Retrospective Views from the President's Commission on Foreign Language and
International Studies and Prospects for the Future:
Study Abroad and Language Learning 1.
Barbara F. Freed
Carnegie Mellon University
Introduction
On October 15, 1979 the members of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and
International Studies submitted their report to President Jimmy Carter. This multifaceted document of 150 pages presented 65 recommendations directed toward ameliorating what the report described as "America's scandalous incompetence in foreign languages." Woven into these recommendations and their supporting texts were no fewer than 70 references to study abroad, international exchanges and/or overseas experiences. The frequency with which these references appeared suggests that the members of the commission were convinced that such experiences, in and of themselves, would play a major role in altering the sorry state of affairs in which the United States found itself with respect to the learning of second languages.
Indeed, it has long been assumed that the combination of immersion in the native speech community, combined with formal classroom learning, creates the best environment for the acquisition of a second language. The power of this assumption is so great that there has evolved a popular belief, one shared by students and teachers, parents and administrators, that students who spend a period abroad are those who will ultimately become the most proficient in the use of their language of specialization. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of students worldwide depart annually for education abroad experiences with the expectation that they too will "pick up" if not become "fluent" in the target languages they have chosen to study, returning home with greatly enhanced language skills.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze this assumption, the assumption on which the
Report's numerous references to study abroad appear to be based. In this context I will review some of the Reports recommendations, and then explore what we, in fact, know about the relationship of study abroad experiences to second language learning and what we have yet to learn. At the outset two terminological clarifications are in order.
1

1. In this paper I will eschew references to "foreign language learning" replacing the term
"foreign" with "second." Despite the Commission's best intention in the first chapter of its report "No Longer Foreign No Longer Alien," I believe that use of the term foreign, when referring to language learning, perpetuates the notion of alien just as it confounds and complicates the language learning situation in the United States. As I have explained elsewhere (Freed, 1991: 5; 1995a: 4), the distinction between 'foreign" language learning and
"second" language learning arose just after the second world war in international organizations to satisfy certain nationalist sensitivities in discussions of language use and learning (Stern, 1983). Inherent to this distinction, which is based on contexts of learning, are contrasts which oppose the at home and immersion language learning environments, describing the learning which takes place in the former as "foreign language learning" and in the latter as "second language acquisition (SLA)." This unfortunate dichotomy totally ignores the similarity of the earning processes that occur in both of these settings. The distinction becomes even more blurred in the case of language learning in a study abroad context.
Consider, for example, the case of an American undergraduate who spends a year studying in Spain. Prior to departure for Spain the student would be described as studying Spanish as a foreign language. However, upon arrival in Spain and enrollment in the Spanish university system, this very same student is described as studying Spanish as a second language, only to be reclassified as a student of Spanish as a foreign language upon return to the American classroom a year later. This opposition of terms has ultimately served to mislead some, satisfy others and confuse even more.
2. The term "study abroad" is a particularly American reference. In the United States it tends to refer to the combined study and living experiences that undergraduates, frequently but not always in their junior year, spend in an overseas context. It is important to note that the
Commission's Report refers to numerous other international opportunities including visits and exchanges by school-aged students, graduate students, scholars, teachers, administrators and representatives of the business world. For the purpose of this chapter, I will use "study abroad" as an all inclusive cover term for international language learning experiences, fully recognizing that study abroad programs per se, represent only part of the "national architecture" (Lambert, 1994) of overseas learning and immersion-type opportunities.
2. As
Huebner points out in his broad taxonomy of institutional types providing study abroad experiences, "what all these situations have in common, with or without formal instruction, is the opportunity for informal language learning." (1998, p. 4). For this reason, and because the
2

literature on the topic pertains primarily to the linguistic impact of study abroad, my discussion will focus on the standard "study abroad" experience.
Language Learning and Study Abroad as Represented in the Report of the President's
Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies
The most efficient review of the references to overseas experiences made in the context of the
Commission's Report is a brief examination of a representative sample of the actual recommendations. These might include the following illustrations, excerpted from various sections of the report:
1. Twenty-thirty Department of Education funded summer institutes should be offered abroad annually (to reinvestigate and upgrade the foreign language and teaching competencies of foreign language teachers at all levels) but to include advanced students and teachers of subjects other than foreign language.. (Strength Through Wisdom:12)
2. Teacher professional development programs in international education should be strengthened and expanded to include all subject fields and involve summer institutes, experience abroad and ongoing programs in school districts. (Strength Through Wisdom: 15)
3. International school exchanges involving students, teachers, administrators and policy makers should be expanded...(Strength Through Wisdom:16)
4. Undergraduates should be given greater insight into foreign societies and international issues. To this end the Commission recommends...expanded opportunities for faculty to acquire or strengthen their foreign language and international skills...and increased faculty and student exchanges. (Strength Through Wisdom: 17)
5. Within the limits of funding, the Fulbright program should include exceptional junior and senior undergraduates and provide incentive funding to higher education institutions towards costs of establishing reciprocal undergraduate exchanges, especially in neglected world regions. (Strength Through Wisdom: 21)
6. USICA/ECA should have increased support to enable U.S. cultural staff abroad to assist more with exchanges. (Strength Through Wisdom: 22)
7. Colleges and universities should encourage and support more international exchanges of students, teachers and researchers... (Strength Through Wisdom: 22)
3

8. NEH should have increased funds to support the work of U.S. researchers involved in exchanges. NSF should have increased funds to give more U.S. scientists access to first-rate scientific work abroad. ( (Strength Through Wisdom: 22)
9. American corporations and labor unions involved internationally should establish internships abroad for students in the business and labor fields (Strength Through Wisdom:
26)
10. Higher education institutions should encourage reciprocal programs of study, research and teaching with institutions abroad, including one to one faculty exchanges (Strength
Through Wisdom: 110)
These ten examples capture some sense of the emphasis the Commission's Report placed on a range of international experiences. In retrospect the Commission members might be praised for the all-inclusive nature of their recommendations and the general loftiness of their goals.
However, beyond the common theme of attempting to include large segments of the
American educational population in a diverse array of overseas experiences, we must seriously question their contribution to promoting language learning in a study abroad context. To begin with the recommendations lack specificity, they are ill-defined, they are vague. They fail to differentiate the needs of one group from those of another. They make no reference to the types of experiences that are most likely to benefit one population as compared to another, how such experiences might be structured, what type of preparation might be required, what the anticipated outcomes of the experiences might be and how they might be evaluated. Beyond all else, the most glaring omission of all is that there is essentially no explicit reference to language learning and language learning possibilities.
Their failure, quite simply is that they don't talk about language.
No one would argue that exchange opportunities offer more than opportunities for language learning. This is a rich and informative literature on the myriad benefits of study abroad experiences (Baron and Smith 1987; Byram 1988; Coleman and Rouxeville 1993; Carlson,
Burn et al. 1990; Dalichow and Teichler 1986; Goodwin and Nacht 1998; Inkster 1993; Johnson and Edelstein 1993; Koester 1985; Laubscher 1994; Opper, Teichler and Carlson, 1990,
Teichler, 1997, Teichler and Steube 1991, among others). However, of all of the advantages, academic and personal, that may be attributed to a study broad experience, there is relatively unanimous agreement among researchers that "the mastery of a modern language has traditionally been perceived as the most direct educational benefit of study abroad (Goodwin and Nacht, 1988:16). This perception is not held exclusively by researchers, nor exclusively by
4

