Abstract:This study compared anxiety profiles of classroom and distance language learners, and compared anxiety levels between first-semester and more experienced students in both learning environments. Participants were 186 French-speaking learners of English or Spanish, who were tested in Canada in 2006. They were tested for general foreign language anxiety, for second language (L2) reading anxiety, and for L2 writing anxiety. Results show no significant differences in anxiety profiles between classroom and distance learners, and higher anxiety among first-semester distance learners. However, in the case of classroom learners, our data contradict earlier research by indicating similar levels of anxiety between first-semester and more experienced students. Results are discussed in light of the changing profile of distance learners and the school system where participants were tested.

This study compares the relative effectiveness of reading and writing sentences for the incidental acquisition of new vocabulary in a second language. It also examines if recall varies according to the concreteness of target words. Participants were 203 French-speaking intermediate and advanced English as second language (ESL) learners, tested for incidental acquisition of 16 rare concrete, or abstract L2 words. Immediate and delayed cued recall was used to assess acquisition. Results from immediate recall show superior recall for writing tasks over reading tasks, and for concrete words over abstract words. However, delayed recall scores suggest that this superiority disappears over time.Given its implications for teaching, a subject that has sparked interest is the comparative effectiveness of reading 1 and writing in the acquisition and retention of words in a second language (L2). Opinions differ regarding which individual activity is more likely to promote the retention of a new word by the learner: Is it reading a word in context or writing that word in a sentence? Unlike reading, which offers external input, writing is a language generating task, thus it does not allow for encountering new words. Therefore, the question of the relative efficiency of reading versus writing must be addressed regarding new words recently encountered by-or presented to-the L2 learner.

(1980) hypothesized that effective interlingual transfer of reading skills requires the attainment of some particular threshold of second language (L2) knowledge. Results from a study by Hacquebord (1989) suggested that the interlingual transfer of reading skills also requires active reading of the first language (L1). Results from a longitudinal study carried out over a 1-year period with 52 Bosnians learning French as a L2 supported Clarke's hypothesis but were only partially in accord with Hacquebord's. Significant correlations between L1 and L2 reading performance for the subgroup of nonactive L1 readers suggested that failure to maintain L1 reading did not prevent the transfer of reading skills. However, the greater improvement in L2 reading ability by the active L1 readers than by the nonactive L1 readers suggested that maintaining L1 reading enhances the transfer of reading skills. IN 1984, ALDERSON LAUNCHED A DEBATEas to whether problems in foreign language reading stem from reading problems or language problems. He suggested that methodological shortcomings of previous studies were responsible for results that pointed in both directions and stressed the need for further studies to clarify the situation. Since Alderson's article appeared, at least 10 studies have examined the relative influence of first language (L1) reading ability and second language (L2) knowledge on L2 reading ability. In 1995, Bernhardt and Kamil reevaluated previously published data, which contributed to a resolution of Alderson's question. They concluded that the five studies that explicitly addressed the question (Bossers, 1991;Brisbois, 1995;Carrell, 1991;Hacquebord, 1989;Roller, 1988) pointed to the dominance of the L1 reading variable but that the range of estimates was too broad to allow for firm conclusions.Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) also presented new data from 186 English speakers reading English and Spanish. In their data, language proficiency accounted significantly for over 30% of the variance in L2 reading scores, whereas L1 reading FRANÇOIS PICHETTE