Zijlmans et al-2016

Lidy Zijlmans*, Anneke Neijt and Roeland van Hout

The role of second language in highereducation: A case study of German studentsat a Dutch university

DOI 10.1515/cercles-2016-0026

Abstract: This article reports on an investigation of the challenges and benefitsof university students taking a degree course in a language other than theirmother tongue. Our study was conducted from the point of view of the non-native students themselves, and our primary concern was the role of language.We investigated the academic achievement of German students studying in aDutch-English academic environment. Dutch is the main language of instruc-tion, and English the main language of the literature used. In search of pre-dictors for successful learning of Dutch (our first research question), LexTALEtests were administered to determine linguistic competence in the students’ firstlanguage, German, and their second language, English. In addition, we col-lected data on their educational background and language learning history.None of the LexTALE scores stood out as ‘the’ predictor for success in learningDutch; German was a slightly better predictor than English. The best predictorappeared to be the students’ general educational level, expressed in meangrades for final exams in secondary education. We then studied the role ofproficiency in the foreign languages needed for academic success. Languagedata on L3 Dutch were gathered at the start and were compared to study resultsafter the first six months and at the end of the first year. The level of Dutch as asecond language correlated with study results, expressed in ECTS; the correla-tion was even higher with mean grades on exams. This indicates that languageproficiency does play a role in study success.

Keywords: plurilingualism in higher education, academic language needs,study-abroad research

*Corresponding author: Lidy Zijlmans, Radboud in’to Languages, Centre for Language andCommunication at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected] Neijt: E-mail: [email protected], Roeland van Hout: E-mail: [email protected], Centerfor Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

CercleS 2016; 6(2): 473–493

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCSAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/18/16 8:50 PM

1 Introduction: Language level and study success

Internationalisation at universities has boomed over the past decade. Studyingabroad is generally assumed to be useful for academic training and for one’spersonal development. However, reports on study results show that the effects ofstudying abroad and globalisation in education are not unambiguously positive(Richters and Kolster 2012). As second language educators and researchers, we areinterested in understanding the role of language in explaining possible negativeeffects. Learning a new language may be an obstacle for non-native students,because they are required to master not only course content but also L2 skills(Kennedy and Trofimovich 2013). Many studies on the academic performance ofinternational students do not explicitly address the role of language in studysuccess. Little is known about the relationship between successful acquisition ofthe L2 in question and study performance. What are the language skills needed inhigher education (Meyer et al. 2012; Pitkänen et al. 2012)? We need to understandthe importance of the level of L2 proficiency required in order to improve or adaptL2 instruction prior to admission and to develop support programmes in the firstperiods of study (Pitkänen et al. 2012), to prevent dropout. Even the academic levelacquired in the L1 seems to play a decisive role in predicting study success. Astrong relationship is found between general L1 language skills at the beginning ofthe study and academic achievement at the end of the first year (Van der Westenand Wijsbroek 2011). De Wachter et al. (2013) conclude that L1 academic languageproficiency is not the only factor that influences academic success, but that itcertainly has its own separate contribution.

In 2013, 489 international students started a Bachelor's programme atRadboud University Nijmegen, a majority of 300 of them coming from Germany(Radboud University Nijmegen 2013). Whereas most international students enrolin programmes in which English is the medium of instruction (EMI programmes;Haines 2012), many German students enrol in programmes in which Dutch pre-dominates as the language of oral instruction. They want to study in theNetherlands for a number of reasons, geographical proximity being the mostobvious one. Additionally, in a pilot study for the project, psychology studentsoften explained that they would not have been admitted to universities in theirown country because of their relatively low grades (Haverkamp 2014). Students donot expect to meet any serious problems arising from their language proficiency.However, success for these students in their studies in the Netherlands is notachieved as easily as one might expect. Staff members at our university reporthigher dropout rates for German than for Dutch students. In 2013 fewer Germanstudents progressed into their second year (58% compared with 75% of Dutch

474 Lidy Zijlmans et al.



students) andmore German students thanDutch dropped out at an early stage (23%comparedwith 10%). In three universities in the border region, no overall figures onthe academic achievement of international students are available. Their annualreports for 2013 give only general dropout numbers for that year. Groningen 11.7%;and Maastricht 16.7%. Our university had a dropout rate of 12% (RijksuniversiteitGroningen 2013; Universiteit Maastricht 2013; Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen 2013).Before being admitted to our university, students are tested on their proficiency inDutch as a second language (hereafter DSL) at the B2 level of the Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001). They arerequired to pass examinations in at least three of the four language skills tested(reading, listening, writing and speaking). In the past few years, however, somefaculties increased their demands for DSL proficiency. This can be seen as anindicator that faculties consider ‘dropout’ to be caused by language problems.

1.1 Research questions

German students in the Netherlands are required to use two foreign languages.The language of instruction is predominantly Dutch; however, English is thelanguage most often used in textbooks and articles. Students can choose Englishfor their essays and examinations; therefore, an advanced level of proficiency inboth languages is required. This fact seems to be no obstacle to German studentschoosing to study at a Dutch university.

In this study, we primarily investigate the relation of DSL and ESL profi-ciency to academic success in terms of dropout. In doing so we also investigatewhether any data can predict successful DSL learning. Our main research ques-tion is as follows:– Is language proficiency (English and Dutch) a predictor of study success for

German students?

