Zijlmans et al-2016

Lidy Zijlmans*, Anneke Neijt and Roeland van Hout
The role of second language in higher
education: A case study of German students
at a Dutch university
DOI 10.1515/cercles-2016-0026
Abstract: This article reports on an investigation of the challenges and benefits
of university students taking a degree course in a language other than their
mother 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 a
Dutch-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), LexTALE
tests were administered to determine linguistic competence in the students’ first
language, 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 learning
Dutch; German was a slightly better predictor than English. The best predictor
appeared to be the students’ general educational level, expressed in mean
grades for final exams in secondary education. We then studied the role of
proficiency in the foreign languages needed for academic success. Language
data on L3 Dutch were gathered at the start and were compared to study results
after the first six months and at the end of the first year. The level of Dutch as a
second language correlated with study results, expressed in ECTS; the correla-
tion was even higher with mean grades on exams. This indicates that language
proficiency 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 and
Communication at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, E-mail: l.zijlmans@let.ru.nl
Anneke Neijt: E-mail: a.neijt@let.ru.nl, Roeland van Hout: E-mail: r.vanhout@let.ru.nl, Center
for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
CercleS 2016; 6(2): 473–493
Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS
Authenticated
Download Date | 10/18/16 8:50 PM

1 Introduction: Language level and study success
Internationalisation at universities has boomed over the past decade. Studying
abroad is generally assumed to be useful for academic training and for one’s
personal development. However, reports on study results show that the effects of
studying abroad and globalisation in education are not unambiguously positive
(Richters and Kolster 2012). As second language educators and researchers, we are
interested in understanding the role of language in explaining possible negative
effects. 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 of
international students do not explicitly address the role of language in study
success. Little is known about the relationship between successful acquisition of
the L2 in question and study performance. What are the language skills needed in
higher education (Meyer et al. 2012; Pitkänen et al. 2012)? We need to understand
the importance of the level of L2 proficiency required in order to improve or adapt
L2 instruction prior to admission and to develop support programmes in the first
periods of study (Pitkänen et al. 2012), to prevent dropout. Even the academic level
acquired in the L1 seems to play a decisive role in predicting study success. A
strong relationship is found between general L1 language skills at the beginning of
the study and academic achievement at the end of the first year (Van der Westen
and Wijsbroek 2011). De Wachter et al. (2013) conclude that L1 academic language
proficiency is not the only factor that influences academic success, but that it
certainly has its own separate contribution.
In 2013, 489 international students started a Bachelor's programme at
Radboud University Nijmegen, a majority of 300 of them coming from Germany
(Radboud University Nijmegen 2013). Whereas most international students enrol
in 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 the
Netherlands for a number of reasons, geographical proximity being the most
obvious one. Additionally, in a pilot study for the project, psychology students
often explained that they would not have been admitted to universities in their
own country because of their relatively low grades (Haverkamp 2014). Students do
not expect to meet any serious problems arising from their language proficiency.
However, success for these students in their studies in the Netherlands is not
achieved as easily as one might expect. Staff members at our university report
higher dropout rates for German than for Dutch students. In 2013 fewer German
students progressed into their second year (58 % compared with 75% of Dutch
474 Lidy Zijlmans et al.
Authenticated

students) and more German students than Dutch dropped out at an early stage (23 %
compared with 10%). In three universities in the border region, no overall figures on
the academic achievement of international students are available. Their annual
reports 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% (Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen 2013; Universiteit Maastricht 2013; Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen 2013).
Before being admitted to our university, students are tested on their proficiency in
Dutch as a second language (hereafter DSL) at the B2 level of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001). They are
required to pass examinations in at least three of the four language skills tested
(reading, listening, writing and speaking). In the past few years, however, some
faculties increased their demands for DSL proficiency. This can be seen as an
indicator 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 the
language most often used in textbooks and articles. Students can choose English
for their essays and examinations; therefore, an advanced level of proficiency in
both languages is required. This fact seems to be no obstacle to German students
choosing 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 investigate
whether 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 we
wanted to know more about factors predicting this learning success. An additional
question, 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 school
performance predict successful learning of Dutch?
In undertaking the study, we were aware that many other factors play a role
in study success when studying abroad. We included information on previous
Role of second language in higher education 475
Authenticated

