Mixed
Methods Study of Student Perceptions
of
a Study Abroad’s Impact on Their
L2 Oral Proficiency and Interculturalism
Angela
Arbogast
University
of Nebraska
Abstract
Despite the political and
social unrest of our global society, and the ever-present threats of terrorism,
recent studies (detailed within this paper) have shown that students are
bravely leaving the comforts and “security” of home and are studying abroad in
ever-increasing numbers. In consideration of this significant trend and the
fact that there is still much to learn about the nuances of these
cross-cultural sojourns, this mixed methods paper serves as a humble addition
to the growing body of research analyzing the efficacy of study abroad
experiences in the quest for interculturalism and second language oral proficiency
(referred to here as L2-OP). More particularly, it also examines the question
of whether or not a homestay (HS) is a crucial part of the package. To this
end, the author has conducted a December 2014 study of 15 alumni of an
organization called the Latin American Studies Program (LASP), through which
each former student spent one semester in Costa Rica within the past 25 years
studying the Spanish language and Latin American culture, politics, and social
issues. Future studies should continue exploring the plethora of variables
which affect study abroad programs and seek to provide further constructive
recommendations for program directors, educators, host country coordinators,
host family supervisors, etc.
Introduction
I have nothing but good things to say about
LASP [Latin American Studies Program]. Its greatest strength was the
intensity...it was not a tourist study abroad. It was academically and
spiritually vigorous. It was at times hard but worth it. Cultural
immersion, academic readings and discussions, and various home stays were all
excellent. [LASP] broadened my worldview, deepened my perspective of myself and
my faith, and developed my Spanish and cultural competency. (Quote
from participant)
According to the Open Doors report published last
month on Nov. 17, 2014, by the Institute of International Education, Inc.,
study abroad by American students has more than doubled in the past 15 years,
from about 130,000 students in 1998/99” to “289,408 American students [who]
studied abroad for academic credit…in the 2012/13 academic year” (Witherell, S.
& Clayton, E., 2014, para. 1). The natural academic response to this growth
has been a proportionate increase in research studies exploring every
conceivable facet of studying abroad. Experiments are being conducted, for
example, to attempt to determine the importance of the length of the sojourn
(e.g. summer vs. semester vs. year-long), the living arrangements (e.g. host
family vs. dorm room), the amount of classroom time, the amount of interaction
with locals, the specifics of second language acquisition (L2), the support
level of program directors, the amount of orientation and debriefing, and the
contrast between student expectations and actual outcomes.
Yet, the
consensus of each of these studies seems to be that they have only just begun
to scratch the surface of the exploration needed in order to truly effect
positives changes for maximum output.
This seems prudent, considering the amount of time and money invested in
these travels, both corporately and individually. The idea is that if we are
going to send off thousands of students to face the unknown and not be
available to this country as the valuable collective resource that they are,
then every attempt should be made to maximize those opportunities, both for
their sake and for the sake of the country as a whole.
Some of the long-held beliefs regarding
the study abroad (SA) learning environment would seem to be unquestionable—such
as the linguistic benefits of interacting with native speakers of the target
language. Giving credence to that conclusion, Regan (1998) provided a sizable
overview of the early literature, citing several studies which reported that
for SA students, two important factors for attaining sociolinguistic competence
are the learning context and the amount and quality of contact and feedback
from native speakers (p. 69 & 74). “Issues of fluency, of native speaker
norms, dialects, context and style shifting, knowledge of variation in the
target language and use of formulaic phrases may all be among the aspects which
appear to form part of what is perceived as the improvement after the stay
abroad. These are important issues in the perception of non-natives by natives”
(p. 77). That is to say, when students are more accepted by “natives” due to
these communicative strategies, the result is more L2 input & acquisition.
Yet, as Regan (1998) reported from the
results of an even earlier study, the degree of linguistic benefit might not
homogenous across all levels of L2 learners, as “activities and interaction of a
social or oral nature seem to benefit students at the lower level of
proficiency, while students at upper levels appear to profit from involvement
with a variety of media that provides extended discourse in reading and
listening” (p. 66). This is an important finding which should be further
explored, as it would serve to inform the pedagogical strategies of World
Language teachers. Likewise, a more current researcher by the name of Victor
Savicki (2011) deduced some teaching strategies from his quantitative
assessment of the L2 proficiency of 32 American university students studying
Spanish in Argentina for three months. He found that higher proficiency enabled
students to talk about themselves more but was positively related to having a
more difficult time understanding local politics and seeing the local point of
view. Savicki felt this suggested a need for greater focus on cultural understanding
in US high school L2 courses.
Then, other studies focus their attention
directly on teachers themselves. One recent study by Allen (2010) examined “the
impact of study abroad on the professional lives of World Language teachers”
(p. 1). Employing a qualitative survey, she analyzed the L2 proficiency gains
of 30 American teachers of French after a 3-week SA in France. The sample
included 26 females and 4 males from 18 different states and a variety of
different ages and ethnic backgrounds. Participants lived with French
families, studied at a local college under local professors, and engaged in
field trips to enhance their cultural exposure—all while speaking nothing but
French, according to a pledge that they signed before embarking on their SA.
Four months post-SA, 87% of the participants answered a follow up survey via
email. All
four of the perceptions of the teachers that Allen was hoping to examine
revealed themselves in the data. She found that the teachers did, in fact, perceive
that the study abroad experience had improved their language proficiency,
increased their cultural knowledge, enhanced their instruction of their
students (especially by providing a veritable arsenal of cultural artifacts and
anecdotes), and had further developed their professional lives outside of the
classroom. (p. 98-102).
Likewise, Lupi and Turner (2013) studied the “sustainability
of pedagogical skills and personal growth” (p. 46) in University of North
Florida alumni in the five years following a year-long teaching experience in
the U.K. The research team administered a survey to 28 participants anywhere
from a year to five years after their graduation. The interns had each written
a “reflection paper” two weeks after their teaching abroad experience. In this
mixed methods study, quantitative analyses were extracted from these papers,
measuring their levels of “cultural awareness shifts, pedagogy and growth in
global and international awareness” (p. 49). These data were tabulated and
integrated with the responses to 4 open-ended questions in order to derive the
findings.