Embarking on university study requires successful learning of DSL, and wewanted to know more about factors predicting this learning success. An additionalquestion, therefore, was:– Which factors predict success for adult German students in acquiring DSL?

Can differences, although small, in native proficiency in German (L1), pre-vious foreign language learning experience (English), and previous schoolperformance predict successful learning of Dutch?

In undertaking the study, we were aware that many other factors play a rolein study success when studying abroad. We included information on previous

Role of second language in higher education 475



school performance in the country of origin in this study. Other factors appearedin the interviews of the pilot study. Students themselves mentioned personalfactors and choices, such as living and socialising with German peers only(Haverkamp 2014). Such factors have an impact on social integration and afeeling of well-being and thus influence study success, but may also influencefurther development in DSL. International students in previous studies alsoexperienced problems with academic integration and intercultural competence(Rienties et al. 2012). Their real or supposed language deficit might mean thatthey are not selected for group work or are given menial work, or are reluctant totake the floor in class discussion (Leki 2007, Haverkamp 2014). In the presentstudy, we concentrate on quantitative research; the language-related problemsthat students encounter during study activities will be the subject of a qualita-tive, case-oriented follow-up study.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Participants

The diversity within the group studied was small. It was a homogeneous group,with an equal duration of stay and exposure, who were learning the languagevia formal instruction. A total of 139 students attended an intensive course inDSL before taking their university language entrance test. This intensive courseaims to bring the students up to the B2 level of the CEFR in 23 days, with formalstudy of five to six hours per day. Level B2 is comparable to the InternationalEnglish Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 5.5 (Kuijper et al. 2004). Atotal of 132 students took the DSL test at the end of their intensive course.

Students had completed their primary and secondary education inGermany, and most of them had little or no previous knowledge of Dutch.Eight had taken DSL at school, and German was not the first language of sixstudents (for three it was Russian, for one Farsi, for one Turkish, and for onePolish). Students were between 18 and 21 years old at the time of the study;70% were female and 30% male.

2.2 Procedure

Language proficiency tests in combination with prior education are generally seenas good, even significant predictors for study results (DeWachter et al. 2013; Van derWesten andWijsbroek 2011). All students took theDSL test required for admission to




the university. In addition, students were invited to volunteer for this researchproject via a letter in German that explained the research goals and the effortrequired. They were requested to take extra language tests, to complete an onlinequestionnaire, and to provide access to their study results throughout the year.

2.3 Materials

Data on language proficiency and language biography in German, English andDutch, as well as study results during the first year, were collected from theGerman students who enrolled in the intensive course DSL. Language tests weretaken and a questionnaire was filled in at various times during the intensive DSLcourse (See Table 1).

2.3.1 The DSL Test

Normally, the DSL language skills of non-native students in higher education areformally assessed before admission via the State Examination for the DSLProgramme II.1 The examination is at the B2 (upper-intermediate) level of the

Table 1: Relevant data in the study: tests and numbers.

Category of students N Timing Specifics

intensive course Between and years

% female % malenot absolute beginners

late-native learners of German Russian, Farsi, Turkish, Polish

drop out intensive course

DSL test Week Paper based

LexTALES German and English Week On line

filling in the questionnaire Week On line

study results psychology artificial intelligence

study result biology

1 Constructed by the Centraal Instituut Toetsontwikkeling (Central Institute Test Development)and the Bureau Interculturele Evaluatie (Bureau of Intercultural Evaluation). There are twoexamination programs: Program I, at language level B1, required for work or study at vocationallevels 3 or 4; Program II, at language level B2, required for work or study at the level of college/university (https://www.hetcvte.nl/item/staatsexamens_nederlands_als).




CEFR (Council of Europe 2001; Commissie Staatsexamens NT2 2014). As the processof correcting the examinations and processing the results cannot be completedbetween the end of the intensive summer course and the start of the academic year,Radboud University Nijmegen decided to develop tests modelled on, and at thesame level as, the State Examination. Every year new tasks on the four subtests ofwriting and speaking, reading and listening of the DSL tests are developed by testconstructors at the Radboud University Language Center. The level and cut-offscore is evaluated internally and externally. In each subtest, an “anchor” isincorporated, a text plus an item set from a previous examination whose level ofdifficulty and statistical properties are known. The provisional versions are pre-tested on 30 students, who will take the state examination shortly after. Results areevaluated by reliability analyses and, when necessary, the tests are adjusted.

All texts and tasks in the subtests are a combination of subjects of generalinterest and academic tasks, for example, an oral or written report on research,based on statistical information, presented in text or in a figure. The writtensubtest consists of five tasks: students complete a letter, write short texts of50–75 words, and one longer text of 175–250 words. The test is paper-basedand the use of dictionaries is allowed.

The input for the speaking assessment is given visually and aurally; candidatesreceive instructionsviaheadphones, andare requested togiveoral responses that aredigitally recorded. The test consists of ten tasks in 15 minutes. The tasks relate topractical situations that students might encounter during their studies and beyond.The use of dictionaries is prohibited during the speaking assessment.

