Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota & Visiting Professor, University of Auckland ad.co

Centre for Research in International Education, AIS St Helens, Auckland, NZ, Conference: “The Internationalization of Education in New Zealand,” August 12-15, 2004Enhancing Students’ Language and Culture Learning in Study Abroad Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota & Visiting Professor, University of Auckland ad.cohen@auckland.ac.nz Others on the International Research & Studies Program Grant: Co-Investigator - Michael Paige, Research Assistants - Rachel Shively, Holly Emert, Joe Hoff at the Center for Advanced Research in Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota

Overview of Presentation • Significance of Study Abroad • Language Learning in Study Abroad • The Need for an Intervention in Study Abroad • Research Design • Instruments • Findings

Significance of Study Abroad Numbers • Close to 100 million students worldwidestudy abroad each year. • Over 160,000 university students from the United States study abroad each year. Culture Learning • Study abroad programs have great potential to enhance cultural awareness. • Learning culture reinforces language learning.

Language Learning • Study abroad can offer an abundance of out-of-class opportunities for language use with native speakers (NSs) of the target language (TL). • Study abroad can offer potential for gains in students’ language proficiency. • Reaching advanced proficiency levels often requires time spent in a TL country.

Despite the potential for increased language proficiency that study abroad seems to offer, students who spend even a full academic semester abroad do not always make more significant language gains in the TL than do their peers who stay home and study the TL (Freed, 1995). Why is this the case?

Students may not have an overall strategic plan for how to get the most out of their study abroad experiences in- and out-of-class. • Students may be unaware of strategies that would help them increase their contact with the TL. • Language classes may give them only “survival” language at best, rather than fine-tuned guidance on how to perform crucial speech functions or speech acts such as requesting, thanking, complimenting, apologizing, and the like.

Need for an Intervention, and Hence This Study • Generally, students may have limited preparation to be language and culture learners in the study abroad environment. • Students may lack specific strategies that they can use in practice to deal with the target language and the culture in its own context. • Few materials are available that guide students and teachers in maximizing study abroad using language and culture strategies. • Research is lacking on the effects of curricular interventions in study abroad, especially those emphasizing language and culture strategies.

Maximizing Study Abroad: Students’ Guide and Companion Guides for Study Abroad Professionals and Language Instructors • The guides are a response to the felt need for materials to enhance study abroad. • The guides employ a strategies-based approach to language and culture learning.

Strategies-Based Learning • Language and culture learning may be enhanced if students become aware of the range of strategies that they can employ to learn and use a foreign language and deal with another culture. • Strategies can be taught explicitly in the classroom and by means of self-access materials for students. • Examples of language and culture learning strategies in the Students’Guide can be found at: http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/

Maximizing Study Abroad Research Project • The Maximizing Study Abroad guides were field-tested with a grant from the International Research and Studies Program (IRSP), Office of International Education (USDOE). • Primary Research Question: To what extent does a strategies-based approach to developing language and culture skills – transmitted through a set of study abroad guides – promote language gain and cultural adaptation by study abroad students?

Student Study Research Design Research Questions: • What strategies do study abroad students use to deal with language and culture? • In what contexts do they use these strategies? • How frequently? • What is their overall perception of a strategies-based approach?

Sample • Two cohorts of university students studying abroad either in Spring 2003 (Cohort A) or Fall 2003 (Cohort B). • Cohort A: 42 students (21 Experimental group, 21 Control group) Cohort B: 44 students (21 E, 23 C)Total: 86 students(Stratified random sample) • Students had taken at least 4 semesters of Spanish or French language classes. • Studying abroad in Spanish- or French- speaking countries for one semester.

Treatment • The Experimental (E) Group received the Students’ Guide before departure for their use while studying abroad. • The E Group received a pre-departure orientation on how to use some of the language and culture strategies in the Students’Guide and speech acts. • The Control (C) Group did not receive the Students’ Guide or the E group orientation – just a brief orientation to the research.