Of the 28 participants, only one indicated that her professional
practices as a teacher had not been very much impacted by the teaching abroad
experience. For the rest, the consensus was that the experience had profoundly
impacted them as teachers. One participant effused that teaching abroad is “an
amazing and transformational learning experience that can only be achieved by
being immersed in a foreign environment and gaining experience through working
in a diverse environment out of one’s comfort zone” (Lupi & Turner, 2013,
p. 51). As their own cultural sensitivity and global awareness increased, the
teachers were better prepared to teach in a multicultural classroom. Furthermore,
the data showed that the longer the participants had been out of school, the
more they valued their internship in England (p. 51).
While these and other similar studies focus on SA sojourns
for teachers, some of the literature focuses on the
virtues of study abroad (SA) vs. homeland immersion programs (IM), such as the
Middlebury Language School in Vermont. For example, by analyzing the
differences in vocabulary gains of 56 English speakers studying Japanese in 3
different L2 learning contexts, Dewey (2007-2008) found SA and IM to be
comparable to each other and consistently superior to the standard academic
year (AY) setting in American college classrooms. Of the 56 students (evenly
split between genders), 20 studied in Tokyo for 11 weeks, 14 studied at
Middlebury for 9 weeks (abiding by a strictly-nothing-but-Japanese language
pledge), and 22 studied in various American colleges for 13 weeks. Three
different vocabulary growth measures were used and three different ANCOVAs were
conducted. Writing showed the greatest positive correlation to vocabulary
gains, followed by conversation time—with greater gains from talking with
friends vs. the host family in the SA context (an important point for the
purposes of this study). The greatest inverse correlation in vocabulary gains
was in the category of Internet usage, which seems to further highlight the
importance of social interaction. Dewey recommended that program administrators
work to facilitate relationships in the SA context. Dewey also suggested a
future study that would “compare the linguistic impact of AY learning in terms
of number of classroom hours rather than length of study to assess the value of
massed versus distributed learning (p. 139).
While other studies similarly show this
type of across-the-board superiority of SA over AY contexts, some are not as
unilateral. Segalowitz, Freed, Collentine, Lafford, Lazar and Diaz-Campos
(2004) studied 46 English speakers (36 female, 10 male) who had taken at least
two semesters of Spanish classes and did not speak Spanish in the home. The SA
group consisted of 26 students, mostly from the University of Colorado,
studying for one semester at the Universidad de Alicante in Spain, with Spanish
classes for 17 hours/week; the remaining 20 students studied Spanish at an
American university.
Using the Language Contact Profile, the
Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), a pronunciation test, an evaluation of oral
fluency, an evaluation of communicative strategies, the SAT II Spanish Test, a
computer-based word recognition test, and a computer-based attention-focusing
test, Segalowitz et al. found that the oral proficiency, oral fluency, and
narrative discourse of the SA students improved much more than that of the AY
students. They also could use more “lexically dense” words and maintain a
conversation better than the AY group. However, their pronunciation did not
prove to be superior to that of the AH students, and the AH students actually
outperformed them in several grammatical skills (p. 13-14).
Furthermore,
for the SA group, Segalowitz et al. (2004) were surprised to find that “gains
in speed of attention control...correlated negatively with the reported amount
of contact with the home stay family,” which the research team suggested could
possibly mean that “conversations in the home stay context tended to be brief
and formulaic (restricted to greetings, simple chitchat, etc.)” (p. 14). Again,
this question—the efficacy of the home stay—is one that will be further
explored in this study. They also emphasized the need for qualitative studies
to explore whether learning contexts other than the SA would better suit the
needs of some learners (p. 15)—an idea which will be briefly entertained here
as well.
If this growing body of research were represented by a
pie chart, the current study would be a mere sliver. Yet, each small
contribution will gradually shed greater light on the topic at hand. Thus, the
purpose of this particular study is to provide some additional voices in the
form of personal reflections submitted by 15 alumni of a study abroad
organization called the Latin American Studies Program (LASP). One
controversial issue which arose from the literature was the question of the
benefits vs. the drawbacks of a “home stay” (or “homestay”), in which the SA
student lives with a local host family in the foreign country rather than in a
dorm with other Americans. By eliciting reactions from the participants via
questionnaire, as well as through additional interactions with the author, this
study endeavors to further explore the desirability of a home stay, not only in
terms of linguistic output but also from a cultural and even emotional
standpoint.
Not
surprisingly, the conventional wisdom through the years has suggested that a
homestay (HS) is the “optimal context to foster language gains due to the
opportunities for target language input it affords” (Di Silvio, Donovan &
Malone, 2014, p. 168)—an idea which was challenged by that research team. They conducted
a quantitative study from 2011-2012 involving 152 students who participated in
homestays during their semester abroad to learn either Spanish, Chinese, or
Russian. What they discovered was that the degree of language acquisition was
positively correlated to the student’s perception of and relationship with the
host family and that this factor varied widely from one cultural setting to
another. For example,
Only a single learner of Spanish disagreed that the host
family helped improve his or her language skills, while 12% of learners of
Mandarin and 8% of learners of Russian disagreed or strongly disagreed with
this statement….However, despite
varying feeling toward their host families, nearly all students would recommend
living with a host family to other students studying abroad. (p. 174-175)
In harmony with the long
history of glowing reports regarding home stays, Diao, Freed and Smith (2011)
found in their mixed methods assessment of 70 American students studying in
France for one semester that HS placements were positively correlated with
linguistic acquisition and cultural awareness. However, their study showed
that, if the host family failed to interact with the student on a regular basis
and left the student feeling like an outsider, he or she was far less likely to
meet L2 acquisition goals or develop a healthy cultural awareness (p. 127-128).