Examiners are trained on the rating criteria by the test constructors. Both thewritten and the oral tasks are evaluated on criteria such as content, comprehensive-ness, grammatical correctness, use of vocabulary, structure and consistency, andregister and conventions. The examiners do not evaluate the group of students thatthey have taught.

The multiple-choice reading comprehension subtest (100 min.) consists of 42items in three short passages (with an average of 765 words per passage) andtwo long texts (with an average of 2,156 words per text). The multiple-choicelistening comprehension subtest (lasting for 75 minutes inclusive of instructions)consists of 45 items in five similar short passages. The use of dictionaries isallowed during the reading test, but not during the listening test.

2.3.2 The German and English LexTALE tests

The tests for German and English were administered online in the first week ofthe intensive course; 103 students took the tests. The Lexical Test for Advanced




Learners of English (LexTALE) is a five-minute online vocabulary test consist-ing of 60 items, 40 words, and 20 non-words. Test takers must indicatewhether or not a string of letters represents an existing word in the language(http://www.lextale.com). The test developers, Lemhöfer and Broersma (2011),claim that the English version is a valid predictor of English vocabularyknowledge, and possibly even of general proficiency in English as a SecondLanguage (hereafter ESL).

The students were also asked to complete the German LexTALE for tworeasons. Firstly, we wanted them to get used to the procedure with instructionsand words from their native language. Secondly, we wanted to have a measureof their command of the L1. We hoped that this would tell us more aboutdifferences in our participants’ general language proficiency and languagesensitivity.

The English LexTALE was administered during the first week of the inten-sive course, so that it did not interfere with the process of learning Dutch. Therewere two reasons for getting our participants to take the English LexTALE. Thefirst was to find out about their proficiency in ESL as this is important whenstudying in the Netherlands. The second was to see if ESL proficiency can be apredictor for successful learning of DSL. Some researchers have pointed out thatexperienced language learners perform well when learning a new language(Wenzel 2012) and that being multilingual has an inherently positive effect onlearning more languages (Ringbom 2007). A growing number of studies target-ing L3 learning provide evidence for the role of both learners’ L1 and their L2 inlearning an L3 (Schepens et al. 2016). On the other hand, it can be argued thatknowledge of English will interfere with German learners of DSL. Activation ofL2 English is a phenomenon that is often observed in the early DSL productionof German learners (Wenzel 2012).

2.3.3 The questionnaire

In an online German language questionnaire, students were asked about theireducational and language learning history. The questionnaire was completed by87 students; 17 submitted anonymous responses, which meant that links couldnot be made to their results on the language tests. Questions were on mothertongue, knowledge of foreign languages, and subjects and grades of their finalschool examinations. We used Abitur grades in German and ESL as additionalmeasures of L1 and L2 proficiency. For each student we recorded reported gradeson all Abitur subjects and calculated a mean Abitur grade as a measure ofgeneral school performance.




2.3.4 Information on study performance

We requested the students’ permission to retrieve their study results from therelevant faculties. The majority of the German students enrolled for Psychologyand Artificial Intelligence courses. The next most popular areas of study wereBiology and Medical Biology. We were granted permission to view the results(ECTS and mean grades) of 22 students of Psychology and Artificial Intelligenceand 20 students of Biology/Medical Biology.

3 Results

The materials described above enabled us to determine the starting status ofGerman students in 2014, regarding language skills in three languages: L1German, L2 English (ESL) and L3 Dutch (DSL). We first evaluate the degree ofsuccess of the German students on DSL in paragraph 3.1.1, followed by aninvestigation of which variables predicted their success in DSL in paragraph3.1.2. In Paragraph 3.2, we correlate their study success after two terms and afterthe first year with their DSL success, and research if we could have successfullypredicted their study performance.

3.1 DSL and its predictors

3.1.1 Results on the DSL exam

Our participants had a relatively homogeneous learning background and wereall from the highest level of German secondary school; in DSL they all followedthe same learning program and spent the same amount of time practisingDutch. However, the results that they achieved in the DSL Test varied. Sevenstudents did not take the test at the end of the intensive course, and of theremaining students, 44 failed the Test at the first attempt and 88 passed.2 Afterthe examination re-sit, a total of 100 students passed.3 We consider the

2 A larger percentage was admitted to the university, partly because some faculties accept apass on three of the four subtests provided the fourth is just below the cut point (“twijfel”), andpartly because more students met the requirements after re-sitting the examination.3 In this paragraph, the results of the examination re-sit were not taken into account, since wedo not know what each individual student did in the time between the first and the secondexamination sittings. Therefore, results cannot be compared.




dropout rate to be high (39 students, 29.5%). On the other hand, a success rateof 70.5% students who passed all four DSL subtests may be considered to beextremely high, given that the students only had five weeks to learn Dutch toB2 level. Foreign students with different L1s are unlikely to achieve this(Schepens et al. 2016).

The results of the four subtests give a balanced outcome. An almost equalnumber of students passed the reading and listening comprehension tests, bothon receptive knowledge (see Table 2). Interestingly, more students passed thesubtests for writing and speaking Dutch. All four subtests correlate highly andsignificantly with the mean total score on the DSL test; reading has the highestcorrelation (r=0.810; p < 0.01). The differences between the correlations aremoderate, indicating that all subtests relate to DSL proficiency in general.