school performance in the country of origin in this study. Other factors appeared
in the interviews of the pilot study. Students themselves mentioned personal
factors and choices, such as living and socialising with German peers only
(Haverkamp 2014). Such factors have an impact on social integration and a
feeling of well-being and thus influence study success, but may also influence
further development in DSL. International students in previous studies also
experienced problems with academic integration and intercultural competence
(Rienties et al. 2012). Their real or supposed language deficit might mean that
they are not selected for group work or are given menial work, or are reluctant to
take the floor in class discussion (Leki 2007, Haverkamp 2014). In the present
study, we concentrate on quantitative research; the language-related problems
that 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 language
via formal instruction. A total of 139 students attended an intensive course in
DSL before taking their university language entrance test. This intensive course
aims to bring the students up to the B2 level of the CEFR in 23 days, with formal
study of five to six hours per day. Level B2 is comparable to the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 5.5 (Kuijper et al. 2004). A
total of 132 students took the DSL test at the end of their intensive course.
Students had completed their primary and secondary education in
Germany, 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 six
students (for three it was Russian, for one Farsi, for one Turkish, and for one
Polish). 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 seen
as good, even significant predictors for study results (De Wachter et al. 2013; Van der
Westen and Wijsbroek 2011). All students took the DSL test required for admission to
Authenticated

the university. In addition, students were invited to volunteer for this research
project via a letter in German that explained the research goals and the effort
required. They were requested to take extra language tests, to complete an online
questionnaire, and to provide access to their study results throughout the year.
2.3 Materials
Data on language proficiency and language biography in German, English and
Dutch, as well as study results during the first year, were collected from the
German students who enrolled in the intensive course DSL. Language tests were
taken and a questionnaire was filled in at various times during the intensive DSL
course (See Table 1).
2.3.1 The DSL Test
Normally, the DSL language skills of non-native students in higher education are
formally assessed before admission via the State Examination for the DSL
Programme 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  % male
not 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 two
examination programs: Program I, at language level B1, required for work or study at vocational
levels 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).
Authenticated

CEFR (Council of Europe 2001; Commissie Staatsexamens NT2 2014). As the process
of correcting the examinations and processing the results cannot be completed
between 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 the
same level as, the State Examination. Every year new tasks on the four subtests of
writing and speaking, reading and listening of the DSL tests are developed by test
constructors at the Radboud University Language Center. The level and cut-off
score is evaluated internally and externally. In each subtest, an “anchor” is
incorporated, a text plus an item set from a previous examination whose level of
difficulty and statistical properties are known. The provisional versions are pre-
tested on 30 students, who will take the state examination shortly after. Results are
evaluated by reliability analyses and, when necessary, the tests are adjusted.
All texts and tasks in the subtests are a combination of subjects of general
interest and academic tasks, for example, an oral or written report on research,
based on statistical information, presented in text or in a figure. The written
subtest consists of five tasks: students complete a letter, write short texts of
50–75 words, and one longer text of 175–250 words. The test is paper-based
and the use of dictionaries is allowed.
The input for the speaking assessment is given visually and aurally; candidates
receiveinstructionsviaheadphones, andarerequestedtogiveoral responsesthat are
digitally recorded. The test consists of ten tasks in 15 minutes. The tasks relate to
practical 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 the
written and the oral tasks are evaluated on criteria such as content, comprehensive-
ness, grammatical correctness, use of vocabulary, structure and consistency, and
register and conventions. The examiners do not evaluate the group of students that
they have taught.
The multiple-choice reading comprehension subtest (100 min.) consists of 42
items in three short passages (with an average of 765 words per passage) and
two long texts (with an average of 2,156 words per text). The multiple-choice
listening comprehension subtest (lasting for 75 minutes inclusive of instructions)
consists of 45 items in five similar short passages. The use of dictionaries is
allowed 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 of
the intensive course; 103 students took the tests. The Lexical Test for Advanced
Authenticated