Wilkinson (1998) focused more on the nature of the immersion
context rather than on student outcomes in her qualitative study of seven SA
students in France (plus a more in-depth case study of two of them) and found
that SA quality is affected by amount of time abroad, quality of SA
administration, support network, pre-SA orientation, housing situation, &
amount of difference between host culture and student culture. L2 acquisition
is affected by gender, age, personality, pre-SA language proficiency, and
knowledge of other foreign languages. However, she found that students were
most significantly affected by their own perceptions of the SA compared to
their expectations.
This scenario of met and unmet expectations affecting L2
acquisition was quite apparent in Wilkinson’s two case study subjects—two
female American undergraduate students. The participant whose home stay
paralleled her expectations decided to change her major to French and returned
to France for a full school year. The one who was disillusioned with her HS
decided to shorten her SA from eight weeks to four weeks and talked about
dropping her French minor. The satisfied student began the SA already an
ethnorelativist and improved her French significantly, while the disillusioned
student remained ethnocentric and did not gain much L2 proficiency.
Likewise, in a qualitative analysis of 19 Japanese high
school students’ perceptions of their school-year SA in Canada, Crealock,
Derwing and Gibson (1999) determined that an insufficient amount of student
orientation, a lack of monitoring of the students’ progress and well-being, and
an overall lack of evaluation of the programs were three of the most serious
problems which affected the SA experience. Perhaps some of these pitfalls could
be avoided by heeding the advice of Jackson (2011), who suggested that, in
preparation for home stays, pre-trip orientations should “stimulate discussion
on the roles and responsibilities of hosts and ‘guests’, as well as creative
and constructive ways to enhance host-sojourner communication” (p. 183).
In light of these suggestions, the study at hand looks at
the retrospective perceptions of 15 SA students from across the years in hopes
of providing some constructive feedback to the staff of their particular SA
program, and also with the ultimate goal of serving to inspire the staff and
administration of many other similar programs as they work tirelessly to
facilitate amazing, life-changing experiences for the young adults of our
nation.
Methods
Participants
Of the 20-30 LASP alumni who had
seen a notice posted by the author on the LASP Facebook page two months before
the study was conducted and had clicked “Like” to express a possible interest
in participating, only 18 received the personal message with the questionnaire
attached in December. (Since these students are not “Facebook friends” of the
author, all messages to them are automatically sent to the “Other messages”
inbox, which does not generate notifications. Therefore, many of them did not
see the message in time.) However, 15 of those 18 former students who did
receive the message were able to complete the questionnaire in a timely manner.
Therefore, the study could be considered to have an 83% participation rate.
There were 14 female respondents and
only 1 male respondent, which may seem skewed. However, out of the author’s
Spring 1991 LASP class of 24 students, only 4 were male. Thus, it is possible
that these numbers are not as unevenly distributed as one might assume. The
author was unable to obtain the demographic information from the past 30 years
of study abroad classes from the LASP headquarters, but it is certain that
substantially more females enroll than males.
Eight of the 15 participants are
currently in their twenties, three are in their thirties, and 4 are in their
forties. Four of the study abroad semesters represented in the questionnaire were
in the past 5 years (2 in Fall 2010), four were from 6-10 years ago (2 in Fall
2008), three were from 11-15 years ago, zero were from 16-20 years ago, and
four were from 21-25 years ago. Six of the 15 alumni are currently working in
the field of education and six of them are using their Spanish skills in their
career to this day.
Each
of the students spent four months studying abroad, during either the fall or
spring semester, with three of those months spent in Costa Rica, two weeks in
Nicaragua, and two weeks in either Guatemala or Panama. Each student also
participated in a two-week service project in Costa Rica (e.g. for this author,
the project involved working at an orphanage in the Caribbean coastal village
of Limón). Each class also has had the opportunity to meet with influential
people from those Central American countries, including Presidents, Supreme
Court justices, former dictators, etc.
Design
This study utilizes a mixed methods
research design, as defined and clarified by Creswell (2014):
As a method, [mixed
methods research] focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both
quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its
central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in
combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either
approach alone. (Creswell, 2014, p. 5)
To put it simply, this
method could be considered ‘the best of both [research] worlds.’ It combines
the strengths of both methods, which eliminates the weaknesses inherent to
either one. In the case of this study, the absence of quantitative data would
have had what we shall call the “Abominable Snowman” effect – it would have
been left toothless. Yet, without the richness of the qualitative data gathered
in the form of additional open-ended answers to the final survey question, the
study would not have resonated with the reader, as it hopefully will with its
mixed methods design. For those familiar with mixed methods research (or for
those who would refer to Creswell (2014), Ch. 3, the following information
lists the specifics of this study’s design:
1.
The design is fixed, rather than emergent (i.e. both the
quantitative and qualitative methods were predetermined at the same time and
implemented at the same time).
2.
The level of interaction between the quantitative and
qualitative methods is independent (i.e. each strand can stand alone).
3.
The priority level of the two strands is equal.
4.
The timing is concurrent (i.e. both sets of data were obtained
in a single phase).
5.
The point of interface between the strands (i.e. when the two
strands are “mixed” is during the interpretation phase).
6.
The design is embedded, with the qualitative strand being
embedded within the quantitative strand.
7.
The design is convergent, with qualitative data illustrating the
quantitative data.
8.
The design variant is the data-validation variant, with both
closed- and open-ended questions included on the same questionnaire. “Because
the qualitative items are an add-on to a quantitative instrument, the items
generally do not result in a complete context-based qualitative data set.
However, they provide the researcher with emergent themes and interesting
quotes that can be used to validate and embellish the quantitative survey
findings” (Creswell, 2014, p. 81).
Instrumentation and
Procedures
The instrument used to the collect the data for this
study was a questionnaire (found in Appendix B) with eight questions that were
set up on a modified Likert-type scale and a ninth question with several
sub-categories to collect demographic and qualitative responses. The
questionnaire was delivered to the LASP alumni via email or Facebook messenger,
depending on their preference, and the responses were submitted in the same
way. An additional three qualitative questions were asked of three of the
participants who had volunteered an above-average amount of qualitative data in
answering Question #9. The quantitative data of the first eight questions were
then put through a Pearson’s correlation matrix and were also calculated for
standard deviation (SD).