We noted a remarkable outcome concerning the six students who stated thatthey had acquired German either in a bilingual situation or at a later age, i. e.who were non-native or ‘late-native’ German speakers. All six late-natives failedthe DSL test, even though they had participated fully in German primary andsecondary education; learning Dutch to the B2 level in such a short timeappeared to be more difficult for this group (see figures on educational back-ground and results on the LexTALEs in the appendix, Table 7).

3.1.2 Results on LexTALE and Mean Abitur

The outcome of the LexTALE tests can be compared to the CEFR levels they areclaimed to measure (cf. Lemhöfer and Broersma 2011). Native speakers aresupposed to achieve scores at a C level. Nevertheless, 15.2% of the Germanstudents produced scores at the B2 level (see Table 3) for the German version ofthe Test; three of the eleven were late-native speakers. Factors other than

Table 2: Numbers of German students (2014) who passed on each of the subtests and thecorrelation between the mean score and the separate subtests.

Total N= Reading Listening Writing OralItems: Items: Items: Items: Pass: ≥ Pass: ≥ Pass: ≥ Pass: ≥

Passed N= N= N= N=

Correlation to mean result DSL ET .** .** .** .**

Note: *(p < 0.05) ** (p < 0.01).




language competence may have played a role, such as unfamiliarity with thetype of test, fatigue, or low test motivation.

Table 3 shows that the large majority of the German students performed at aB2 level on the English version of the Test: the minimum level needed to work inan academic environment. Although a few reached the C level, many (34.4%)had scores at B1 level or even lower. In our questionnaire we asked students torate their ESL proficiency. Around 90% of the students who answered thequestionnaire rated themselves (more than) sufficiently competent in ESL. Thiswas not confirmed by the results on the LexTALE English as an objectivemeasure.

The German LexTALE did predict success on the DSL test, but only to asmall degree (r=0.328; p < 0.01 (see Table 4)). We then looked at correlationsbetween the German LexTALE and each of the four language skills separately.The highest correlation was found for the reading comprehension test, namely0.351 (p < 0.01); we found lower correlations with results on listening compre-hension of 0.224 (p < 0.05), and no significant correlations for the two productiveskills, writing and speaking.

Correlation of the English LexTALE with the mean total score on the DSL test(Table 4) was 0.275 (p < 0.01), which is less than for the German LexTALE. It wasremarkable that the correlation between the English LexTALE and results onDSL listening comprehension was much better: 0.331 (p < 0.01). As for L1German, we found a correlation between the English LexTALE and the DSLreading comprehension test of 0.326 (p < 0.01).

As a possible predictor of DSL success, we also looked at students’ generaleducational level, their Abitur mean grades. As for the other predictors, wefound significant correlations with the results of the DSL test. The results are

Table 3: Relating German (L1) and English (L2) LexTALE scores to CEFR levels.

CEFR level CEFR description LexTALE scoreGerman N=

LexTALE scoreEnglish N=

Missing N= Missing N=

C & C Upper & lower advanced/proficient user%–%

.% .%

B Upper intermediate %–% .% ,%

B andlower

Lower intermediate and lower Below % — %

Source: Lemhöfer and Broersma (2011).




shown in Table 4. All three predictors, German and English LextTALE scores(N = 103) and the mean Abitur grades (N = 70) correlated significantly with over-all DSL. The mean Abitur grade was a slightly better predictor of successful DSLlearning than the German and English LexTALE tests. There was a correlationbetween the German and English LexTALE of 0.393 (p < 0.01), but not betweeneither of these and the mean Abitur.

3.2 Study success and its predictors

The majority of the German students at Radboud University Nijmegen enrol forPsychology or Artificial Intelligence (AI) courses; the second most populardiscipline is (Medical) Biology. We were given permission to access the studyresults of 22 students of Psychology and AI and 19 students of Biology after twoterms and after one year. In this section, we compare study results – ECTS andmean grades – with results of the DSL and ESL tests. Mean grades werecalculated only for examinations taken by the students; skipped examinationswere not taken into account.

The German students of Biology appeared to be the better students, after thefirst two terms and at the end of a year. The only Biology student to drop outafter two terms had achieved the maximum ECTS and had good grades, and wasaccepted to study Medicine. All four early (first two terms) Psychology studentdropouts failed to collect enough ECTS. After one year, 10 of the 19 Biologystudents had obtained the maximum of 60 ECTS (52.6%), compared to five ofthe 22 Psychology students (22.7%). If students obtain fewer than 39 ECTS in thefirst year, they cannot proceed to the second year; this is called a ‘negativebinding study advice’. Four of the 19 Biology students received a negative advice

Table 4: Correlations between predictors: L1 German, L2 English, mean Abitur mark, and resultson the DSL Test.

DSL TestMean

DSL TestReading

DSL TestListening

DSL TestWriting

DSL TestSpeaking

LexTALEGerman

.** .** .* .* .

LexTALEEnglish

.** .** .** . .

Abitur mean .** .* .* .* .*

Note: *(p < 0.05) ** (p < 0.01).




(21.1%), compared to eight of the 22 Psychology students (36.3%) (Table 5). Thisconfirms the concerns of university staff outlined in the introduction regardingPsychology students, but not for the Biology students.