Americans. Even within the context of the European Union where exchanges are more common, a survey of thousands of students who participated in ERASMUS (European
Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) Programs (Teichler, 1997 as quoted by Coleman, 1998:182) found that "learning a foreign language dominates the reasons for studying abroad." It is therefore strange that the President's Commission on
Foreign Language and International Studies (emphasis added), ostensibly a report as much about language as about international studies, has avoided anything but the most generalized and implicit references to language learning.
Perhaps this shortsightedness resulted from the very curious fact that only one of the 25 members of the Commission, Professor John Rassias, was a member of the language teaching community. And perhaps here, more than anywhere else, is the most appropriate point to cite the dissenting view offered by Representative Millicent Fenwick. In her lone and courageous statement Representative Fenwick (p. 1) wrote:
"The Commission recommendations in section after section, omit any mention of 'foreign' languages."
If, as was the sentiment of the professional language community at the time the
Commission's Report first appeared in 1979, language in general was slighted, this omission could barely be more obvious than with respect to study abroad. In short, the message about the explicit relationship between SLA and study abroad is left to the imagination. The writers of the report appear to have bought into the long held and popular view that merely by going abroad students and teachers will improve their language proficiency. This position, which pays no heed to the multitude of learning possibilities, to prior learning experiences and to the vast importance of individual differences, seems to subscribe to the belief in a magical and mysterious process by which second language learning takes place merely by being on "foreign" soil.
Given the critical stance I have taken of the Report's once over lightly approach to language learning, I would like to move the discussion forward by exploring the relationship between language learning and study abroad by doing the following:
• examining what is known about the linguistic impact of study abroad experiences
• summarizing what has yet to learned on this topic
5

• suggesting which issues must be considered with respect to research, policy and programming for language learning abroad in the next century
What is Known About Language Learning and Study Abroad
It is often the case that the experience of residing in a country where the language spoken is other than one's own, results in the learning of many aspects of the language of that country.
However, the extent to which the language (be it oral or written) is learned and the style and dialect that are acquired, depends on numerous variables. In the case of American students studying abroad, these variables include striking individual differences in learning styles, motivation and aptitude, the features of the specific language to be learned, the degree to which students are actually "immersed" in the native speech community and the interaction of these variables with formal classroom instruction in the study abroad context.
Since the late 1960s a gradually increasing literature has emerged which addresses the general topic of the linguistic impact of various types of study abroad experiences. The development and direction of this domain of research is a logical outgrowth of the maturing of the field of SLA in general where scholars continue to refine their focus on the numerous variables (age, primary language, context of learning, purpose for study and motivation among others) that have been shown to affect the acquisition of non-primary languages.
Research whose central focus has been language learning in a study abroad context has, for the most part, found support for the positive role played by an in-country experience for language learning. There have, however, recently been some unanticipated findings as well.
Our current knowledge and understanding of the linguistic impact of study abroad experiences derive from a wide range of cross-linguistic studies. These studies, small and large, quantitative and qualitative in design, have been conducted both in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Their collective contribution has resulted in what Ferguson
(1995, xi) has labeled "a major subfield of SLA research." As a group the studies fall neatly into several distinct categories: those whose results are based uniquely on test scores; those whose analyses focus on the acquisition of linguistic forms; those whose primary focus is the measurement and prediction of student language gain abroad; those that explore the immersion setting and related student perceptions of language learning in a study abroad
6

context; and finally, those that relate to variables which are known to affect the language learning process itself. I will deal with each in turn.
1. Language Learning as Measured and Defined by Test Scores
With a few notable exceptions, prior to the early 1990s most studies which explored language learning and study abroad relied almost exclusively on tests scores to document the linguistic advantages of the period spent abroad. Prominent among this early work was John Carroll's
(1967) analysis of the language proficiency of several thousand college seniors majoring in
French, German, Italian, Russian. Utilizing the then popular MLA Cooperative tests, Carroll found that time spent abroad was one of the major predictors of overall language proficiency.
For many years this frequently cited study provided the major data which supported the belief that students who spend time in study abroad situations tend to acquire greater
"proficiency" in the target language than those who do not.
In subsequent years, a scattering of small and largely uncontrolled studies appeared in
Britain between 1969 and 1974. This work was briefly summarized by a team of British scholars who, in a prelude to their own study, lamented the lack of "systematic investigations of the effects upon linguists of a period of residence abroad" (Willis, Doble, Sankarayya and
Smithers 1977: 5). Willis and his colleagues subsequently carried out their own project in which they examined linguistic growth (once again, as measured by test scores) in speaking, listening and reading of 88 British students who spent more than a year either working or studying in France or Germany. Despite the self-acclaimed limitations of their study, the preresidence/post-residence tests provided the anticipated support for a period of study or residence abroad, particularly for speaking and listening comprehension, far less for reading and writing.
Similar support was reported in another series of British studies which evidenced expanding concern and interest in this topic. In the first of these, Dyson (1988) assessed the listening and speaking skills of 229 British students who had spent a year studying in France, Germany, or
Spain. The pre- to post-test scores indicated considerable growth in both these skills, particularly among the weaker students in the study. Unfortunately, the study lacked comparative data on students who had not been abroad. Thus, as Dyson acknowledges, it is
7

not possible to compare their improvement (in linguistic competence) with any that might have resulted from an extra year of study spent at home (1988:18).
A more recent evaluation of the linguistic benefits of residence abroad for British students was carried out by Coleman (1996, 1998) who has become one of the primary analysts and spokesmen for exchanges in the European Union. The European Language Proficiency
Survey, a multi-university project involving thousands of students in some 100 institutions, provides an evaluation of language proficiency based on the use of the C-Test. As described by Coleman, "the C-Test is a valid, reliable and eminently practical proficiency measure for large-scale studies, but it has no oral-aural component and does not differentiate between the subskills that make up L2 proficiency." (1998: 189). Acknowledging the limitations of this test,
Coleman reports that for this very large number of students "the mean post-residence abroad scores are substantially higher." He is careful to note that given the cross-sectional nature of this study, there is no absolute proof that time abroad leads to increased L2 proficiency but that the results "are certainly consistent with such an explanation" (1998:189). In addition to numerous other findings which emerge from this study, Coleman reports some new data suggesting that student growth in the target language slows down radically upon return from the year abroad.
Within the European Union at large, a major report (Opper, Teichler and Carlson, 1990) reviewed language gains made by students in some 82 programs in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden. This extensive evaluation, based on self-report and self- assessments (and therefore, perhaps of questionable validity and reliability) reports increased proficiency in all language skills. As in other reports, it points to the greatest growth being made by the students with the lowest levels of proficiency prior to the exchange experience.
In 1997, Teichler (as reported by Coleman, 1998) summarized extant knowledge on language learning by students who participated in the ERASMUS Program. This comprehensive report, based on self-report data on thousands of students, again suggests "substantial progress across all four language skills." What is more, five years after participating in an exchange, students reported "little loss," although the amount of language attrition was correlated with use of the target language during that five year period.
In the United States, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s a number of researchers (Foltz
1991, Liskin-Gasparro 1984, Magnan 1986, Milleret 1990, O'Connor 1988, Veguez 1984), utilized the ACTFL/ILR Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) as a criterion measure for
8