Data Analysis and Results
The
range of participant Likert score totals calculated from the 8 quantitative
questions was 18 –36, with a mean of 29 and a standard deviation (SD) of 5,
yielding a normal bell curve. According to student self-reported data, only 20% (n=6) of the
sample could converse well, albeit slowly, in Spanish at the beginning of the
semester. Yet, all but 1 of the 15 students, or 93%, reported having at least
that level of oral proficiency at the end of the semester, and 21% of those
students said that they spoke with native-like fluency by then. Currently, 67%
still converse well (a "4" or a "5" on the questionnaire).
Comparing pre- and post-SA self-reported fluency: six are not as fluent now as they were then,
four are at the same level, and five reported that they are even more fluent
now. Regarding alumni
impressions of the LASP program: 60% felt that the program was perfect "as
is" and 40% reported that LASP influenced them to pursue a career which is
still utilizing their Spanish skills to this day.
While
these results were comparable to what was anticipated, the Pearson correlations
were of even greater interest to the author. (See Table B1 and Table B2). The
findings of the data in the chart below support a number of the findings
described in the literature. First of all, there was a large positive
correlation (p = 0.4) between the students’ pre-study abroad Spanish oral
proficiency and their home stay. This suggests that a student who entered the
host family home already able to converse in Spanish was more likely to have a
positive experience with the host family, since a deeper level of communication
was achievable.
Next,
there was an extremely large positive correlation (p = 0.7) between the
students’ pre-SA Spanish oral proficiency and their current impression of the
LASP program. This could be indicative of what Segalowitz et al. (2004) called
the “feedback effect” or “reciprocal causation”—that is, that those who came to
Costa Rica able to communicate were given far more opportunities to do so, and
therefore gleaned far more benefits from the program (in ways that go beyond
the mere acquisition of a second language, as detailed in the open-ended
answers of Appendix A). This phenomenon understandably then influenced their
abiding impression of LASP. A similar explanation can be applied to the large
positive correlation (p = 0.4) between language usage with “Ticos” (Costa
Ricans) during the SA and the students’ current impression of LASP.
The
results of the data analyses also showed a large positive correlation (p = 0.6)
between the quantity and quality of interactions that students had with Ticos
and their L2 oral proficiency today. Again, this probably demonstrates that the
better the level of interaction they had with local Spanish-speakers
(facilitated by an initially more advanced level of oral proficiency), the
better they were able to improve their oral proficiency. It is also likely that
their pre-SA oral proficiency gave those students the ability to develop a
deeper understanding of the Latino culture and a greater desire to further that
knowledge and those relationships. The next correlation seems just as logical.
There was a very large positive correlation (p = 0.7) between the students’
current L2 oral proficiency and their current (or past) condition of living
among or being married to Latinos. This should be self-explanatory.
However,
in the final significant correlation to be discussed here, there was a medium
negative correlation (p = -0.4) between the quality of communication in the
home stay and the students’ self-reported level of Spanish oral proficiency at
the end of the semester abroad. While this does not suggest that a good
home stay will lead to lesser language acquisition (an illogical conclusion),
it does seem to answer the very question which precipitated this study. At
least based on the findings of this very small-scale study, the quality of a
student’s home stay cannot necessarily predict the level of language
acquisition that will be achieved. It is at this juncture that some qualitative
data should serve us well by providing deeper insight into this issue, both in
the Discussion section below, and in Appendix A which follows it.
Discussion
Many factors influence the advancement of L2 proficiency levels
and interculturalism, including one’s personality, innate language-learning
potential, motivation level, and emotional health during the time abroad. For
example, homesickness and culture shock can be significant obstacles to
language learning abroad, especially if the L2 learner has regular access to L1
friends. This seems to be a key factor. Falling back on the L1 crutch is
perhaps the greatest inhibitor to L2 acquisition. As expressed by one of the
students surveyed in the “Hindsight is 20/20” article by Mendelson (2004), “It’s
difficult because there are many things I want to talk about, things that are
on my mind, and I can’t yet really express them in Spanish and it creates a
great feeling of loneliness, which is why, I believe, so many students turn to
their American friends to express themselves (in English)...” (p. 58).
The literature shows that home stay
experiences can potentially—but not necessarily—provide the best context for L2
proficiency gains. In the case of the Salamanca students (Mendelson, 2004), “those
who lived with host families showed a mean of contact hours 40% greater than
that of the students who lived in the dorms” (p. 52). However, only if a mutual
friendship is developed between the student and the host family will this
context enhance the student’s language learning. In that case, a home stay can
be a phenomenal experience and can contribute significantly to L2 fluency.
Conversely, if personality and cultural differences drive a wedge between the
student and host family members, then extended meaningful discourse will be avoided
and the potential benefits of the home stay will be forfeited.
I have personally experienced
both of these possible outcomes (from both sides of the equation). During my
freshman year of high school, my family hosted a 19-year-old Mexican high
school graduate (who repeated her senior year as a student in our local high
school). Alma Rosa became like the sister I had never had. We developed a very
tight bond, spending untold hundreds of hours talking together.
When she came to us, Alma had
studied English all throughout high school, but she had never really used her
English skills in a natural context. She was also an introvert, so homesickness
and culture shock were significant problems for her. We worked very hard to
“pull her out of her shell,” so to speak. And, little by little, her prior
knowledge of English came into play. In the first month, Alma kept a
Spanish-English dictionary with her at all times. Her level of oral fluency was
next to nothing, even though she had some book knowledge. However, by the end
of the school year, Alma could speak as fast as we could! Her language
acquisition was tremendous.
On the other hand, during my semester abroad in Costa Rica, there
were a number of students in my class who came speaking very little Spanish and
left still speaking very little Spanish. These were the students who did not
enjoy spending time with their host families and who did not find a niche
elsewhere. Hindered by their initial incompetence in the target language, these
students failed to take risks and embark on adventures without the constant
crutch of an interpreter by their side. Instead, they spent all their free time
getting together with each other. Basically, they brought America to Costa
Rica.