Our participants reported mean Abitur grades between 1, ‘excellent’ (Nuffic2014) and 3.5, ‘satisfactory’. The average mean score was 2.3, ‘good’. Note thatadmission to German universities is limited to students with mean grades between1 and 2. Additionally, we calculated the mean Abitur grade for Psychology andBiology students separately. We found higher means for the Biology students (1.77)than for Psychology students (2.44). Thus, these students in our population mightnot have been admitted to many of the bachelor programmes in Germany.

We correlated the mean result of the DSL test with ECTS and mean grades afterthe first two terms, and at the end of the first year. We found a correlation of0.459 (p < 0.01) between the mean result of the DSL test and ECTS after the firsttwo terms, but after one year, the correlations decreased and were no longersignificant. The correlation between mean on the DSL test and mean gradeswas even stronger: 0.625 (p < 0.01), and was still significant after one year:0.502 (p < 0.01). These correlations imply that language is an important factordetermining success for the German students.

We then looked at the correlations with each of the subtests. The correla-tion between ECTS and the DSL reading test after the first two terms was 0.341(p < 0.05). There was no significant correlation with the listening subtest.Correlations for the productive skills were best: 0.469 (p < 0.01) for writingand r = 0.408 (p < 0.01) for speaking.

Abitur grade correlated with ECTS and mean grade after the first two termswith 0.441 and 0.412 (both p < 0.05) respectively. The correlations were less andnot statistically significant after one year (see Table 6).

Comparing study results with results on the LexTALE tests, we found no statis-tically significant correlations for English, nor for German, and ECTS (see Table 6).

Looking at individual cases, we found that four students who dropped outafter the first two terms scored in the lower area on the DSL test, with means ator below 75%; one student with a low mean on the DSL test recovered after a

Table 5: Study results German Psychology and Biology students after the first year.

Max ECTS () + ECTS Negative advice andEarly drop out

Psychology N= .% % .%

Biology N= .% .% .%




poor start in the first two terms and managed to obtain just enough ECTS to beallowed to proceed to the second year. One student with low scores on the DSLtest actually did well in his/her studies. But on the whole it seems that there is astrong chance that low scorers will not succeed. This does not imply that highscorers will always succeed. It can be argued that there are many other reasonsfor discontinuing a course or not being successful in one’s studies, but lowlanguage proficiency certainly does not help.

4 Discussion and conclusions

4.1 Predicting success on learning DSL

In our search of predictors of successful DSL learning, we collected information onthe past language abilities and educational background of the learners. Of the threepredictors, proficiency in L1, proficiency in ESL, andmean grade for Abitur, the latterwas the best predictor for DSL success. Scores on the German LexTALE correlatedslightly better with DSL results than scores on LexTALE English.

The fact that German and Dutch are linguistically closely related languagesgives German students a particularly privileged position when it comes to learningDutch compared to foreign students with a more distant L1 (Van der Slik 2010;Schepens 2015). It explains why two thirds of the German students aiming to study atthe Radboud University Nijmegen succeed in passing an L2 Dutch examination at B2level after five weeks of intensive language learning. Interestingly, several studieshave shown that learners may rely on their knowledge of distant languages, eventhough they are familiar with a language more closely related to the target language

Table 6: Correlations between the DSL test, the predictors and study success (ECTS and meangrades) after the first two terms and after the first year.

ECTS first twoterms

Mean grades first twoterms

ECTS oneyear

Mean grades oneyear

Mean DSLTest

.** .** . .**

LexTALEGerman

–. . –. .

LexTALEEnglish

–. –. –. –.

Abitur mean .* .* . .

Note: *(p < 0.05) ** (p < 0.01)




(De Angelis 2007). A case in point is the observation by DSL teachers that Germanlearners rely on knowledge of English in the earliest stages of learning Dutch(Wenzel 2012), but that these stages are transient and occur only temporarily. Arelevant point is that it is not clear why all L2 learners are not equally successful,even when they share linguistic and educational backgrounds, have the same ageand motivation, and have spent an equal amount of exposure and learning time(Hulstijn 2015).

In our search of predictors of successful DSL learning we collected informationon the past language experience of the learners. We used LexTALE to measureproficiency in L1 and the L2 (English). By distinguishing between the students’level of German, we hoped to be able to find a predictor of their success in learningDutch; and we included L2 English as well. Studies on L3 acquisition, in which L2 isdefined as “any language acquired after infancy and L3 is the language currentlybeing acquired”, provide evidence that prior L2s do play a role (Hammarberg 2001).Learners might benefit from foreign language awareness, by having developedlanguage learning strategies and metalinguistic strategies (Neuner-Anfindsen 2012,Wenzel 2012). Knowledge of other languages can help learners to infer and deduceunknown words (cognates/international words; Meyer et al. 2012); perception ofsimilarities between languages may have a facilitating effect on language learningand on comprehension processes in particular (Ringbom 2007). There was no controlgroup without L2 English, but perhaps higher proficiency levels in L2 English couldbe related to higher outcomes on DSL.

