countries: Challenges, practices, ways forward (pp. 1 – 15). Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loewen, S., Isbell, D. R., & Sporn, Z. (2020). The effectiveness of app‐based language instruction for developing receptive linguistic knowledge and oral communicative ability. Foreign Language Annals, 53 (2), 209 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12454</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. Modern Language Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599007.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lusin, N., Peterson, T., Sulewski, C., & Zafer, R. (2023). Enrollments in languages other than english in US institutions of higher education, Fall 2021. Modern Language Association of America. https://<ulink href="http://www.mla.org/content/download/191324/file/Enrollments-in-Languages-Other-Than-English-in-US-Institutions-of-Higher-Education-Fall-2021.pdf">www.mla.org/content/download/191324/file/Enrollments-in-Languages-Other-Than-English-in-US-Institutions-of-Higher-Education-Fall-2021.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language learning, 52, 537 – 564. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00194</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. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, Z. F., & Crowther, D. (2024). Foreign language learning in a specialized institution: Opportunities and challenges. Foreign Language Annals, 57, 48 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, J. L. (2012). Background and motivation of students studying a Native American language at the university level. International Journal of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education, 1, 27 – 49. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v1i0.26826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, D., Magnan, S., Back, M., & Garrett‐Rucks, P. (2009). Reasons students take courses in less commonly taught and more commonly taught languages. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 7, 45 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, D., Sarac, M., & Sedivy, S. (2022). Why U.S. undergraduate students are (not) studying languages other than English. Second Language Research and Practice, 3 (1), 1 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, J., & Gascoigne, C. (2006). Current perceptions and beliefs among incoming college students towards foreign language study and language requirements. Foreign Language Annals, 39 (3), 383 – 394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02895.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, L. P. (1992). Attitudes of entering university freshmen toward foreign language study: A descriptive analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 275 – 283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb06996.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, J. A. (2010). How do I satisfy the general education language requirement? University students' attitudes toward language study. Foreign Language Annals, 43 (3), 531 – 551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01096.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, A. S. (2017). Language learning motivation in the United States: An examination of language choice and multilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 101 (3), 483 – 500. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trejo, S. (2016). An econometric analysis of the major choice of first‐generation college students. The Developing Economist, 3 (1), 1 – 2. <ulink href="http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1407">http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1407</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Beyond global English: Motivation to learn languages in a multicultural world: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 101 (3), 451 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winke, P., Zhang, X., Rubio, F., Gass, S., Soneson, D., & Hacking, J. (2020). The proficiency profile of language students: Implications for programs. Second Language Research & Practice, 1 (1), 25 – 64. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69840">http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69840</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Koen Van Gorp; Emily Heidrich Uebel; Felix A. Kronenberg and Dianna Murphy</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1452827
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Important Is Studying Languages for Undergraduate Students and Why (Not) Study Languages?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koen+Van+Gorp%22">Koen Van Gorp</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Heidrich+Uebel%22">Emily Heidrich Uebel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8447-9703">0000-0002-8447-9703</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Felix+A%2E+Kronenberg%22">Felix A. Kronenberg</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dianna+Murphy%22">Dianna Murphy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9716-0032">0000-0001-9716-0032</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Foreign+Language+Annals%22"><i>Foreign Language Annals</i></searchLink>. 2024 57(4):900-920.
– 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: 2024
– 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="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</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="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Enrollment%22">Language Enrollment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Choice%22">Career Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Attitudes%22">Language Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/flan.12783
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0015-718X<br />1944-9720
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines the value undergraduate students (n = 4458) place on proficiency in languages other than English (LOTEs) in terms of their personal interests, major(s), and career plans. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses of large-scale survey data, the study further explores the reasons students outline for (not) enrolling in LOTE courses and what would motivate them to enroll in language courses in the future. Results indicate that students attached most value in relation to personal interests, followed by career plans and major. In addition, students' demographics and prior experience with language can also impact their future enrollment decisions. The results suggest that not only should institutions lead the way by emphasizing the importance of learning languages, but also that language programs need to listen to students' voices and help them establish clear links between their academic majors, their future career and study plans as well as their personal interests.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/g7t5a
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1452827
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1452827
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/flan.12783
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 900
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Enrollment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Choice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Important Is Studying Languages for Undergraduate Students and Why (Not) Study Languages?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koen Van Gorp
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Heidrich Uebel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Felix A. Kronenberg
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dianna Murphy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0015-718X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1944-9720
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Foreign Language Annals
              Type: main
ResultId 1