analyzing changes in oral proficiency for students who had been abroad. The results of their studies, conducted in Spain, France and Portugal consistently pointed to superior language growth, as measured by the OPI, for students who had studied abroad.
Complementing these studies were a series of others projects which analyzed language learning in the context of Canadian interprovincial exchanges. Several of these (Clement
1978; Gardner et al. 1978; Hanna et al. 1980), have shown that involvement in an exchange program affects students' motivation and also has a positive impact on their second language proficiency. Program evaluation research undertaken by the Modern Language Centre at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education explored the relationship of visits to French dominant areas to the tested French proficiency of some 1000 students in grades 8 and 12.
Among the findings which emerged from these studies were that grade 8 students who have visited a French dominant area, on average, obtained higher scores on tests of listening comprehension, and that some of these students received higher scores on fluency measures of the speaking tests. However, in grade 12, no differences in tested proficiency appear in relation to students' visits to French-speaking areas. The authors of this report conclude that time spent in the native speech community will enhance second language proficiency.
Each of these studies points to the general linguistic advantages that accrue to an academic stay abroad and has contributed preliminary knowledge to the understanding of the interaction between a sojourn abroad and formal classroom study. However many of these studies are limited by the fact that they rely exclusively on test scores to measure linguistic skills. While they seem to point to a strong positive correlation between second language growth and time spent abroad, they reveal little, if anything, about specific qualitative changes in students' language proficiency. Such tests are descriptively inadequate and unable to capture distinctions in linguistic usage that may result from an opportunity to live and study abroad. Moreover, as has been pointed out by Kaplan (1989), Freed (1990), Veguez
(1984), Milleret (1990) and Hart et al. (1994), there are limitations in the use of discrete point tests, each of which result in potentially confounding ceiling effects. The value of self-report assessments in this context has been equally questioned. In addition, the currently popular
OPI has been criticized for its use of one global holistic score to describe the components of language use and for its non-linear construction which contributes to its inability to discriminate progress made by students at the upper levels of the proficiency scale.
These shortcomings, coupled with the fact that some of the early studies were of a short duration and/or frequently lacked control groups further limits their significance with
9

respect to describing the actual linguistic growth of students who have spent time in an overseas context. While as a group these studies did not contribute to our knowledge of qualitative and discrete linguistic differences between students who had been abroad and those who had not, they did serve to document gross differences between these groups of students, to stimulate interest in the topic and to lay the ground work for research which was to follow.
2. Acquisition of linguistic forms
A group of individual projects, carried out by scholars in the United States and Europe, has focused on specific aspects of language acquisition by students who have spent time in a study abroad setting. These include several related sub-categories: the acquisition of features of fluency, the acquisition of discrete structural forms, the acquisition of lexical items, and the acquisition of communicative strategies and variables related to sociolinguistic usage.
2.1 The acquisition of features of fluency
"Fluency" is one of the most frequently evoked terms in popular discussions of the speech of students who have been abroad. Among the earliest of the linguistically-focused analyses were the small case studies carried out by Möhle (1984), Raupach (1984, 1987) and Möhle and
Raupach (1983). Their work, responding to the common perception that the only way to learn to speak a language is by studying abroad, includes two companion sets of studies which analyzed the learning of French by German students and the learning of German by
French students. With respect to the German students in France, the authors found that
"grammar, in terms of frequency of mistakes, or length and syntactic complexity of sentences, did not change in any noticeable way as a result of several months spent in France."
However, they did find a change in the speech rate and the length of time between utterances. Interestingly, these same findings were not replicated in the companion studies of
French learners of German. The results which emerged from this integrated series of studies suggests that what students most gain is some type of global fluency; the ability to "sound good” by increasing the rate of speech and/or decreasing the length of time between utterances, and by learning appropriate fillers, modifiers, formulae and compensation strategies, all of which provide them with a series of "native-sounding" attributes.
In an effort to understand how learners use their second language knowledge in actual communication, and how learners compensate for gaps in their knowledge DeKeyser (1986,
10

1991) compared the language skills of a small group of American students who spent a semester in Spain with a comparable group who remained at home. Among the few changes that he was able to identify concretely were improvements in the fluency of the group that studied in Spain. DeKeyser observed that this group tended to use fillers such as pues and
bueno, forms that are characteristic of native speaker usage.
The "fluency" of Irish students of French was the subject of Laudet's (1993) investigation of the effects of a residence abroad. Her findings, consistent with those of Möhle and Raupach, were that the students' speech assumed more native-like qualities as a result of a reduction in the number of pauses they used and their use of appropriate native-sounding "drawls" for hesitations.
In an attempt to isolate specific qualities of speech that contribute to the long-standing impression of the linguistic benefits of study abroad, Freed (1995b) expanded the work on fluency by examining the oral fluency of two groups of undergraduate students: one who had spent a semester studying in France and one whose language learning had been limited to the formal language learning classroom at home. The results of her study, based on a comparison of a cluster of features traditionally associated with fluency, provided support for the folk belief in study abroad-acquired 'fluency." The study abroad students in Freed's study were found to speak both more and significantly faster than those who had not been abroad and their speech was characterized by a greater smoothness with fewer clusters of dysfluencies and longer streams of continuous speech. Students in Freed's study also exhibited sometimes surprising individual differences on each of the variables studied.
With respect to studies of fluency it is worthwhile noting that the notion of fluency is defined in numerous, often contradictory, ways. The research highlighted above focuses on temporal features and hesitation phenomena whereas other studies (Clement 1879, Lafford, 1995,
Towell 1995, Walsch 1994) have noted general improvement in fluency when fluency is defined as a loose cover term which embraces many aspects of language use.
2.2 The acquisition of discrete structural forms
Throughout the 1990s a number of small scale studies, once again both in the United States and abroad, focused on language learning in a study abroad setting in an effort to compare the acquisition of specific linguistic forms. For example, Ryan and Lafford (1992) conducted a longitudinal analysis of the acquisition order of the Spanish verbs (ser and estar) by American
11