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 indicate
whether 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 vocabulary
knowledge, and possibly even of general proficiency in English as a Second
Language (hereafter ESL).
The students were also asked to complete the German LexTALE for two
reasons. Firstly, we wanted them to get used to the procedure with instructions
and words from their native language. Secondly, we wanted to have a measure
of their command of the L1. We hoped that this would tell us more about
differences in our participants’ general language proficiency and language
sensitivity.
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. There
were two reasons for getting our participants to take the English LexTALE. The
first was to find out about their proficiency in ESL as this is important when
studying in the Netherlands. The second was to see if ESL proficiency can be a
predictor for successful learning of DSL. Some researchers have pointed out that
experienced language learners perform well when learning a new language
(Wenzel 2012) and that being multilingual has an inherently positive effect on
learning 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 in
learning an L3 (Schepens et al. 2016). On the other hand, it can be argued that
knowledge of English will interfere with German learners of DSL. Activation of
L2 English is a phenomenon that is often observed in the early DSL production
of German learners (Wenzel 2012).
2.3.3 The questionnaire
In an online German language questionnaire, students were asked about their
educational and language learning history. The questionnaire was completed by
87 students; 17 submitted anonymous responses, which meant that links could
not be made to their results on the language tests. Questions were on mother
tongue, knowledge of foreign languages, and subjects and grades of their final
school examinations. We used Abitur grades in German and ESL as additional
measures of L1 and L2 proficiency. For each student we recorded reported grades
on all Abitur subjects and calculated a mean Abitur grade as a measure of
general school performance.
Authenticated

2.3.4 Information on study performance
We requested the students’ permission to retrieve their study results from the
relevant faculties. The majority of the German students enrolled for Psychology
and Artificial Intelligence courses. The next most popular areas of study were
Biology and Medical Biology. We were granted permission to view the results
(ECTS and mean grades) of 22 students of Psychology and Artificial Intelligence
and 20 students of Biology/Medical Biology.
3 Results
The materials described above enabled us to determine the starting status of
German students in 2014, regarding language skills in three languages: L1
German, L2 English (ESL) and L3 Dutch (DSL). We first evaluate the degree of
success of the German students on DSL in paragraph 3.1.1, followed by an
investigation of which variables predicted their success in DSL in paragraph
3.1.2. In Paragraph 3.2, we correlate their study success after two terms and after
the first year with their DSL success, and research if we could have successfully
predicted 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 were
all from the highest level of German secondary school; in DSL they all followed
the same learning program and spent the same amount of time practising
Dutch. However, the results that they achieved in the DSL Test varied. Seven
students did not take the test at the end of the intensive course, and of the
remaining students, 44 failed the Test at the first attempt and 88 passed.2
After
the 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 a
pass on three of the four subtests provided the fourth is just below the cut point (“twijfel”), and
partly 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 we
do not know what each individual student did in the time between the first and the second
examination sittings. Therefore, results cannot be compared.
Authenticated

dropout rate to be high (39 students, 29.5 %). On the other hand, a success rate
of 70.5 % students who passed all four DSL subtests may be considered to be
extremely high, given that the students only had five weeks to learn Dutch to
B2 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 equal
number of students passed the reading and listening comprehension tests, both
on receptive knowledge (see Table 2). Interestingly, more students passed the
subtests for writing and speaking Dutch. All four subtests correlate highly and
significantly with the mean total score on the DSL test; reading has the highest
correlation (r = 0.810; p < 0.01). The differences between the correlations are
moderate, indicating that all subtests relate to DSL proficiency in general.
We noted a remarkable outcome concerning the six students who stated that
they 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 failed
the DSL test, even though they had participated fully in German primary and
secondary education; learning Dutch to the B2 level in such a short time
appeared 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 are
claimed to measure (cf. Lemhöfer and Broersma 2011). Native speakers are
supposed to achieve scores at a C level. Nevertheless, 15.2 % of the German
students produced scores at the B2 level (see Table 3) for the German version of
the 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 the
correlation between the mean score and the separate subtests.
Total N =  Reading Listening Writing Oral
Items:  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).
Authenticated