Instruments • Background Questionnaire • Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, 2001) • Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture (Paige, Rong, Zhang, Kappler, Hoff, & Emert, 2002) • Language Strategy Survey (Cohen & Chi, 2001) • Speech Act Measure of Language Gain (Cohen & Shively, 2002) • Bi-weekly Electronic Journal Entries • Exit Language Contact Profile • Follow-up Interview Protocol

Background Questionnaire Items in the instrument address: • Demographics (gender, year in school, major). • Host country and study abroad TL. • Native/dominant language(s). • Family language(s). • Language of pre-college education. • Length of study of the TL. • Study of languages other than the TL. • Self-assessment of ability in TL aural skills, and in TL literacy skills in both “popular” and academic registers.

Intercultural Development Inventory • Measures “people’s basic orientations to cultural difference.” • Includes 50 questions, based on Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, which has 6 sequential stages: • Ethnocentric stages: Denial  Defense  Minimization • Ethnorelative stages: Acceptance  Adaptation  Integration

Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture • Measures the frequency of use of culture strategies. • Has nine categories of culture strategies for: • Surroundings that are culturally different. • Dealing with difficult times in another culture. • Making interpretations in another culture. • Communicating in another culture. • Dealing with different communication styles. • Understanding non-verbal communication. • Interacting with people in another culture. • Dealing with the living situation. • Maintaining cultural ties to the host culture after returning home.

Learning Strategy Survey • Measures the frequency of use of language strategies. • Has language strategies organized by skill: Listening, Vocabulary, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Strategic Use of Translation. • Earlier versions of the language and culture strategies surveys can be found at: http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/guides.html

Speech Act Measure • Employed written discourse completion tasks (DCT’s) with multiple rejoinders to assess performance in making requests and apologies. • Included 5 apology and 5 request vignettes (10 vignettes total). • Had the description of each vignette in English, but the rejoinders in Peninsular Spanish, Latin American Spanish, or French.

Each vignette differs with regard to three variables: • social distance, • relative status, • severity of the infraction (apologies) or degree of imposition (requests). • Each version was translated from an English prototype by a native speaker of the respective language or dialect (in the case of Spanish).

E-journals • E group students submitted a total of 7 e-journal entries on the research website, at bi-weekly intervals during their semester abroad. • In their e-journals, students were to answer the following questions: • What were your impressions of the readings and activities in the assigned section? • What types of language and culture strategies are you using in order to deal with the host country language and culture? • What are the contexts and situations in which you use these language and culture strategies? • How have the readings and activities related to your study abroad experience? Please give examples with explanations.

Exit Language Contact Profile Items in the instrument address: • Study abroad living situation (e.g., host family, dorm, apartment). • Use of the TL in the home with native and non-native speakers of the TL. • Use of the TL outside of class. • Portion of friends who were native speakersof the TL. • Participation in structured activities outsideof class.

Type(s) of study abroad program and coursework (e.g., regular university courses, courses for study abroad students, internship, field experience). • Self-assessment of language ability (identical to rating scale on the Entrance Questionnaire). • Motivation to study the language of the host country (increased/decreased). • Travel plans after courses are completed. • Perceived impact of the Students’ Guide (E group only). • Recommendation of the Students’ Guide(E group only).

Follow-up Interview Protocol • Research assistants (RAs) selected a purposive sub-sample of E group students (10 E group students from each cohort; total of 20 students) to interview 3 to 5 months after students’ return to the U.S. from studying abroad. • Interviews were one-on-one between students and RAs, semi-structured, and approximately 1 hour in length.

Data Collection • E and C groups completed the instruments as pre-measures before departing for study abroad and as post-measures at the end of their semester abroad. • The E group submitted bi-weekly electronic journals describing their use of the language and culture strategies included in the Students’ Guide.

Data Analysis • Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data is currently being conducted by the research team. • Students’ performance on the Speech Act Measure (pre and post) was rated by 2 native speakers (NS) each of French, Peninsular Spanish, and Latin American Spanish (total of 6 NS raters). • The NS raters received the students’ Speech Act Measure responses unlabeled as to whether pre- or post-measure.

Speech Act Measure Rating Criteria Native speakers of Peninsular Spanish, Latin American Spanish, and French rated the appropriateness of each response for each of the following categories: • register:3 separate scales; one each for vocabulary choice, verb tense/inflection, and subject pronoun choice. • politeness (requests only). • directness (requests only). • overall success of the request or the apology.