The results obtained showed that none of the LexTALE scores is an obviouspredictor of DSL success, the German LexTALE being a slightly better predictor foroverall DSL learning than the English LexTALE. This might confirm that L1 has astronger influence on L3 than L2, and that the proximity of German to Dutch makeslearning Dutch easier for speakers of German. A remarkable outcome in that respectis that all six late-native speakers of German failed the DSL test. Their results on thetwo LexTALE tests (see Table 7 in the appendix) show that their scores for Germanwere lower than the means of the whole group; the results on the English LexTALEwere not high either, but less strikingly different from those of the native Germanstudents. Learning Dutch to level B2 in only five weeks seems to be more difficult forthese students. It seems that the late-native students profit less from their knowledgeof German in the process of learning Dutch. The results of late-native Germanstudents on the DSL test showed no advantage from being multilingual or anexperienced learner of other languages. More data are needed to check if this out-come is a coincidence or that being a full native speaker is a prerequisite to profitfully from the small linguistic distance between German and Dutch.

LexTALE scores for both German and English predict reading comprehen-sion best. This might be due to the fact that LexTALE is primarily a vocabulary




recognition test, and good results reflect extensive vocabulary knowledge inboth source languages. There are many similarities between Dutch, German, andEnglish in the lexical field (Wenzel 2012); therefore it is likely that students usecognates from L1 and L2 and deductive strategies when reading L3. It is less easyto infer why LexTALE English is a better predictor for listening comprehension.

ESL also plays a role in students’ competence in writing Dutch. The Abiturgrades for English correlate with the writing subtest, 0.378 (p < 0.01), whereas theAbitur grades for German do not (0.228, not significant). It could be anticipated thatwriting Dutch would be easy for Germans, as Dutch has a less complex morpholo-gical structure than German (Schepens 2015), and a fairly comparable sentencestructure; Germans tend to write longer and more complex sentences, whereas itmay suffice to write shorter and less complex sentences in Dutch. However, thesedifferences in discourse conventions seem to be a stumbling block at times. It is oftenmentioned by teaching staff that those students who tend to copywriting habits fromGerman to Dutch score less on the writing test because their sentences de-rail easilyand are judged to be less comprehensible. In a pilot study students indicated that itwas difficult for them to write about theoretical and academic issues in a compactand simple way, as is demanded by Dutch academic staff and which is in contrastwith the more long-winded German style (Haverkamp 2014).

Our findings have shown that the benefit of L1 German as a transferlanguage when learning L3 Dutch is not as obvious as one might think. It isan interesting thought that transfer might differ across language skills. In ourpopulation, students seem to use both German and English as a source whenreading, but they seem to rely more on L2 English for listening and writing. Thisfinding raises the idea of differentiation when teaching the various skills,instead of teaching all skills in the same way.

As a possible predictor for DSL success, we also looked at previous schoolperformance expressed as the mean grade for the Abitur, which is not limited tolanguage education. It is based on grades for all possible combinations ofsubjects, but one of them is always a language. It therefore gives us informationon general previous school performance. Our results show that, of the threepredictors – proficiency in L1, proficiency in ESL, and mean grade for Abitur –the mean grade for Abitur is the best predictor of DSL success.

4.2 Predicting study success

An important aim was to determine the role of DSL in the study success of ourstudents. We found that language proficiency does play a role, albeit in amodest way.




As discussed in the introduction, there is a greater dropout rate amongstGerman than amongst Dutch students. Of all German students that started in2014, 36% did not finish the first year. In our sample of 41 students, there wasa dropout rate of 30%. These are high figures and it is easy to assume thatlanguage plays an important role. The first threshold that 19.5% could notcross was the DSL course and test. Once they embark upon their studies, non-native students must master not only course content but the necessary L2 skillsas well (Kennedy and Trofimovich 2013). They must master and deal with DSLutterances, spoken and written, containing low-frequency lexical items oruncommon morphosyntactic structures (Hulstijn 2015). German studentslearn DSL up to B2 level. They have completed the highest form of secondaryeducation in their home country and thus possess L1 academic language skills.Can they transfer these skills to DSL? Cummins believes this to be the case andhas argued that the development of literacy-related skills in L2 is partly afunction of literacy-related skills in L1 (Cummins [1991], cited in Hulstijn[2015]). Hulstijn (2015: 132) reviews research on the interdependence of L1and L2 literacy and concludes that “reading and writing in one language canbenefit from reading and writing in another language”. A certain threshold ofL2 knowledge must be attained, though it should be noted that “it is impos-sible to define a single knowledge threshold for comprehension of all L2 texts”(Hulstijn 2015: 132).

The results of the DSL test did correlate with ECTS in the first two terms,and the correlation was even higher with mean grades. Here language couldplay an important role; the higher correlation may be an effect of betterlanguage proficiency. Whether a student passes exams with a minimal or ahigh score makes no difference for the ECTS, but better language use inwritten or oral exams and in written assignments and oral presentationsmay influence the teaching staff when evaluating and grading. Students canturn to the Academic Writing Centre (ASN) of Radboud University Nijmegenwhen they need help in writing essays and theses. ASN reports that manyGerman students make use of this facility; this is an indication that Germanstudents experience difficulties writing ‘academic Dutch’ (Haverkamp 2014).Correlations decreased after one year, so good proficiency in Dutch asreflected by results of the DSL test gets students off to a good start. Duringthe year, their proficiency in DSL – and possibly academic DSL – should haveincreased.