language competence may have played a role, such as unfamiliarity with the
type of test, fatigue, or low test motivation.
Table 3 shows that the large majority of the German students performed at a
B2 level on the English version of the Test: the minimum level needed to work in
an 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 to
rate their ESL proficiency. Around 90 % of the students who answered the
questionnaire rated themselves (more than) sufficiently competent in ESL. This
was not confirmed by the results on the LexTALE English as an objective
measure.
The German LexTALE did predict success on the DSL test, but only to a
small degree (r = 0.328; p < 0.01 (see Table 4)). We then looked at correlations
between the German LexTALE and each of the four language skills separately.
The highest correlation was found for the reading comprehension test, namely
0.351 (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 productive
skills, 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 was
remarkable that the correlation between the English LexTALE and results on
DSL listening comprehension was much better: 0.331 (p < 0.01). As for L1
German, we found a correlation between the English LexTALE and the DSL
reading comprehension test of 0.326 (p < 0.01).
As a possible predictor of DSL success, we also looked at students’ general
educational level, their Abitur mean grades. As for the other predictors, we
found 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 score
German N = 
LexTALE score
English N = 
Missing N =  Missing N = 
C & C Upper & lower advanced/proficient user
 %– %
. % . %
B Upper intermediate  %– % . % , %
B and
lower
Lower intermediate and lower Below  % —  %
Source: Lemhöfer and Broersma (2011).
Authenticated

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 DSL
learning than the German and English LexTALE tests. There was a correlation
between the German and English LexTALE of 0.393 (p < 0.01), but not between
either of these and the mean Abitur.
3.2 Study success and its predictors
The majority of the German students at Radboud University Nijmegen enrol for
Psychology or Artificial Intelligence (AI) courses; the second most popular
discipline is (Medical) Biology. We were given permission to access the study
results of 22 students of Psychology and AI and 19 students of Biology after two
terms and after one year. In this section, we compare study results – ECTS and
mean grades – with results of the DSL and ESL tests. Mean grades were
calculated only for examinations taken by the students; skipped examinations
were not taken into account.
The German students of Biology appeared to be the better students, after the
first two terms and at the end of a year. The only Biology student to drop out
after two terms had achieved the maximum ECTS and had good grades, and was
accepted to study Medicine. All four early (first two terms) Psychology student
dropouts failed to collect enough ECTS. After one year, 10 of the 19 Biology
students had obtained the maximum of 60 ECTS (52.6 %), compared to five of
the 22 Psychology students (22.7 %). If students obtain fewer than 39 ECTS in the
first year, they cannot proceed to the second year; this is called a ‘negative
binding 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 results
on the DSL Test.
DSL Test
Mean
DSL Test
Reading
DSL Test
Listening
DSL Test
Writing
DSL Test
Speaking
LexTALE
German
.** .** .* .* .
LexTALE
English
.** .** .** . .
Abitur mean .** .* .* .* .*
Note: *(p < 0.05) ** (p < 0.01).
Authenticated

(21.1 %), compared to eight of the 22 Psychology students (36.3 %) (Table 5). This
confirms the concerns of university staff outlined in the introduction regarding
Psychology students, but not for the Biology students.
Our participants reported mean Abitur grades between 1, ‘excellent’ (Nuffic
2014) and 3.5, ‘satisfactory’. The average mean score was 2.3, ‘good’. Note that
admission to German universities is limited to students with mean grades between
1 and 2. Additionally, we calculated the mean Abitur grade for Psychology and
Biology students separately. We found higher means for the Biology students (1.77)
than for Psychology students (2.44). Thus, these students in our population might
not 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 after
the first two terms, and at the end of the first year. We found a correlation of
0.459 (p < 0.01) between the mean result of the DSL test and ECTS after the first
two terms, but after one year, the correlations decreased and were no longer
significant. The correlation between mean on the DSL test and mean grades
was 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 factor
determining 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 writing
and r = 0.408 (p < 0.01) for speaking.
Abitur grade correlated with ECTS and mean grade after the first two terms
with 0.441 and 0.412 (both p < 0.05) respectively. The correlations were less and
not 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 out
after the first two terms scored in the lower area on the DSL test, with means at
or 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 and
Early drop out
Psychology N =  . %  % . %
Biology N =  . % . % . %
Authenticated