students in a study abroad context. The goal of these authors was to compare their findings with those of prior studies which investigated the acquisition order of these features in a language classroom setting. Their results suggest an acquisition order similar, but not identical, to the five stages of acquisition of the copula for students studying in Spanish language classrooms in the United States (VanPatten, 1987). In those instances where Ryan and Lafford's results are at a variance with VanPatten's, the authors' explanation for observed differences is that students in the study abroad setting are "exposed to more natural input than can be provided in the classroom" (Ryan and Lafford 1992: 721).
A companion set of studies (Guntermann, 1992a, 1992b, 1995) also explored the acquisition order of two sets of Spanish forms (ser vs. estar and por vs. para). Unlike other studies, the data analyzed in this study were based on the language learning experiences of a special type of
"study abroad" participant, a group of Peace Corps volunteers in an eight -to-ten week intensive language learning situation in Latin American. Of particular interest is the
"ser/estar" study, whose results provide general support for most of the findings on the acquisition of these discrete forms both in the formal language classroom (VanPatten, 1987) and in the study abroad context (Ryan and Lafford, 1992).
One topic of general interest in analyzing the linguistic impact of study abroad experiences is the extent to which in-country experience results in changes in the accuracy of students' oral and written language. Surprisingly enough, this issue has received relatively little focused attention. Nonetheless, a number of researchers have observed that they have been unable to detect changes in the grammatical accuracy in the language of students who have spent time abroad.
As noted above, Möhle (1984), Raupach (1984, 1987) and Möhle and Raupach (1983) were unable to identify changes in "grammar, in terms of frequency of mistakes, or length and syntactic complexity of sentences of the German students who spent time studying in France.
Likewise, DeKeyser (1991) did not find a significant difference in the grammar of the seven students who spent a semester in Spain when compared to those who remained in the United
States. Similarly Freed, Lazar, So (1998), Freed, So, Lazar (1999), who analyzed fluency in writing (see Section 2.4 below) by a group who studied in France and their peers who remained in the United States, found no significant difference in grammatical features (such the use of the past tense, noun- adjudicative agreement or subject-verb agreement) in the written language of these two groups. Regan, (1995, 1998) whose primary focus was the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence of a group of Irish students who studied in France
12

(see Section 2.5 below), noted that the linguistic factors which conditioned the use of a particular sociolinguistic variant did not change very much in the course of a year. Regan's concluding observation was that time spent studying in the native speech community appears to make no difference in the improvement of strictly "grammatical skills" as distinguished from learners' growing sociolinguistic sociolinguistic competence..
2.3 The acquisition of lexical items
A discrete number of studies has addressed the acquisition of lexical items in the context of a study abroad experience. The major work in this area (Milton and Meara 1995) analyzed the growth of vocabulary (for German, French, Italian and Spanish students who spent a period studying in England) and shed new light on the dramatic increases made by these students during the time abroad. The 53 European exchange students who spent at least six months in the UK, were found to acquire vocabulary "five times faster than for those who took classes at home...and to be gaining vocabulary at a rate of over 2,500 words per year." DeKeyser (1986,
1991) too, identified improvements in vocabulary as one of the few characteristics that differentiated the linguistic competence of students who spent a period of time studying in
Spain compared with their classmates who remained in the United States. By contrast, Freed,
Lazar, So 1998, Freed, So, Lazar 1999) were unable to detect significant differences in the acquisition of lexical competence in their small group of study abroad students. With respect to increases in the learning of vocabulary in a study abroad context, Meara (1998) sounds a note of caution about undue enthusiasm toward this (or other) effects, without more careful control of the measurement instruments themselves.
2.4 The acquisition of literacy skills
Unlike work which explores oral language use by students who study abroad, investigations of the acquisition of literacy by these same students have been largely neglected. The small number of studies that deal with any aspect of reading or writing seem to reflect Ginsberg's
(1992:18) observation that "study abroad is not oriented toward reading. Such a statement reflects the perceptions of hundreds of students in a variety of studies. For example, Meara
(1994) reported on the self-assessment or attitudinal questions which dealt with various components of the study abroad experience for 586 participants in the Nuffield Modern
Languages Inquiry of study abroad. These self-report data revealed that the majority of students felt that their oral-aural skills had improved as a result of the year abroad experience, but fewer than half of them believed that they had made similar progress in
13

reading and writing skills. These data also reflect the beliefs expressed by students in the
Willis et al. (1977) and Dyson (1988) studies.
Work of a more empirical nature was conducted by (Freed, Lazar and So, 1998; Freed, So and
Lazar, 1999), who built on Freed's (1995b) study of the oral fluency of study abroad. In one of the few studies that explicitly addresses the acquisition of writing skills during a period abroad, Freed and her colleagues analyzed samples of writing by the same group of students who had participated in the oral study. Their results revealed little if any support for the presumption that skills in writing might improve a semester abroad. Their analyses indicated that native speaker judges did not perceive differences in the written fluency of students who had been abroad as compared to those who had not. Moreover, textual analyses that focused on syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, lexical density, and structural coherence demonstrated essentially no differences in the writing of these two groups of students.
These observations notwithstanding, a handful of interesting studies which utilized qualitative approaches to investigating the acquisition of skills of literacy offer some emerging insights. Huebner (1995) compared two matched groups of American college students who were just beginning the study of Japanese. While statistically significant differences in acquisition patterns did not emerge, Huebner was able to demonstrate
(through the use of descriptive statistics) certain trends which suggested differences between the two groups. He showed, for example, that while the stateside group resisted the introduction of Katakana and Hiragana early in the course, the Japanese group enthusiastically welcomed this inclusion of certain aspects of the writing system. In addition, the non-significant but superior performance by the Japanese group on the test of reading was bolstered by the positive attitudes toward literacy expressed by these students in their interviews and journals. As Huebner observes (1995:185), their positive reaction "perhaps reflects the fact that students at the Japan site, finding themselves in an environment in which they were illiterate....had a more urgent need to be literate in Japanese." Excerpts from his students' journals support this observation:
It was only when I began making an effort to read anything I saw (store names, magazines, subway signs, etc.) that I started retaining the alphabet... (185)
Learning the Kanji is becoming easier as I start to look at more of the signs around me. For instance, the days of the week are in Kanji on the calendar at home and as I
14

ate breakfast I studied them...also, entrance and exit are easier to remember since I see them at the train station (185)
...and I went to dinner. We could tell when we walked in that the waiters were worried we could not speak Japanese. They were much relieved...Just about everything was in Katakana so it was easy. (186)
In addition to the impact that the local context has on students' attitudes toward literacy skills, these data may also provide support for permitting beginning students to participate in study abroad programs.
Kline (1995) enlarges on this qualitative approach to interpreting the impact of study abroad experiences on reading. Rather than study reading as tends to be done in the language learning classroom, an approach which is largely cognitive and "product-oriented," Kline explores the social practice of literacy in a study abroad context. In this fashion she eliminates reliance on traditional interpretations and tests of reading which measure subskills of reading (comprehension, extracting information from short passages, etc.), focusing instead on the "process" of reading and the notion of becoming "literate in another culture." Her qualitative study of 8 undergraduates who spent 15 months studying in France utilizes ethnographic interviews, participant observation, artifact inventory, surveys and questionnaires as well as document analysis in an effort to understand the nature and meaning of different types of literacy in the immersion context. The findings replaced, as
Kline states (1995:158), "a focus on skills with a focus on identity and context." From the voices of her students emerged several conceptual categories where the literate identity of the students assumed a role of its own, a role which was sometimes in conflict with the expectations they brought with them from their language classrooms at home, the attitudes expressed by their French host families and with what they themselves found useful and interesting to read. This investigation of the social practices of literacy which is embedded in the experiences and perceptions of students foreshadows much of the qualitative work to be discussed in the following sections.
2.5 The acquisition of communicative strategies and variables related to sociolinguistic usage
Among the assumptions regarding language learning in a study abroad setting is the conviction that immersion in the target culture will exert a major impact on students' use of communicative strategies and their acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. The results of
15