In order to help interpret the native speaker ratings, the researchers are also currently assessing the following elements: • coherence and cohesion in the subject’s response, given the preceding and following rejoinders. • speech act-specific strategies used: • Requests: e.g., preparation, giving reasons, and minimizing imposition. • Apologies: e.g., apology expression, offer of repair, explanation, acknowledgement of responsibility, and promise of non-recurrence.

Findings • Quantitative findings: • Intercultural Development Inventory • Language Strategy Survey • Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture • Speech Act Measure of Language Gain • Qualitative findings: • E group electronic journals • E group follow-up interviews

Intercultural Development Inventory(IDI): Findings • The sample as a whole shifted in the direction of greater intercultural sensitivity on the IDI, suggesting that study abroad in general has an impact on students’ “intercultural worldview.” • There were no statistically significant differences between the E and C groups on the IDI, suggesting that the treatment did not have a measurable impact on students’ intercultural sensitivity.

Language Strategy Survey (LSS): Findings Sample as a whole: • Whereas students increased in their reported use of speaking and listening strategies, they decreased in their reported use of reading and vocabulary strategies. • The context of study abroad may help explain this finding. While abroad, students are likely to have more frequent opportunities to interact with native speakers and so strategies for listening and speaking effectively are likely to become more crucial to them.

While there was no statistically significant difference between the E and C groups as to reported gain in language strategy use overall from pre- to posttest, there was a difference at the .05 or better level on eight of the survey items.

Vocabulary strategies: E group decline on the vocabulary items #27, #28, and both E and C group decline on #36 was probably a function of the L2 study abroad environment since vocabulary could be acquired without the need for the conscious focus which often characterizes FL study. • Speaking strategies: Items #52 and #61 show E group gains compared to the C group decreases. This difference may reflect the fact that the Guide advises students to make ample use of both of these strategies. • Translation strategies: The E group reported a greater shift away from word-for-word translation over time than the C group. The Guide advises students not to depend entirely on such word-to-word translations.

Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture (SILC): Findings Sample as a whole: • E & C students together increased in their reported use of 41 of the 52 culture strategies from pre- to posttest, and decreased in reported use of 11 culture strategies. • Decreases occurred on items pertaining to homestay strategies and on strategies to use upon returning home. These findings are difficult to interpret since we might have expected an increase in reported homestay strategies, given that 74% of the students were in homestays. In addition, we would think the students would be more directed to post-study abroad strategies as their overseas experience was ending.

As a whole, there was no statistical difference between the E and C groups as to reported gain in culture strategy use overall on the SILC from pre- to posttest. • 5 individual items were at or near significance (p <.05), 3 with greater gain in reported strategy use for the C group and 2 with greater gain for the E group.

Speech Act Measure: Findings • On the rating criteria “overall success”, the E group had a higher mean gain score compared to the C group (E = 4.38, C = 1.24). This difference became statistically significant (p < .05) when the scores were grouped into 3 categories (loss, no change, gain): E = .74, C = .41. • The higher achievement of the E group in “overall success” on the language gain measure as a whole may be attributed to the treatment.

Directness • When looking at the gain scores for the request vignettes grouped together, the E group came out significantly higher than the C group on the rating criteria “appropriateness of the level of directness” (E = 2.38, C = 1.09). The Guide does specifically recommend that students consider their level of directness in performing requests. Register • The E group also came out higher on the vignette #9, “forgetting a meeting with your professor” for two criteria: “overall success” (E = .56, C = .01) and “fit between vocabulary and formality level” (E =.37, C = -.08). This result may be an outgrowth of the treatment since the Guide instructs students to be sensitive to the social status of the interlocutor as well as to the social situation when they perform speech acts.

E Group Correlations Between Language Strategy Use & Rated Language Gain • Higher reported use of the translation strategy “Put my own language out of mind and think only in the target language as much as possible” in the posttest correlated with a positive gain score on the professor apology vignette, #9 (r = .44**). [Note: * p<05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001] Interpretation: This finding suggests that (1) consciously trying to think as much as possible in the target language may be related to improved language performance, and (2) explicit training in using this strategy may be related to rated language gain (i.e., correlations were found for the E group only).