poor start in the first two terms and managed to obtain just enough ECTS to be
allowed to proceed to the second year. One student with low scores on the DSL
test actually did well in his/her studies. But on the whole it seems that there is a
strong chance that low scorers will not succeed. This does not imply that high
scorers will always succeed. It can be argued that there are many other reasons
for discontinuing a course or not being successful in one’s studies, but low
language 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 on
the past language abilities and educational background of the learners. Of the three
predictors, proficiency in L1, proficiency in ESL, and mean grade for Abitur, the latter
was the best predictor for DSL success. Scores on the German LexTALE correlated
slightly better with DSL results than scores on LexTALE English.
The fact that German and Dutch are linguistically closely related languages
gives German students a particularly privileged position when it comes to learning
Dutch 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 at
the Radboud University Nijmegen succeed in passing an L2 Dutch examination at B2
level after five weeks of intensive language learning. Interestingly, several studies
have shown that learners may rely on their knowledge of distant languages, even
though 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 mean
grades) after the first two terms and after the first year.
ECTS first two
terms
Mean grades first two
terms
ECTS one
year
Mean grades one
year
Mean DSL
Test
.** .** . .**
LexTALE
German
–. . –. .
LexTALE
English
–. –. –. –.
Abitur mean .* .* . .
Note: *(p < 0.05) ** (p < 0.01)
Authenticated

(De Angelis 2007). A case in point is the observation by DSL teachers that German
learners rely on knowledge of English in the earliest stages of learning Dutch
(Wenzel 2012), but that these stages are transient and occur only temporarily. A
relevant 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 age
and 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 information
on the past language experience of the learners. We used LexTALE to measure
proficiency 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 learning
Dutch; and we included L2 English as well. Studies on L3 acquisition, in which L2 is
defined as “any language acquired after infancy and L3 is the language currently
being acquired”, provide evidence that prior L2s do play a role (Hammarberg 2001).
Learners might benefit from foreign language awareness, by having developed
language learning strategies and metalinguistic strategies (Neuner-Anfindsen 2012,
Wenzel 2012). Knowledge of other languages can help learners to infer and deduce
unknown words (cognates/international words; Meyer et al. 2012); perception of
similarities between languages may have a facilitating effect on language learning
and on comprehension processes in particular (Ringbom 2007). There was no control
group without L2 English, but perhaps higher proficiency levels in L2 English could
be related to higher outcomes on DSL.
The results obtained showed that none of the LexTALE scores is an obvious
predictor of DSL success, the German LexTALE being a slightly better predictor for
overall DSL learning than the English LexTALE. This might confirm that L1 has a
stronger influence on L3 than L2, and that the proximity of German to Dutch makes
learning Dutch easier for speakers of German. A remarkable outcome in that respect
is that all six late-native speakers of German failed the DSL test. Their results on the
two LexTALE tests (see Table 7 in the appendix) show that their scores for German
were lower than the means of the whole group; the results on the English LexTALE
were not high either, but less strikingly different from those of the native German
students. Learning Dutch to level B2 in only five weeks seems to be more difficult for
these students. It seems that the late-native students profit less from their knowledge
of German in the process of learning Dutch. The results of late-native German
students on the DSL test showed no advantage from being multilingual or an
experienced 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 profit
fully 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
Authenticated

recognition test, and good results reflect extensive vocabulary knowledge in
both source languages. There are many similarities between Dutch, German, and
English in the lexical field (Wenzel 2012); therefore it is likely that students use
cognates from L1 and L2 and deductive strategies when reading L3. It is less easy
to infer why LexTALE English is a better predictor for listening comprehension.
ESL also plays a role in students’ competence in writing Dutch. The Abitur
grades for English correlate with the writing subtest, 0.378 (p < 0.01), whereas the
Abitur grades for German do not (0.228, not significant). It could be anticipated that
writing Dutch would be easy for Germans, as Dutch has a less complex morpholo-
gical structure than German (Schepens 2015), and a fairly comparable sentence
structure; Germans tend to write longer and more complex sentences, whereas it
may suffice to write shorter and less complex sentences in Dutch. However, these
differences in discourse conventions seem to be a stumbling block at times. It is often
mentioned by teaching staff that those students who tend to copy writing habits from
German to Dutch score less on the writing test because their sentences de-rail easily
and are judged to be less comprehensible. In a pilot study students indicated that it
was difficult for them to write about theoretical and academic issues in a compact
and simple way, as is demanded by Dutch academic staff and which is in contrast
with the more long-winded German style (Haverkamp 2014).
Our findings have shown that the benefit of L1 German as a transfer
language when learning L3 Dutch is not as obvious as one might think. It is
an interesting thought that transfer might differ across language skills. In our
population, students seem to use both German and English as a source when
reading, but they seem to rely more on L2 English for listening and writing. This
finding 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 school
performance expressed as the mean grade for the Abitur, which is not limited to
language education. It is based on grades for all possible combinations of
subjects, but one of them is always a language. It therefore gives us information
on general previous school performance. Our results show that, of the three
predictors – 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 our
students. We found that language proficiency does play a role, albeit in a
modest way.
Authenticated