Or, perhaps in some cases, students found America in Costa
Rica, in their Tican homes. I do not remember whether or not this was the case
for any of my classmates. However, taking into consideration the findings of
Diao et al. (2011), if this is not already the case, I recommend that an official
commitment statement should be required for all host family members to pledge
to spend a prescribed number of minutes/day or hours/week speaking in the
target language with the student and pledging not to speak in the student’s
native language (if they have that ability) for anything short of an emergency.
Again, though, interpersonal conflicts can make such a commitment
quite difficult to adhere to. In my case, I liked my host family in Costa Rica
to a certain degree, but not enough to be strongly motivated to spend many
hours talking with them, as Alma had done with me. Frankly, I confess that the
squeaky voice of the teenage girl in the family grated on my nerves so much
that I avoided conversations with her. And the others were just so incredibly
busy with their own lives that there wasn’t an abundance of time for in-depth
conversations.
This is where I believe that SA program personnel need to be
vigilant. They should be regularly checking with each student, asking about the
home stay. And, in cases where significant communication is unlikely, the staff
members should be earnestly trying to facilitate friendships between that
student and other locals. Thankfully, in my situation (without intervention), I
found plenty of opportunities outside the home to have extended conversations
with “Ticos” (Costa Ricans). Armed with a “sink or swim” mentality, I explored
the city on my own and made friends with many nationals throughout San José.
Moreover, during the final month of my semester in Costa Rica, I found myself
living the ultimate language acquisition dream: spending every free moment with
my Tican boyfriend who could not speak English. Understandably, this is not
always feasible (and in some cases, would not even be advisable), but in my
case, being in a romantic relationship was a key factor in advancing my fluency
to a higher level.
To this day, when I think about my semester in Costa Rica, part of
my remembrance is mixed with great frustration. I went there with two main
goals: to clinch my fluency and to get to know Costa Ricans and their
culture. Yet, being part of a class of 24 Americans, those goals were
constantly hindered. Just when I would start dreaming in Spanish over the weekend,
I would have to go back to class on Monday and hear English all day. Then, in
the evenings, when I would have liked to have had more time to spend with the
nationals, I was instead cooped up in my tiny bedroom, reading endless stacks
of articles that were assigned to us -- many of which were in English and were
additional obstacles to my goals. I honestly had more to read during those 4
months than I had in all 2 years of grad school. I believe this was
counterproductive and that, to a certain degree, the reading assignments should
have been required during the semester before and/or after the study abroad.
Despite these criticisms, though, I would still echo each of the
students who participated in this study, in full agreement that my semester
with LASP was one of the most life-changing times I have ever experienced. Though
25 years have passed and many memories through those years have faded, my
memories of Spring 1991 are just as fresh today as they were while I lived
them. I have reflected on those mental snapshots and videos more times than I
could count, and I have shared them with others many times over. Perhaps that
is one of the greatest benefits of a study abroad experience. Not only does it
change the student, but it also has an ongoing impact on the friends and
family, coworkers and acquaintances, of that student for a lifetime. This is
because, since that student can no longer see the world through the same eyes,
he or she can no longer stick with the status quo when intercultural social
issues are brought up in the lunchroom or at family reunions.
With all that in mind, it is still my opinion that there is
nothing that can quite take the place of a study abroad experience when it
comes to deriving all the benefits thereof. However, as I mentioned at the
outset of this study, there is another option for those who
cannot or will not study abroad. Immersion is possible, at least for the
purposes of L2 acquisition, either by enrolling in a school like Middlebury (if
you have thousands of dollars), or by attempting the following suggestion. For
an English-speaking student in the United States, a near-immersion experience
could still be possible if the student were to move in with a strictly
Spanish-speaking family in a predominantly Spanish-speaking community, if that
student were committed to avoiding English exposure as far as possible.
For example, students (or foreign language teachers) who
want to improve their fluency and intercultural awareness Stateside could spend
a summer working in a U.S. Latino community, devoting their free time to
interacting with their newfound friends, watching movies in Spanish with them,
going to “fiestas” and dances with them, etc. I have a distinct memory of my
own from the spring of 1993 when I spent a day in a Salvadoran section of
Washington, D.C. During that time, I was in an apartment complex, in a
shopping center, and in a restaurant, and I never saw a single “Anglo” other
than myself in that entire time.
I also know that many such neighborhoods exist across the
southern states of our country, from Florida (with its large Cuban population)
to Texas and California (with their high numbers of Mexicans), as well as
substantial pockets of Puerto Ricans in New York & New Jersey, among
others. Perhaps such an experience would not do much to advance one’s
grammatical proficiency, but it would certain provide the opportunities for an
increase in oral fluency, especially since nearly 100% of the student’s time
would be spent interacting with Spanish-speakers, unlike with typical study
abroad experiences.
In conclusion, while the benefits vary as we look at
studying abroad versus attempting L2 immersion within one’s own country, there
is one thing that is clear: Every
student should have the opportunity to experience life through another’s eyes.
That should be the ultimate goal of second language acquisition, whether it is
attained at home or abroad.
References
Allen, L. Q. (2010). The impact of study abroad on the professional
lives of World Language
teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 93-104.
Crealock, E., Derwing, T. M. & Gibson, M. (1999). To homestay or to stay home: The
Canadian-Japanese
experience. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2),
53-61.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano,
C. V. L. (2011). Designing and
conducting mixed methods research.
Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Dewey, D. P. (2007-2008). Japanese vocabulary acquisition by
learners in three contexts.
Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 127-148.
Diao, W., Freed, B. & Smith, L. (2011). Confirmed
beliefs or false assumptions? A study of
home stay experiences in the French
study abroad context. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21,
109-142.