Higher reported use of the listening strategy “Use the speakers’ tone of voice as a clue to the meaning of what they are saying” in the posttest correlated with a positive gain score on the measure as a whole (r = .62***), and on apology vignettes #3 (“losing friend’s book”) (r = .50***) and #9 (“forgetting meeting with professor”) (r = .53**) respectively. Interpretation: This finding suggests that E group students may have been able to improve their language ability by reading about this strategy in the Guide and then becoming more strategic about listening by not only paying attention to words but also to the tone of voice.

Lower reported use of the speaking strategy “Figure out and model NSs’ language patterns when requesting, apologizing, or complaining” in the posttest correlated with a positive language gain score on the request vignette #10 (“sibling to leave for school earlier”) (r = .52***). Interpretation: We would have expected the contrary. One possible explanation is that students may have not had many opportunities during study abroad to use this strategy, as some speech acts may have occurred relatively infrequently in the contexts that students were exposed to.

When grouping students’ mean language gain scores on all apology and all request vignettes separately, five significant correlations with specific items on the LSS emerged:

Exit Language Contact Profile: Findings • The difference between the E and C groups in frequency of language contact was not statistically significant. • Students who took subject courses in the TL for study abroad students achieved a significantly higher language gain score than did students who took subject courses in the TL intended for TL native speakers. This finding may reflect the fact that the courses designed for study abroad students were directed more specifically at their language needs. • Living with a host family was found to help C group students achieve a significantly higher language gain score than that obtained by their peers not living with a family. Living with a host family had no statistical impact on the E group’s language gain score.

E-journals: Findings • Overall, students reported finding the language and culture strategies in the Students’ Guide useful for study abroad. • “Maximizing [Study Abroad] has been an effective book not because it answers all of my questions, but because it provides guidance and structure during a time when one can feel utterly lost, wandering around in a mental, physical, and cultural landscape without any landmarks in sight.” – Student in Salamanca, Spain; Spring, ’03 Week 11

Language strategies helped students communicate more effectively in the target language. • “I was in a hurry to get some food before meeting a friend. I wanted to say that I need the food ‘to go.’ Obviously saying comida ir, the literal translation would not work, so following the advice of the guide, I substituted words. I said I needed plastic plates because I had to take it with me.” – Student in Havana, Cuba; Spring ’03, Week 6

Culture strategies helped students become more knowledgeable about communication styles. • One of the greatest things about this guide is that it helps put new words to things we've been struggling with, things that are an inherent part of any experience like [study abroad]. Sometimes, it names the things we struggle with and helps us recognize that they're there – often you'll struggle in a situation and feel irritated or discouraged, but not really be sure why, and then you do your readings for the week and you realize the source of the problem...I sit up late nights reading in my mosquito net and all of a sudden think, "Oh! It's because I'm a linear communicator and she's a circular communicator. Huh." And then the suggestions about how to negotiate those things help me digest and deal better with the issue.” – Student in Cameroon; Spring ’03, Week 8

The Students’ Guide encouraged students to be data gatherers to improve language learning. • “The [Students’ Guide] section on Varying Strategies for Apologizingwas important. I seem to be always saying the wrong thing. I am still working on [apologies] and playing language detective by asking my host mom about appropriate expressions.” – Student in Santiago, Chile; Spring ’03, Week 4

Follow-up Interviews: Findings • Students’ overall reaction to the Guide some three-to-five months after returning to the U.S. was very positive. • While most students expressed the desire to maintain their target-language skills after returning to the U.S., many found they were either too busy or not motivated enough to follow the strategies for language maintenance contained in the Guide. • Many students reported that they maintained some link, however small, to the culture in which they had lived during study abroad. Examples included regularly reading a host country newspaper on-line and choosing to do research papers on the host country in university content courses.

Conclusions • The treatment appears to have enhanced speech act performance among study abroad students in Spanish- and French-speaking countries over time. • The reported gain in use of certain language strategies by the treatment group was correlated with rated gain in speech act performance. • The treatment did not appear to have a measurable impact on the development of students’ intercultural sensitivity. However, many E group students reported that the Guide helped them to improve their intercultural skills. • Students reported finding the Guide to be a useful tool for language and culture learning during their study abroad. • Data analysis is on-going and more findings will be available in the near future.

Andrew D. Cohen University of Minnesota & Visiting Professor, University of Auckland ad.co