As discussed in the introduction, there is a greater dropout rate amongst
German than amongst Dutch students. Of all German students that started in
2014, 36 % did not finish the first year. In our sample of 41 students, there was
a dropout rate of 30 %. These are high figures and it is easy to assume that
language plays an important role. The first threshold that 19.5 % could not
cross 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 skills
as well (Kennedy and Trofimovich 2013). They must master and deal with DSL
utterances, spoken and written, containing low-frequency lexical items or
uncommon morphosyntactic structures (Hulstijn 2015). German students
learn DSL up to B2 level. They have completed the highest form of secondary
education 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 and
has argued that the development of literacy-related skills in L2 is partly a
function of literacy-related skills in L1 (Cummins [1991], cited in Hulstijn
[2015]). Hulstijn (2015: 132) reviews research on the interdependence of L1
and L2 literacy and concludes that “reading and writing in one language can
benefit from reading and writing in another language”. A certain threshold of
L2 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 could
play an important role; the higher correlation may be an effect of better
language proficiency. Whether a student passes exams with a minimal or a
high score makes no difference for the ECTS, but better language use in
written or oral exams and in written assignments and oral presentations
may influence the teaching staff when evaluating and grading. Students can
turn to the Academic Writing Centre (ASN) of Radboud University Nijmegen
when they need help in writing essays and theses. ASN reports that many
German students make use of this facility; this is an indication that German
students experience difficulties writing ‘academic Dutch’ (Haverkamp 2014).
Correlations decreased after one year, so good proficiency in Dutch as
reflected by results of the DSL test gets students off to a good start. During
the year, their proficiency in DSL – and possibly academic DSL – should have
increased.
The absence of correlation between proficiency in ESL and study results can
be explained in two ways. Firstly, English was only required for reading, and
students can take as much time as they want or need; secondly, their reading
skills in ESL should develop over time.
Authenticated

5 Summary and further research
Our study was prompted by the alarming dropout figures for German students in
2013. 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 correlations
between dropout, ECTS, and mean grades on the one hand and proficiency in DSL on
the other. Apart from DSL, proficiency in ESL also plays a role for German students in
our university, but no correlation was found between study results and ESL (Table 6).
Internationalisation in higher education seems to lead to new forms of
multilingualism. Students learn a new language for the purpose of functioning
in an academic environment and not, or not only, for their daily use. That
presupposes “higher language cognition” (HLC, cf. Hulstijn [2015]; see also
Cummins [1991], who put forward the concept of communicative academic
language proficiency, CALP). It is not at all clear how L2 tutorials and courses
should 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. Could
input and training focus more or exclusively on this, in particular for German
students, 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-up
project we aim to investigate the level of ‘academic literacy’ required in DSL for
foreign students. In the present study we gathered quantitative data on language
proficiency 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 the
matter 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.
Authenticated

with students and teaching staff. The interviews may reveal other important
factors underlying success when studying abroad, such as academic and social
integration and intercultural competence (Rienties et al. 2012), but also how
these factors interact with language. An example given by an interviewee in
the pilot study mentioned earlier is that German students tend to stick together
and continue to live in Germany; this tendency does not seem particularly
helpful when it comes to the acquisition of Dutch or integration in a Dutch
university. The suggestion is that dropouts are to be found particularly amongst
these students (Haverkamp 2014).
5.2 Pedagogical implications
We want to further analyse students’ academic literacy needs and decompose
them 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, and
training in intercultural communication for all stakeholders. The linguistic
admission requirement must also be scrutinised, and one could argue that
different 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 students
to make internationalisation a success for as many as possible.
References
Commissie Staatsexamens NT2. 2014. Staatsexamens NT2 en de referentieniveaus Taal [‘State
Examinations DSL and the language reference levels’]. https://www.hetcvte.nl/item/over
ige_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: Multilingual
Matters.
De Wachter, Lieve, Jordi Heeren, Steven Marx & Steven Huyghe. 2013. Taal: noodzakelijke, maar
niet 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 a
language proficiency test and pass rates for first year students at the KU Leuven’]. Levende
Talen Tijdschrift 14(4). 28–36.
Haines, Kevin. 2012. “Stories from No-Man’s Land?” Situated language learning through the
use of role models in the context of international higher education. Apples – Journal of
Applied Language Studies 6(1). 1–22.
Authenticated