several studies suggests that it is, indeed, likely that a sojourn abroad will affect the range of communicative strategies that students have access to and their ability to vary linguistic forms in accordance with the social facts of an encounter situation. A number of studies have now traced changes in the use of communicative strategies and a variety of sociolinguistic variables by students who have been abroad. As a group the results tend to point to a series of common patterns in the acquisition of diverse sociolinguistic variables.
As mentioned above, DeKeyser's (1986, 1991) study which compared the language learning of a group of American students in Spain with a comparable group in the United States failed to find significant differences "between learning language in the classroom and picking it up abroad, or between grammar and oral proficiency." However, his study was among the first to compare communication strategies used by these two groups of students. His findings revealed a trend for certain strategies (circumlocution and restructuring) to be used more frequently by the group who studied in Spain. Above all else, his research emphasized the importance of individual differences in second language acquisition in a study abroad context, a theme in much of the study abroad literature throughout the 1990s.
Lafford (1995) also sought to compare the communicative strategies of two groups of study abroad students (one in Mexico, one in Spain) with a control group on her home campus. Her analysis is based on the role-play situations which form an inherent part of the OPI. The results which emerged from this study demonstrated clearly that both the abroad groups (the
Mexican and Spanish) had a far broader repertoire of communicative strategies for initiating, maintaining, expanding and terminating a communicative situation than did those whose learning has been limited to the formal language classroom. The related finding, that students who had been abroad speak at a faster rate of speech and utilize more repairs in their speech, echoes Freed's (1995b) study of fluency.
The acquisition of a range of sociolinguistic variables has been the subject of interest of several research projects both in and outside of the United States. For example, a series of studies have focused on the acquisition of Japanese by secondary level Australian students in exchange programs in Japan. Among these is a series of papers in which Marriott (1993a) and/or her colleagues addressed the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in this setting.
Marriott and Enomoto (1995), analyzed the discourse of two non-native speakers of Japanese for the purpose of demonstrating deviations from appropriate politeness norms. Their preliminary findings suggested that the most difficult areas for these speakers involve the management of the speech acts of apology, compliments and requests. In a second study
16

(Marriott 1993b), focused on the acquisition of a broader selection of sociolinguistic variables by 11 students who spent one year in Japan. The results of this study indicated great variation in the acquisition of sociolinguistic norms, with considerable deviation from expected norms even at the end of the year. Hashimoto's (1994) case study of one student in the homestay environment indicated that the student developed a sensitivity to the feature of variation in Japanese, but that it was not until her return to Australia that she began to incorporate variables of politeness into her speech.
In a subsequent study Marriott (1995) analyzed the acquisition of politeness in Japanese by 8 secondary-level Australian exchange students who spent a year in Japan. Politeness in
Japanese, as Marriott carefully points out, includes use of the honorific system, which consists of grammatical encoding of verbal and other lexical elements, linguistic politeness, and etiquette or courtesy which covers non-verbal behavior. In this study, Marriott used a role-play situation as the basis for a quantitative analysis of the pre- to post- exchange behavior in the use of several of these variables. Three major conclusions were drawn from this study: first, there is great variation in the acquisition of politeness norms; second, students demonstrate considerable change in their use of politeness phenomena after their sojourn in Japan; and finally, their performance still deviates considerably from the expected norm. Similar observations emerge in the following studies.
In a study otherwise quite different from Marriott's, Siegal (1995) also chose the acquisition of politeness as the basis of an exploration of individual differences in the learning of Japanese by U.S. college students. Using a detailed case study of two advanced female learners of
Japanese, Siegal utilized a qualitative analysis to describe the acquisition of pragmatic
(contextual or interactional) and stylistic competence, to demonstrate learner differences in acquisition and to suggest what the basis of these differences are. Siegal has brought new insight to the field with a detailed description of the competing pragmatic demands and conflicts faced by her subjects and in their response to these pressures. She has demonstrated in a compelling fashion, for example, the ambivalence experienced by each of these American women and the way in which each has reconciled her desire to speak politely while maintaining her own sense of identity within Japanese society.
In a related study Regan (1995) selected the acquisition of negation in French, or more particularly on one sociolinguistic variable and how this variable is affected by a stay abroad.
In her study, Regan analyzed the deletion of "ne," the first particle of the common negative construction - "ne (verb) pas"- in French. The general finding which emerged from this study
17

was that a stay abroad results in a dramatic change in the acquisition of this sociolinguistic variable. Consistent with native speaker usage, the trend toward "ne" deletion on the part of the students is radically increased after a year abroad. However, deviations from native speaker styles are equally apparent. As in numerous other studies cited, Regan's findings demonstrated once again, great individual variation among student performance.
3. Measuring and Predicting Gains in Language Learning Abroad
It has already been noted that test scores, in and of themselves, reveal little about the actual linguistic performance and gains made by students who study abroad. These reservations relate primarily to the use of self-report data, to the inherent limitations of the ceiling effects of certain types of tests for students at more advanced levels (Willis et al. 1977; Dyson, 1988;
Oper Teichler and Carlson, 1990; Brecht et al. 1990; Lapkin et al. 1995; Milton and Meara,
1995; Meara, 1998; Freed, 1990, 1995b; Regan, 1998; Coleman 1998), and to the failure of discrete items tests to provide any descriptive information about language use and language growth.
Beyond the importance of developing the most finely tuned and sensitive measurement instruments and descriptive techniques to describe linguistic gains abroad, it is also crucially important that we be able to predict success in an academic experience abroad. The goal of understanding what type of students, with what types of preparation will gain the most from what type of experiences abroad is part of the complete picture of language learning in a study abroad setting. Steps in this direction have already been taken by researchers who have made these questions the focus of their investigations.
By far the largest and most comprehensive study completed by American scholars to date is the multi-year, multi-institution study of Russian in a study abroad setting. This major statistical study combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments to compare language learning abroad with that which occurs at home. Several individual and joint publications (Brecht and Davidson 1991; Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg 1990 and 1993;
Brecht and Robinson 1993; Ginsberg, Robin and Wheeling 1992; Ginsberg 1992), describe various aspects of this project. A brief summary of these findings includes the following:
• Language aptitude, as measured by the Modern Language Aptitude
Test (MLAT), is very strongly and positively related to reading gain, but
18