Di Silvio, F., Donovan, A., &
Malone, M. E. (2014). The effect of study
abroad homestay
Placements: Participant perspectives and oral
proficiency gains. Foreign Language
Annals, 47(1), 168-188. DOI: 10.1111/flan.12064.
Jackson, J. (2011). Host
language proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, and study abroad.
Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 167-188.
Lupi, M. H. & Turner, K. C.
(2013). Beyond graduation: The sustainability of new pedagogy
and
other lessons learned during a short-term student teaching abroad. SRATE Journal,
22(2), 46-54.
Mendelson, V. G. (2004). "Hindsight is 20/20: “Student
perceptions of language learning and
the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad, 10, 43-63.
Regan, V. (1998). Sociolinguistics
and language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
4(2), 61-90.
Savicki, V. (2011). Relationship of foreign
language proficiency to study abroad outcomes and
inputs.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad, 21, 63-85.
Segalowitz, N., Freed, B.,
Collentine, J., Lafford, B., Lazar, N. & Diaz-Campos, M. (2004). A
comparison
of Spanish second language acquisition in two different learning contexts:
Study abroad and the domestic
classroom. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 1-18.
Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J.,
Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium
Project:
Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad, 18, 1-75.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). On the nature
of immersion during study abroad: Some participant
perspectives.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad, 4(2), 121-138.
Witherell,
S. & Clayton, E. (2014, Novemer 17). Open Doors 2014: International
students
in the United States and study abroad by American students are at an all-time
high.
Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2014/2014-11-17-Open-Doors-Data
Appendix A
Open-ended Qualitative Alumni
Responses
The
most gratifying aspect of conducting this study was having the opportunity to
read the more in-depth open-ended answers from fellow LASP alumni. I believe
they shed light on this subject in ways that quantitative data do not always
achieve. The following are insights from alumni of both the recent and distant
past, and everything in between. Every last one of them raved about the LASP
program, with only a couple of slight criticisms mixed in (which I collected at
the end).
From a
political science professor (with an emphasis on Latin American politics):
[Studying
in Costa Rica with LASP] confirmed my desire to study the region further….Overall,
I’m very thankful I went and continue to send students there, in particular,
those who are already well read in the region so that they can garner the most
from the experience. From our semester –
I’m amazed that we met President Serrano, Dictator Montt, John Stam, among
others. It was a rich experience. And I had a great homestay and enjoyed making
new friends with similar interests.
From a bilingual
psychotherapist:
My
semester abroad served to solidify my love for Latinos. I plan to always work
in the Hispanic community here or abroad at some capacity.
From a communciation
staff member at a nonprofit:
It changed how I view
people. We grow up singing, ‘Jesus Loves the Little Children,’ but in my
hometown there were no red, yellow or black children - just white (and everyone
speaks English and is from a northern European heritage). So, to be able to go
from that to Costa Rica, Panama and Nicaragua—to live with families who are so
different from my own and what I know, to be loved and cared for by these
lovely, patient souls—that was amazing. It's like having cousins you've never
met. You know that they are family. They are blood, but there is no
relationship. And then you get to meet one. Then the relationship is real, and
makes you realize that you there are all these other amazing cousins in the
world just waiting to be met.
So
in a way, LASP helped me develop a "kinship" with humanity. It
introduced me to a wonderful world of people from different cultures, languages
and economic backgrounds. Now, differences are no longer a huge scary obstacle
when meeting someone. Those differences are just part of their story—a story I
hope to hear.”
From
a social worker dealing with homeless children & families:
I
have nothing but good things to say about LASP. Its greatest strength was
the intensity...it was not a tourist study abroad. It was academically
and spiritually vigorous. It was at times hard but worth it.
Cultural immersion, academic readings and discussions, and various home
stays were all excellent. [LASP] broadened my worldview, deepened my
perspective of myself and my faith, and developed my Spanish and cultural
competency. Plus, my LASP study abroad experience made me change my career
plans from children's pastor to social worker. I have been doing social
work for 5 years now and it prepared me in many ways for the joys and
difficulties of social work.
From a Spanish teacher:
[My LASP semester caused me to] appreciate the
Latino culture in a whole new way. My host family became my family. I've been
back two summers to hang out with them. I feel like I understand life from
their perspective. My best friend to this day is another student who lived in
the same community in CR with me! In general, living in CR really taught me to
work through differences to find things in common.
From
another teacher:
I
stayed in Costa Rica for 2 more years and taught school. My Spanish also
improved enough that when I went back to the States I was able to get a job
using my Spanish. 20 years later I moved back to Costa Rica with my
daughter. Although my Spanish is a bit rusty, it was nice to be able to
move back with the ability to speak.
From
a biology professor:
When
I first arrived I had only had 2 years [of Spanish] in high school. I was in
the bottom language class. My host family thought that I didn't like them
because I didn't speak much. The truth was, I didn't know how to talk to them.
They were always correcting my pronunciation and words. It wasn't good.
When
we went to Nicaragua, the bus driver and I seemed to hit it off. He and I
talked on that trip more than anyone else and he didn't correct me. That
allowed me to get fast and with practice my tenses and perspectives (you, me,
he, it) got better. By the time we got back to Costa Rica I was at speed and
speaking correctly. I then added words really fast after that by talking
to new people.
I
won't lie, it wasn't always easy. I had days I called McDonald days. I
would get frustrated with Spanish and just want to be with English speakers. I
would go to McDonalds on the Plaza de la Cultura and sit and read the Tico
Times. If English speakers were nearby, I would eavesdrop. One time, I ordered,
in Spanish, and then went near the entrance. An ex-pat was there. He loomed at
me and said, "Oh, you like to read English?" I said, yeah, I am from
Ohio. He said, "Oh, you don't look or sound like it." He
had heard me order. It was in May I think.
After
LASP, I stayed for three weeks more when my school came down. I didn't leave
until July. I was the translator. My speed was up to Costa Rican speed and I
was mistaken for a Tico on several occasions. The Ticos say that I have a
native sounding accent. I also translated for a mission trip to Mexico in '97.
