Tables

Table 2.I. Language & Culture enrolments in 2009 discriminated by level and commencing/continuing status

Table 2.II. Percentage of Late Starters in L&C and other ANU courses 2008–2010

Table 2.III. Percentage of Advanced Starters in L&C and other ANU courses 2008–2010

Table 2.IV. Semester Level Retention Rate—All ANU languages. Only students who enrolled in 2008 are considered. Enrolment measured in EFTSL

Table 2.V. Global Retention Rate and Semester Level Retention Rate—All ANU languages. Only students who enrolled in 2008 are considered. Enrolment measured in EFTSL

Table 2.VI. Languages taught at ANU in 2008, 2009 and 2010

Table 2.VII. Global Retention Rate for Languages and Sciences compared. Only students who enrolled in 2008 are considered

Table 2.VIII. Global Retention Rate for Languages and other groups of disciplines compared. Only students who enrolled in 2008 are considered

Table 2.IX. Semester Level Retention Rate for Languages and Sciences compared. Only students who enrolled in 2008 are considered

Table 2.X. Retention rates for students who report that they speak English at home. Only students who enrolled in 2008 considered—All ANU languages

Table 2.XI. Retention rates for students who report that they speak a LOTE at home. Only students who enrolled in 2008 considered—All ANU languages

Table 2.XII. Retention rates for female students. Only students who enrolled in 2008 considered—All ANU languages

Table 2.XIII. Retention rates for male students. Only students who enrolled in 2008 considered—All ANU languages

Table 2.XIV. Percentage of international students in each year and level—All ANU languages

Table 2.XV. Percentage of students who speak a LOTE at home in each year and level—All ANU languages

Table 3.I. Languages represented in the focus group discussions (two students were enrolled in more than one language)

Table 3.II. Response rate for the two pilot questionnaire surveys (includes some repeat entries: students enrolled in more than one language course were allowed to complete a survey for each language)

Table 3.III. Classification of students’ commitment to language study

Table 3.IV. Chi-square analysis of variables in Figure 3.1 according to two different groupings of students

Table 3.V. Response rate of individual languages discriminated by level—Full ANU study sample. Students enrolled in 2009

Table 3.VI. Reclassification of students’ commitment to language study—Full ANU study sample

Table 3.VII.a. Discriminant Function. Eigenvalues

Table 3.VII.b. Discriminant Function. Wilks’s Lambda

Table 3.VIII. Structure Matrix—Significant Variables—Full ANU study sample

Table 3.IX.a. Standardised Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients (ranked by Function 1)

Table 3.IX.b. Standardised Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients (ranked by Function 2)

Table 3.X. Classification Results for the Canonical Discriminant Functions

Table 5.I. Classification of students’ commitment to language study used to characterise the student groups