otherwise has no significant correlation with gains in speaking or listening skills (Brecht and Davidson 1991:15).
• Study abroad, as measured by the OPI, is an effective mode for learning to speak (Russian), particularly when compared to the proficiency attained by the typical student in a four-year college (Russian) program in this country (Brecht and Davidson 1991:16).
• The higher the scores on the pre-reading/grammar tests, the more likely students are to gain in all other skills: speaking, listening, and reading.
The authors claim that "this is the first substantial evidence for the common conviction that communication skills are most effectively built upon a solid grammar/reading base" (Brecht and Davidson 1991:16).
• Higher levels of preprogram reading proficiency seem to facilitate gains on the OPI and listening (Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg 1993: 17).
• Men are more likely than women to gain on listening, and to advance on the OPI (Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg 1993: 16.)
Complementing this study is that by Lapkin et al. (1995) who also considered factors in a student's prior learning experience which might predict success abroad. While Brecht and his colleagues presented the findings from a large, multi-year study of American undergraduates who spent a semester or more of in-country immersion, Lapkin et al. discuss language gains made by a group of Canadian adolescents who participated in a three-month bilingual interprovincial exchange program. Despite differences in language studied, age of students, program length, and formal language instruction during the program, certain similarities between the two groups emerged.
Like Brecht et al., Lapkin and her colleagues utilized an extensive package of measurement instruments, including multi-skill tests, questionnaires, self-assessments and/or diary studies. Foremost among their findings were that students who participated in the interprovincial exchanges were more likely to reach higher levels of proficiency than their peers whose learning is limited to home country (province) formal language contexts. In addition, Lapkin et al. identified certain variables (level of pre-program language proficiency, age, previous in-country immersion) as likely to predict success in the study-abroad or exchange environment.
19

The self-assessment questionnaire used by Lapkin et al. failed to meet its potential as a surrogate for testing language directly, crucially important information for those tempted to use self-report data in lieu of direct measurements of linguistic performance. However, despite the failure of the self-assessment measures to corroborate with the more direct tests of language ability, they did provide a new dimension for exploring student perceptions of sociolinguistic gains during an exchange, providing valuable data on the language use of the most advanced students, information that would have otherwise been lost because of the ceiling effect of the discrete point tests.
Within the European context Teichler (1997, as reported by Coleman 1998) attempted to identify factors which would point to greater likelihood of gain in language proficiency for students who participated in exchange programs. The five factors he isolated include: having a linguistic objective in undertaking residence abroad; following language classes in common with native L2 speaking students; academic preparation in the home university; teaching in the L2 at the host university; and frequent cultural activities while abroad (Coleman,
1998:183).
Two other studies focus on predicting student success in exchange contexts but from a totally different perspective. In addition to looking at prior student experience and preparation, these researchers contrasted expectations in the learning environment and the extent to which similarities or differences in this area might be responsible for success or failure. As reported in the Swedish journal Finlance (Mauranen and Markkanen, 1994), Mauranen (1994) documents the discourse problems that Finnish students encounter in discipline- specific courses when they are enrolled in the British classroom, problems that relate not to lexis or grammar, but rather to their insufficient knowledge of how to participate in the culturally different discourse world of the British university classroom. Similarly, Ylönen (1994) compares the communicative situations that Finnish students encounter in scientific classrooms in Germany, suggesting that problems arise from distinct cultural differences in
"study situations," most of which involve oral discourse in Germany but which tend to be in a written mode in Finland.
4. Explorations of the immersion setting and related student perceptions of language learning in a study abroad context.
Research on language learning in a study abroad context has recently been enhanced by a rich series of qualitative studies which offer a view of language study abroad from the
20

perspective of the students themselves. These studies focus on the process of SLA in the study abroad setting rather than the products or outcomes of such experiences. Sometimes the data collection procedures utilize introspective techniques (diaries, interviews, narratives) as well as case studies, participant observation and ethnographies, to deepen and expand researchers' understanding of students' language use and the language learning experience.
On other occasions these techniques are used to complement quantitative approaches to assessing language learning in an effort to provide what Gertz (1973) has described as a
"thick description." To a large extent, this research has focused on areas that were largely neglected in the past: second language literacy (as previously discussed in section 2.4 above), student views of various aspects of the learning/living experience abroad and the nature of the immersion context itself.
Many of the studies discussed in this section emanate from, or were inspired by, the multiyear, multi-institution study of Russian in a study abroad setting conducted under the joint auspices of the National Foreign Language Center and the American Council on the Teaching of Russian (Brecht and Davidson 1991; Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg 1990 and 1993; Brecht and Robinson 1993; Ginsberg, Robin and Wheeling 1992; Ginsberg 1992). The results of these studies, based on analyses of student diaries and narratives, offer valuable insight into how students perceive their time abroad and their own thoughts about how these experiences relate to and ultimately affect the language learning process. Individually and as a group, they and related studies, provide unanticipated findings which challenge some previously unexplored if cherished beliefs about study abroad experiences.
Miller and Ginsberg (1995) based their analyses on student narratives and written journal entries on the topics of language, the language learning process and methods of language learning in the Russian study abroad setting. The findings which they authors describe as
"folklinguistic theories" of language learning reveal several intertwined and recurrent themes that reveal students' narrow but well-developed ideas about what constitutes appropriate linguistic data and what they consider valuable in the language learning process. Among their discoveries is the fact that students are highly critical of what takes place in the formal language learning classroom but, ironically enough, seek to recreate outside of the classroom the opportunities and interactions that classroom instruction offers.
This discovery presents an interesting paradox in many students' treatments of native speakers as participants in their language learning experiments. While students commonly criticized and rejected certain pedagogical classroom activities, they praised these very same
21

activities when they occurred in an out-of-class context with their native speaker friends. As the authors point out, these beliefs and the behaviors they engender are important, "not for their validity but for their consequences," the extent to which student attitudes and beliefs affect all aspects of their language learning while abroad.
Expanding upon the work of Miller and Ginsberg, Pellegrino (1997a, 1997b, 1998) surveyed
American students prior to their departure for Russia, learning that the majority of the students believed they would learn more Russian through informal contacts with native speakers of Russian than they would in the classroom context abroad. Pellegrino interviewed these same students upon their return to the States, learning that number of students who subscribed to these beliefs had grown. It was their impression that they had learned more from the Russian friends than they had in their classroom experiences. The comments made by Pellegrino's students' (1998:99) bring these impressions alive:
I learned more from my charming, authentic Russian host family than I could and have ever learned in class
I found that I learned very little in in-class situations, because in class I was more likely to stick with constructions and words I already knows. Outside of class I was much more willing to take chances when speaking.
I learn better when speaking with Russians about various topics rather than in a classroom setting
I find I learn new words and vocab more by doing stuff than just in class.
Building further on the theme of student perspectives on the relationship between classroom instruction and other arenas for language learning, Brecht and Robinson (1995) also explored the perceived value of formal instruction in the Russian setting, again by going directly to the learners and seeking their opinions. However, these authors contend that research which is based on student opinions is prone to "problems of investigator selection and interpretation."
Therefore, they designed a study which analyzed data deriving from different modes of elicitation (observations, interviews, different types of student diaries), collected at multiple points and in different conditions during the study abroad experience. Their analysis revealed an inconsistency in student opinion, one which demonstrated alternating criticism and praise for the classroom experience. Through close analysis of their data Brecht and
Robinson uncovered the fact that in spite of the students' criticism of formal instruction, classroom work had an important and positive impact on their out-of-class language use.
22