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 Duitse
studenten 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 and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kennedy, Sara & Pavel Trofimovich. 2013. First- and final-semester non-native students in an
English-medium university: Judgments of their speech by university peers. Language
Learning in Higher Education 3(2). 283–303.
Kuijper, Henk, Aukje Bergsma & Timo Bechger. 2004. Staatsexamen NT2. Het gewenste
niveau 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/onderzoeken
wetenschap/achtergrondinformatie/nederlands_als_tweede_taal l (accessed 26 May 2016).
Leki, Ilona. 2007. Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of
academic literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lemhöfer, Kristin & Mirjam Broersma. 2011. Introducing Lex TALE: A quick and valid lexical test
for 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 and
perspectives 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 an
academic context: Some didactic implications of their needs and motivations. Language
Learning 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’ perceptions
on the use of English and plurilingualism. Language Learning in Higher Education
2(2). 427–440.
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. 2013. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Jaarverslag 2013
[‘Radboud University annual report 2013’]. http://www.ru.nl/over-ons/overradboud/feiten
cijfers/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 report
2013 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 adult
learnability of Dutch as an additional language. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 383.
Authenticated

Schepens, Job, Frans van der Slik & Roeland van Hout. 2016. L1 and L2 distance effects in
learning L3 Dutch. Language Learning 66(1). 224–256.
Spack, Ruth. 1997. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal
case study. Written Communication 14(1). 3–62.
Universiteit Maastricht. 2013. Jaarverslag 2013 Universiteit Maastricht [‘Annual report 2013
University of Maastricht’]. http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/sites/default/files/jaarver
slag_2013.pdf (accessed 15 July 2016)
Van der Westen, Wilma & Domien Wijsbroek. 2011. Slecht in taal, slecht in studie? Resultaten
van een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen taalvaardigheid en studiesucces [‘Not good at
language, not good at study? Results of a study of the relationship between language
proficiency and academic success’]. Vijfentwintigste Conferentie van het Schoolvak
Nederlands 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 explanative
power of cognate and genetic linguistic distance measures for 11 West European first
languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32. 401–432.
Wenzel, Veronika. 2012. Meertaligheid: Nederlands na Duits en Engels [‘Multilingualism: Dutch
after German and English’]. Internationale Neerlandistiek 50(May). 100–125.
Appendix
Table 7: Language biographies and results on LexTALE German
and English, and on DSL-tests of late-native speakers of
German, compared to mean results of the whole group.
L Age L
German
Mean
Abitur
LexTALE
German
LexTALE
English
DSL
Mean
Overall
means
. . . .
Russian   .  .
Farsi  . . , .
Russian   . , .
Russian  . .  
Polish  . x x .
Turkish  .  , .
Note: *Shaded cells: scores lower than the overall means.
Authenticated

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 tools
and published text books for DSL. Currently she is doing research on the role of second
language in Higher Education. She is presenting the results of this research at the 2016
CercleS conference.
Anneke Neijt
Anneke Neijt is professor emeritus of Dutch linguistics at the Radboud University Nijmegen. She
has published on Dutch syntax, phonology, morphology and orthography, and she was formerly
president of the Association for Written Language and Literacy. Together with the other authors
of this article she developed a course on Dutch as a second language for the Master’s in
Linguistics in Nijmegen.
Roeland van Hout
Roeland van Hout is professor of applied linguistics and variation linguistics at the Radboud
University Nijmegen. He is the author of several monographs (e. g. with Rietveld on statistics in
language studies) and editor of volumes on language variation, language attitude research and
second language acquisition.
Authenticated

Zijlmans et al-2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Zijlmans et al-2016

Similar to Zijlmans et al-2016 (20)

Zijlmans et al-2016