The absence of correlation between proficiency in ESL and study results canbe explained in two ways. Firstly, English was only required for reading, andstudents can take as much time as they want or need; secondly, their readingskills in ESL should develop over time.




5 Summary and further research

Our study was prompted by the alarming dropout figures for German students in2013. Figures for 2014 appeared to follow the same pattern (see Figure 1).

As can be expected, general education plays a role, but we also found correlationsbetweendropout, ECTS, andmean grades on the one hand and proficiency inDSLonthe other. Apart fromDSL, proficiency in ESL also plays a role for German students inouruniversity, but no correlationwas found between study results andESL (Table 6).

Internationalisation in higher education seems to lead to new forms ofmultilingualism. Students learn a new language for the purpose of functioningin an academic environment and not, or not only, for their daily use. Thatpresupposes “higher language cognition” (HLC, cf. Hulstijn [2015]; see alsoCummins [1991], who put forward the concept of communicative academiclanguage proficiency, CALP). It is not at all clear how L2 tutorials and coursesshould be adapted to achieve the necessary HLC in the L2, and to what extent an“L2er” can acquire the same HLC as an “L1er” with roughly the same profile(Dutch students at a Dutch university) in as short a time as five weeks. Couldinput and training focus more or exclusively on this, in particular for Germanstudents, whose L1 is so near to the target language Dutch?

5.1 Further research

We want to dig deeper into L2 issues for international students. In a follow-upproject we aim to investigate the level of ‘academic literacy’ required in DSL forforeign students. In the present study we gathered quantitative data on languageproficiency and study success. As in other, related studies (Van Houtsven et al.2012, Meyer et al. 2012; Spack 1997), we believe that a deeper insight into thematter can be obtained via a mixed-methods approach. The next step is, there-fore, to gather and analyse qualitative data: written assignments, and interviews

0

20

40

60

80

2013 2014

Dutch positive

Germans positive

Germans dropout

Dutch dropout

Figure 1: Percentage of students with a positive advice after one year and dropout students:German vs. Dutch students in 2013–2014 at Radboud University Nijmegen.




with students and teaching staff. The interviews may reveal other importantfactors underlying success when studying abroad, such as academic and socialintegration and intercultural competence (Rienties et al. 2012), but also howthese factors interact with language. An example given by an interviewee inthe pilot study mentioned earlier is that German students tend to stick togetherand continue to live in Germany; this tendency does not seem particularlyhelpful when it comes to the acquisition of Dutch or integration in a Dutchuniversity. The suggestion is that dropouts are to be found particularly amongstthese students (Haverkamp 2014).

5.2 Pedagogical implications

We want to further analyse students’ academic literacy needs and decomposethem in order to build general support but also to develop tailor-made pro-grammes. One can think of more ‘Language for Specific Purposes’, differentia-tion in language courses to meet the needs of specific groups of students, andtraining in intercultural communication for all stakeholders. The linguisticadmission requirement must also be scrutinised, and one could argue thatdifferent levels are required for different skills.

International students begin in hope and many, but not all, end in success.There is an obligation for institutions that want to attract international studentsto make internationalisation a success for as many as possible.

References

Commissie Staatsexamens NT2. 2014. Staatsexamens NT2 en de referentieniveaus Taal [‘StateExaminations DSL and the language reference levels’]. https://www.hetcvte.nl/item/overige_publicaties (accessed 21 July 2016).

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Angelis, Gessica. 2007. Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

De Wachter, Lieve, Jordi Heeren, Steven Marx & Steven Huyghe. 2013. Taal: noodzakelijke, maarniet enige voorwaarde tot studiesucces. Correlatie tussen resultaten van een taalvaar-digheidstoets en slaagcijfers bij eerstejaarsstudenten aan de KU Leuven [‘Language:Necessary but not the only condition for study success Correlation between results of alanguage proficiency test and pass rates for first year students at the KU Leuven’]. LevendeTalen Tijdschrift 14(4). 28–36.

Haines, Kevin. 2012. “Stories from No-Man’s Land?” Situated language learning through theuse of role models in the context of international higher education. Apples – Journal ofApplied Language Studies 6(1). 1–22.




Hammarberg, Björn. 2001. Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In Jasone Cenoz,Britta Hufeisen & Ulrike Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acqui-sition: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 21–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Haverkamp, Bram. 2014. Studeren in een taalvreemde omgeving. Een onderzoek naar Duitsestudenten aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen [‘Studying in a foreign language envir-onment. An investigation of German students at Radboud University Nijmegen’]. Nijmegen:Radboud Universiteit, MA thesis.

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2015. Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory andresearch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kennedy, Sara & Pavel Trofimovich. 2013. First- and final-semester non-native students in anEnglish-medium university: Judgments of their speech by university peers. LanguageLearning in Higher Education 3(2). 283–303.

Kuijper, Henk, Aukje Bergsma & Timo Bechger. 2004. Staatsexamen NT2. Het gewensteniveau Deel 1 Behoeftepeiling Programma II [‘State exam Dutch as a second language.The desired level. Part 1 Needs investigation Programm II’]. http://www.cito.nl/onderzoekenwetenschap/achtergrondinformatie/nederlands_als_tweede_taal l (accessed 26 May 2016).