For example, the classroom helped students establish goals for their language use, it helped them bring to life skills that they had known only passively before, it enriched their comprehension of lexical and structural features heard in the natural context and it provided an opportunity to analyze problems they had had in interacting with native speakers. Brecht and Robinson explain the discrepancies between conflicting student perceptions as resulting from a variety of factors: where the students are in their study abroad experience, their outof-class contacts, and their needs of the moment.
Polanyi (1995) utilized portions of the same data source to explore the controversial finding, which emerged from this study, namely the existence of a possible gender bias with respect to language growth abroad (Brecht, Davidson and Ginsberg, 1993). As Huebner (1998) has pointed SLA research tends to suggest that females as a group are better second language learners than males. However, in contrast to this general pattern, the results of the Russian study pointed to greater gains made by males in the study abroad context. Polanyi posited that the explanation for the conclusion that "women gain less than men in listening and speaking skills," was to be found in the actual experiences reported by female students who had participated in the Russian study abroad project (an observation noted by other researchers as well: Brecht and Robinson, 1993; Kline, 1993; 1998; Twombly, 1995; Wieland,
1990).
In a narrative analysis of stories and reports written in the extensive journals of 40 of the participants (half men and half women) in the Russian study, Polanyi identified a pervasive theme of sexist behavior toward the female students which, in their own words, revealed how their linguistic growth has been compromised as a result of the experiences they encountered in the field. In story after story, Polanyi portrayed the discomfort of these female students, their self-doubts and frustrations in face of the sexual harassment. It is these "severe gender-related problems" that Polanyi claims are responsible for the women's lower scores on both tests of listening and oral proficiency. Moreover, not only did women encounter unpleasant gender-related behavior while in the field, but they were further penalized by testing instruments that measured the skills of an "ungendered person (i.e. a male)," while their experience abroad consisted of their "being and speaking, and being spoken to and treated as a person gendered female." In other words, the experiences of these female students, as related by the women themselves, not only seemed to inhibit their language learning opportunities but their ultimate performance on tests which evaluated their learning.
23

Utilizing similar data collection procedures Frank (1997) and Wilkinson (1995, 1997, 1998a,
1998b) explored non-classroom aspects of the immersion environment, offering a number of new findings which separate facts from what Wilkinson (1997) has called the "myths" of the study abroad environment. Their studies uncover a series of thought provoking revelations which, if replicated on a large scale basis, will lead us to question many of the assumptions on which certain aspects of study abroad programs have been traditionally based.
Frank's (1997) work represents a new generation of Russian study abroad data, deriving from a decision made in 1993 to offer students an opportunity to live with Russian families rather than limiting their residence options to student dormitories. His study of 9 students who lived with Russian families is based on analyses of student calendar-diaries of out-of-class activities, and responses to questionnaires which elicited thoughts on language learning in the homestay context. His results, among the first ethnographic data to actually describe the experiences students encounter in the homestay situation, offer some surprising and negative findings. For example, quite unlike our longheld assumption that students who live with host families will be surrounded by a continual source of rich linguistic input, Frank's students reported that they spent up to 25% of their "at home" totally alone. This was in addition to the private time they spent working on their homework. The frustrating experiences of some of Frank's students also suggest that the homestay experience may not be designed for students without adequate linguistic preparation to deal with the anticipated interaction in the target language. Perhaps even more troubling is the observation made by many students that the nature of everyday verbal interaction is far from challenging, limited to a series of lexically limited and mundane topics. In addition, several of the students who were placed in homestay environments, commented on the size of the host family, indicating limitations with families that were either too small (a lone host) or too large (more than five family members), neither of which seems to offer optimal opportunities for interaction with native speakers. Finally, several students commented on the negative impact of the omnipresent tuned-on television. The following comments convey the students' reactions in their own words:
"From the beginning she (my host mother) would go her own way and assumed I would do the same. We rarely ate meals together, and there were many times when it was just plain lonely." (1997: 8)
"my homestay was not a rich environment for language acquisition since my hostess was not a great conversationalist. We seldom had visitors so there was little
'outside' stimulus and she spent most of her evening talking on the telephone." (1997: 7)
24

"...my competence in Russian diminished in the first few weeks of my stay because my host family needed to communicated with me and decided to use English... I felt very belittled and humbled, and even cheated (p. 7 )
"I learned many words relating to food, kitchen and home... but it became it pretty monotonous after a time" (1997: 6)
"one American sitting with 5 Russians, trying to hold his own...When there's that may people...everyone's attention is divided and I don't get as much." (1997:7)
"TV is on 24-7 (twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week), it distracts people, impedes conversation. (1997:8)
The less than positive affect of the homestay environment for these students has been corroborated in a statistical analysis which compared gains made in speaking, listening and reading by students in homestay and dormitory contexts (Rivers 1998). The findings of this study confirm that the improvement in speaking and listening for students who lived with
Russian families was slightly less than for those who lived in student dormitories. Only reading was seen to benefit from the homestay experience.
The impressions created by Frank's study are reinforced by those in Wilkinson's (1995, 1997,
1998a, 1998b) analyses of the experiences of 7 female who spent a summer living and studying in a small French city. Wilkinson utilized procedures similarly to those employed by Frank to explore both the nature of the immersion context and student perceptions of their experiences. Once again, we are confronted with the unexpected finding that the immersion context may present opportunities for social interaction and linguistic contact than are far more limited than once believed. Wilkinson classifies her findings into several categories which she describes as myths. The "language and host family myths" reflect those identified by Frank and his students.
For example, the "host family myth" echoes both the frustration and loneliness reported by
Franks students:
"And every time she'd say something and I'd say, 'Comment?", she would just say, you know, 'Oh never mind. It doesn't mater,' and wouldn't repeat it. I mean, obviously she wanted me to speak French, and if I didn't understand it on the first time, you know, that was too bad." (1997:6)
25