Now, today, I have lost a lot of my speed and have forgotten some words,
but I can still order [food] and speak to people in Spanish. I am trying to
learn Mandarin, so that has been my focus lately.
From an accounting specialist at a bank:
[LASP] definitely shaped the way I travel and want to
experience the world. I’m not content to be a “tourist” anywhere I go. I want
to learn about a place before I visit, understand a bit about its history* and
culture, and then really dig below the surface while I’m there—talking with cab
drivers, waitresses, people selling goods in the market…just meeting strangers
and chatting with them about what their lives are like, and showing them that I
care because I’ve taken the time to learn something about their home. I want to
continually grow in my Spanish ability in order to build these kinds of
relationships and interact with people on a much deeper level.
*The fact that I want to learn anything about history has
also been a huge
and continual transformation for me. I
hated history and politics when I was growing up and even while in college.
LASP’s design and approach completely changed this for me. For example, currently,
I’m reading a book on Cuba’s history and I have one on Guatemala and one on
Colombia waiting on my “to read” shelf. I think the first time the relevance of
history really hit me was when we studied about Nicaragua’s civil war before
our trip there, and then within a few weeks, I was sitting there in my homestay
community, gathered at a table with new friends, and I talked to people who had
actually experienced it. The whole semester was filled with these kinds of
moments where my view of history totally shifted.
My semester at LASP also made me ask questions and seek to explore various sides of issues, as well as be able to dialogue on a deep and meaningful level with people who I disagree with. The idea of “process groups” became ingrained in me, and I still find it to be such a helpful way to approach discussing topics with others. Additionally, it helped me empathize with immigrants who are in the United States—both understanding where they come from and what drives them to migrate, as well as understanding a bit of what it’s like to struggle to learn language, culture, and customs in a new environment. What I regret most was that I didn’t challenge myself to speak only Spanish, and I also wish I could have stayed for 2 semesters.
My semester at LASP also made me ask questions and seek to explore various sides of issues, as well as be able to dialogue on a deep and meaningful level with people who I disagree with. The idea of “process groups” became ingrained in me, and I still find it to be such a helpful way to approach discussing topics with others. Additionally, it helped me empathize with immigrants who are in the United States—both understanding where they come from and what drives them to migrate, as well as understanding a bit of what it’s like to struggle to learn language, culture, and customs in a new environment. What I regret most was that I didn’t challenge myself to speak only Spanish, and I also wish I could have stayed for 2 semesters.
From a marketing director for the Alpaca Owners Association:
[LASP] CHANGED MY LIFE!!!! IT MADE ME A
WORLD CITIZEN AND IMPACTED MY WORLDVIEW GREATLY.
From
a nursing student:
This
program provided key insights into the realities of Costa Rican culture, life,
and challenges. When discussing experiences with friends who did not attend a
best semester program, I am continually reminded of how invested the faculty
and staff was into my personal experience and growth. I was challenged to
identify the bias and foundational values I had, and open my mind. Through
reflection during the last two years I have seen myself grow interpersonally
with a more diverse group of people.
From a program assistant at a Study Abroad Program:
It forever changed the way I see the world and
my role in it. The greatest strengths are the homestays and pushing students
outside of their comfort zone with situations & readings. A weakness is a slight
lack of support/room for students to discuss with staff in formal ways. Many
informal opportunities abound, but it's the student’s responsibility [to
approach them].
From a social worker:
The
LASP program was great but there was obvious political sway toward one side.
Privilege was never spoken about blatantly; the power we have as Americans, yes
but not as individuals. I was the only Latin American in the group and it was a
bit disheartening to see students up in arms about issues that affected Latin
Americans but really had no insight into the problem which LASP really tried to
address with guest speakers.
I
remember feeling really weirded out when staff would tell students that they
were the minority in the country. The reality is that they could never feel
like the minority because they carry around with them power and privilege even
if they aren't aware of it. I remember writing it in my journal once and just
feeling so pained that comparing the "minority status" to a number
really didn't acknowledge the historical and current injustices that were being
felt by a group of people.
Then, I directed the following three additional questions to three of
the respondents:
1. Do you think that living
with a host family was far more effective than living in a dorm with other
Americans would have been?
Student A: “Yes”
Student
B: “Living with a host family is
absolutely vital to learning the language and understanding the culture. So,
yes, living with a host family was far more effective.”
Student
C: “I do. In trying to learn
Chinese, which is very different, I have made my greatest gains when we were in
Taiwan living with my in-laws. Had we been in a dorm [in Costa Rica], I don't
think the immersion experience would have been the same. [My home stay] wasn't
great, but I think that, had I had the ‘refuge’ of an English dorm, I wouldn't
have been stretched.”
2. Do
you think that Americans, including those with limited Span. Proficiency, can
be trusted to speak only Spanish with each other if that were a requirement of
the program?
Student A:
“Yes - as well as they do on any program with this requirement.”
Student
B: “I think that if speaking only
Spanish was a requirement, it would only work on official outings or during school
time. It would be hard if the students met up on their own. But, maybe it
could be required during school hours.”
3.
And what do you think of the idea of coordinating with a Latino dorm to have
LASP students room with Latino college students? Do you think that arrangement
would facilitate more or less language acquisition than a host family?
Student A: “Same – or less.”
Student
B: “Having a Latino roommate would only
work out well if the roommate did not speak English.”
Student C: “Unless
there is supervision they are going to revert. It is too easy and if the person
you are trying to talk with isn't at your level it would get frustrating fast
and they would switch back to English. And if they could stay in a dorm, they
would hide away from Spanish and not learn it.”
Appendix
B
Questionnaire
for LASP Alumni
(1)
Which of the following best describes your Spanish oral proficiency when you
arrived in Costa Rica:
0
- No working knowledge of Spanish whatsoever
1 - Very limited
number of phrases
2 – I could get my
point across most of the time after much effort and many mistakes.
3 – I could engage in
a halting conversation, with help and some mistakes.
4 – I could converse
well at a slow speed, with few mistakes.