Leki, Ilona. 2007. Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities ofacademic literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lemhöfer, Kristin & Mirjam Broersma. 2011. Introducing Lex TALE: A quick and valid lexical testfor advanced learners of English. http://www.lextale.com (accessed 22 May 2014).

Meyer, Stephan, Petra Gekeler, Sebastian Manger & Daniela Urank. 2012. Plurilingualism, mul-tilingualism and internationalisation in the European higher education area: Challenges andperspectives at a Swiss University. Language Learning in Higher Education 2(2). 405–425.

Neuner-Anfindsen, Stefanie. 2012. Advanced learners of German as a foreign language in anacademic context: Some didactic implications of their needs and motivations. LanguageLearning in Higher Education 2(2). 353–370.

Nuffic. 2014: Cijfervergelijking Examencijfers [‘Comparison of examination results’]. Den Haag:Nuffic Afdeling onderwijsvergelijking.

Pitkänen, Kari K., Roy Sidall & Tuula Lehtonen. 2012. The linguistic landscape in English-medium Master’s programmes at the University of Helsinki: Students’ perceptionson the use of English and plurilingualism. Language Learning in Higher Education2(2). 427–440.

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. 2013. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Jaarverslag 2013[‘Radboud University annual report 2013’]. http://www.ru.nl/over-ons/overradboud/feitencijfers/jaarverslagen/ (accessed 13 July 2016).

Richters, Eric & Renze Kolster. 2012. Internationalisering in beeld [‘Internationalization pic-tured’]. Den Haag: Nuffic.

Rienties, Bart, Simon Beausaert, Therese Grohnert, Susan Niemantsverdriet & Piet Kommers.2012. Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity,academic and social integration. High Education 63. 685. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9468–1

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. 2013. Jaarverslag 2013 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen [‘Annual report2013 University of Groningen]. http://www.rug.nl/about-us/where-do-we-stand/facts-and-figures/annual-reports/ (accessed 15 July 2016).

Ringbom, Hakan. 2007. Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Schepens, Job. 2015. Bridging linguistic gaps: The effects of linguistic distance on the adultlearnability of Dutch as an additional language. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 383.




Schepens, Job, Frans van der Slik & Roeland van Hout. 2016. L1 and L2 distance effects inlearning L3 Dutch. Language Learning 66(1). 224–256.

Spack, Ruth. 1997. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinalcase study. Written Communication 14(1). 3–62.

Universiteit Maastricht. 2013. Jaarverslag 2013 Universiteit Maastricht [‘Annual report 2013University of Maastricht’]. http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/sites/default/files/jaarverslag_2013.pdf (accessed 15 July 2016)

Van der Westen, Wilma & Domien Wijsbroek. 2011. Slecht in taal, slecht in studie? Resultatenvan een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen taalvaardigheid en studiesucces [‘Not good atlanguage, not good at study? Results of a study of the relationship between languageproficiency and academic success’]. Vijfentwintigste Conferentie van het SchoolvakNederlands 25. 118–122.

Van Houtsven, Tine, Elke Peters & Kris Van den Branden. 2012. Analyzing student teachers’academic literacy needs: A qualitative analysis of Flemish first-year teacher trainees’needs. Language Learning in Higher Education 2(2). 267–292.

Van der Slik, Frans W.P. 2010. Acquisition of Dutch as a Second Language: The explanativepower of cognate and genetic linguistic distance measures for 11 West European firstlanguages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 401–432.

Wenzel, Veronika. 2012. Meertaligheid: Nederlands na Duits en Engels [‘Multilingualism: Dutchafter German and English’]. Internationale Neerlandistiek 50(May). 100–125.

Appendix

Table 7: Language biographies and results on LexTALE Germanand English, and on DSL-tests of late-native speakers ofGerman, compared to mean results of the whole group.

L Age LGerman

MeanAbitur

LexTALEGerman

LexTALEEnglish

DSLMean

Overallmeans

. . . .

Russian . .

Farsi . . , .

Russian . , .

Russian . .

Polish . x x .

Turkish . , .

Note: *Shaded cells: scores lower than the overall means.




Bionotes

Lidy Zijlmans

Lidy Zijlmans is senior lecturer for Dutch as a Second Language at Radboud in'to Languages,the Language Centre of the Radboud University Nijmegen. She has developed teaching toolsand published text books for DSL. Currently she is doing research on the role of secondlanguage in Higher Education. She is presenting the results of this research at the 2016CercleS conference.

Anneke Neijt

Anneke Neijt is professor emeritus of Dutch linguistics at the Radboud University Nijmegen. Shehas published on Dutch syntax, phonology, morphology and orthography, and she was formerlypresident of the Association for Written Language and Literacy. Together with the other authorsof this article she developed a course on Dutch as a second language for the Master’s inLinguistics in Nijmegen.

Roeland van Hout

Roeland van Hout is professor of applied linguistics and variation linguistics at the RadboudUniversity Nijmegen. He is the author of several monographs (e. g. with Rietveld on statistics inlanguage studies) and editor of volumes on language variation, language attitude research andsecond language acquisition.




Zijlmans et al-2016

Documents

Transcript of Zijlmans et al-2016