5 – I could carry on a
normal conversation at a native-like speed with little to no errors.
(2)
Which best describes your home stay?
0 - I hated every minute there
and stayed away as long as possible, exchanging very few words in the home.
LASP should have done a better job screening that family.
1 - I liked the family but
*they* weren't around much, so I didn't have nearly as much interaction with
them as I had hoped.
2 - I liked the family but *I*
wasn't around much, so I didn't have nearly as much interaction with them as I
had hoped.
3 - I had a decent
relationship with at least one member of the family and engaged in a number of
meaningful conversations with him/her.
4 - I developed a close
relationship with a least one member of the family and spoke at length with
him/her most days that I was in San José.
5 - I became an "adopted
member" of the family with a very close bond and abundant communication,
and I am still in touch with the family to this day.
(3)
Which of the following best describes your out-of-the-house interaction with
Ticos?
0
- I avoided all Ticos and huddled with other Americans or
English-speakers.
1 – I tried to interact with
Ticos outside the home, but the language (or cultural) barrier interfered and
my conversations never lasted very long nor went very deep.
2 – I had many interactions with
Ticos outside the home, even extended conversations, but the topics never went
deep enough to allow for the meaningful exchange of ideas nor the forging of
deep friendships.
3 – I had a few long,
meaningful discussions that went beyond surface level and helped us understand
each other’s culture and worldview better.
4 – I had many heart-to-heart
talks with one or more Ticos. Neither language nor culture was a barrier.
5
– I developed either a romantic relationship or became best friends with a Tico(a).
(4)
Which of the following best describes your Spanish oral proficiency at the end
of your study abroad experience?
0
- No working knowledge of Spanish whatsoever
1 - Very limited
number of phrases
2 – I could get my
point across most of the time after much effort and many mistakes.
3 – I could engage in
a halting conversation, with help and some mistakes.
4 – I could converse
well at a slow speed, with few mistakes.
5 – I could carry on a
normal conversation at a native-like speed with little to no errors.
(5)
Which of the following best describes your Spanish oral proficiency today?
0
- No working knowledge of Spanish whatsoever
1 - Very limited
number of phrases
2 – I can get my point
across most of the time after much effort and many mistakes.
3 – I can engage in a
halting conversation, with help and some mistakes.
4 – I can converse
well at a slow speed, with few mistakes.
5 – I can carry on a
normal conversation at a native-like speed with little to no errors.
(6)
Did your semester abroad influence you to pursue a career which utilizes your
Spanish-speaking skills?
0
– Not at all. I never want to try to speak that language again!
1 – No, but I wish I had learned it well enough to use it
professionally.
2
– No, but I could have if the opportunity had arisen or if I had chosen to.
3
– Yes, briefly.
4
– Yes, for a substantial season.
5
– Yes, to this very day.
(7)
Did your semester abroad influence you to either marry a Latino(a) or live
amongst Latinos?
0
– No way! I’m done with those people and their crazy language!
1
– No. It was nice for a semester but not really my thing.
2
– No, but I wish I had.
3
– Yes, briefly.
4 – Yes, for a substantial season.
5
– Yes, to this very day.
(8)
Which of the following is your greatest criticism of the LASP program?
0
– Both of these:
A. Either the interactions
with classmates should have been minimized or “Spanish-only” should have been
enforced amongst us (with exceptions only for conveying important information
or strong emotions).
B. The lengthy reading
assignments impeded meaningful language acquisition. They should have been
assigned before and/or after our semester abroad so as to avoid cutting into
our limited time with the people and culture there.
1
– Two or more different issues (please specify in #10 below)
2
- One of the above and another issue (please specify both in #10 below)
3
– A only
4
– B only
5 - None of the above. LASP is
a well-designed, effective program, which should continue “as is.”
(9)
Please provide the following information:
(a) your gender
(b) your current age
(c) which semester you spent in Costa Rica
(d) your current profession (if employed)
(e) how your semester abroad impacted you overall
(f) any additional thoughts
you might have on the greatest strengths and/or weaknesses of the LASP program
(g) any noteworthy stories you might like to share
Table B1
Correlations of Span. Oral Proficiency (L2-OP) with Other
Study Abroad (SA) Factors
|
Pearson
Correlation
Matrix
|
QUEST1
|
QUEST2
|
QUEST3
|
QUEST4
|
QUEST5
|
QUEST6
|
QUEST7
|
QUEST8
|
|
QUEST1
|
1.0000
|
|||||||
|
QUEST2
|
0.4016
|
1.0000
|
||||||
|
QUEST3
|
0.3850
|
0.2436
|
1.0000
|
|||||
|
QUEST4
|
0.2362
|
-0.3839
|
-0.0253
|
1.0000
|
||||
|
QUEST5
|
0.3554
|
0.2830
|
0.4148
|
0.0192
|
1.0000
|
|||
|
QUEST6
|
0.2218
|
0.3038
|
0.2747
|
-0.2724
|
0.6643
|
1.0000
|
||
|
QUEST7
|
-0.0431
|
0.2524
|
0.0462
|
-0.2768
|
0.3587
|
0.4013
|
1.0000
|
|
|
QUEST8
|
0.7439
|
-0.0511
|
0.5706
|
0.3323
|
0.2884
|
0.2799
|
-0.1787
|
1.0000
|
Table B2
Interpretation of Statistically Significant Data
|
Q1&2
|
Large positive
correlation (PC) between pre-SA L2-OP and home stay (HS)
|
|
Q1&8
|
Extremely large PC b/w
pre-SA L2-OP and current impression of LASP program
|
|
Q3&5
|
Large PC b/w quantity
& quality of interaction with Ticos and L2-OP today
|
|
Q3&8
|
Large PC b/w language
usage with Ticos and current impression of LASP
|
|
Q5&6
|
Very large PC b/w
L2-OP & living among or being married to Latinos
|
|
Q2&4
|
Med. neg. correlation
b/w quality of HS communication & post-SA L2-OP
|
No comments:
Post a Comment