This student summarized her feelings about her homestay experience as follows:
"I always feel very uncomfortable in the house -- even sitting in my room with the door shut, I feel very uncomfortable." (1997: 6)
Another student commented on her experience at evening meals by saying:
"I don't think I ever once understood one thing that they were talking about to each other. It was like, you know, having a secret language to talk about someone who was in the room." (1997:.6)
Equally compelling were the student voices that questioned the "language myth," the belief that living with a native family surrounds students with unlimited high quality linguistic immersion. What could be more revealing than the following student's description of family interaction?
"I was just so surprised that you could be in France for a month and...really not speak French that often...I mean, I probably spoke about maybe three sentences a day in French with my family, you know, 'I'm leaving. I'll be home later,' or during dinner, 'Pass the so and so.' I never really spoke." (1997:7)
The findings of these researchers and the voices of their students challenge the previously unquestioned nature of the linguistic environment and the linguistic benefits of the immersion experience. Little, if any prior research had examined the quantity or the quality of linguistic input in the home environment or nature of social interactions in is context. The work of this group of authors has examined uncharted territory in the exploration of the linguistic experiences of students who live and study abroad. As a group they have expanded the field of SLA in a study abroad context, providing new insights and establishing new directions for future research.
5. Variables known to affect the language learning process.
In addition to its direct impact on language learning, immersion experiences of various types may also influence a number of variables (anxiety, motivation, attitudes and learning behaviors) related to the language learning process itself. The federal government's Guide for
Evaluating Foreign Language Immersion Training (1997) reviews several studies that suggest learning in an immersion context affects the way that students "go about" language learning:
26

that is, how they define what the language learning task is and the responsibility they assume for this learning. (1997:2-10). Beyond the differences that students in immersion programs, as compared to those whose language learning is strictly limited to a classroom context, seem to display with respect to learning processes, immersion and study abroad students have been found to develop a series of different "affects." The government's Guide, as well as Coleman's (1998) review of factors related to language learning abroad, report decreased negative effects of anxiety and correspondingly greater self-confidence and risk taking among students who have been abroad.
Interestingly enough, these two reviews present conflicting data with respect to the effect of immersion experiences on attitudes and motivation. While the government's Guide reports that "the attitude of students towards the target language and its speakers ...constitutes one of the strongest factors affecting the attainment of language proficiency (1997: 2-13),
Coleman's review suggests otherwise. In a study of thousands of students across the nations of Europe he (Coleman, 1996) finds a marginal difference in motivation when comparing motivation before and after the study abroad experience. Even more striking are the differences in attitudes among the American and European cohorts. In contrast to the
American students whose attitudes seemingly are changed for the better, Coleman's review finds that students often return from their learning experiences abroad with more negative rather than more positive perceptions of the speakers of their target languages. The differences between these groups of studies suggests, once again, that the experiences of students and the benefits they derive from them are far less homogenous than was once imagined.
Summary
This overview of the relationship between language learning and study abroad experiences suggests that there are, indeed, differences between the language proficiency of those who have the opportunity to live and study abroad and those whose language learning is limited to the formal language classroom at home. This research offers some welcome documentation to established beliefs in the power of study abroad experiences to influence the linguistic skills of program participants. At the same time, there is conflicting evidence with respect to certain aspects of language learning in the study abroad context. Most important, some of the most recent research has provided new findings which challenge prior assumptions about language learning which takes place in this setting.
27

The results of studies based exclusively on test scores support our faith in the study abroad experience to improve specific language skills, particularly along the oral-aural continuum.
Not as much is known about progress made in various aspects of literacy although preliminary information suggests that there is less of an impact in this domain, particularly with respect to traditional interpretations of the construct of literacy. Recent research, however, has opened new directions in the area by broadening the discussion to include explorations of the social process of reading, and perhaps of writing as well.
These data notwithstanding, there is ample evidence that test scores alone contribute only limited understanding as to the nature of the linguistic growth of students who have studied abroad. By contrast, research that has focused on analyses of specific linguistic forms in the language of study abroad participants provides an emerging profile of the linguistic skills of these students. Such students tend to speak with greater ease and confidence, their language characterized by a greater abundance of speech, spoken at a faster rate, and correspondingly, realized with fewer dysfluent-sounding silent and/or filled pauses. They are more likely to integrate appropriate linguistic formulae into longer stretches of speech to create an air of fluency. Like native speakers of a language, study abroad participants may utilize more repairs or reformulations as they attempt to express more complex thoughts as well as an ability to use a broader repertoire of styles. With respect to discourse management and conversational ability, they tend to display a wider range of communicative strategies than students who have not been abroad, demonstrating an ability to initiate, participate in, and maintain an interaction. It is equally clear that their linguistic identities extend beyond the expected acquisition of oral skills to new self-realizations in the social world of literacy.
In addition to these demonstrable linguistic skills, we have gained insight into the highly developed meta-cognitive awareness of students who study abroad. Unlike the typical classroom learner, these students seem to possess a set of well-defined, if sometimes inaccurate, beliefs about what constitutes appropriate linguistic data, language learning methodology, the roles of the classroom and the native speech community. Student perceptions of the language learning environment that surrounds them -- both in class and out --have been shown to demonstrate a profound impact on the way in which they go about manipulating the linguistic environment, sometimes but not always to their advantage. Still in the meta-cognitive domain, students who have been abroad appear to develop sensitivity to and the ability to use a range of native-like sociolinguistic variables. However, their use of these variables often remains deviant in their over-generalization or misuse of certain forms.
Moreover, the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence appears to occasionally be
28

accompanied by a set of conflicting pragmatic conflicts as they regard themselves in comparison to the expected performance of native speakers of their target languages.
Consistent with these conflicts are the perceptions of some female learners of how their linguistic growth is hindered by the gender-related experiences they encounter in the study abroad environment itself.
Despite these observed tendencies which apply to many students who have participated in residence abroad programs, caution has been expressed with respect to the temptation to generalize about the nature of students' linguistic growth as well as about the nature of the immersion experience. Stories told many authors, often in their students' own voices have convinced us of the highly individual nature of students' experiences and the patterns of individual differences which emerge in the course of their acquisition of the target language.
This review of research related to language learning in a study abroad context has brought several unexpected surprises. Beyond sheer linguistic competencies, it is clear that the popular notion of the study abroad environment is less uniform than was once believed.
Student perceptions of their experiences have taught us that their interactions with native speakers may be far less intense and frequent that was once assumed and that the so-called
"immersion" into the native speech environment may be far from what was once taken for granted.
With respect to measurement and programmatic issues, there is still contradictory evidence as to the optimal time in their language learning careers for students to study abroad and as to what types of preparation are most likely to assure them of maximal linguistic benefits.
There have been numerous studies which create the impression that the greatest gains in an immersion environment are made by students with initially lower language proficiency.
However, these results must be cautiously interpreted due to the failure of many measurement instruments to capture adequately the language growth of more advanced students. It may very well be that the repeated findings which demonstrate the greatest gains made by students with initially lower language proficiency are, in fact, an artifact of the testing package. To the extent that assessment instruments are unable to capture the progress made by more advanced students, we will always be left with the false perception that it is the lower-level students who have made the greatest gains.
Finally, the variety of research procedures and methods of analysis utilized by scholars working in this area provide convincing support for the advantages of triangulated and
29

interpretive research. The integration of quantitative and qualitative research design and analysis which permits descriptive interpretation of results, complements and enriches our understanding of language learning that takes place in a study abroad context.
This section has sketched what is currently known about language learning and study abroad, identifying recurrent themes and occasionally conflicting findings. The following section will summarize some of the major questions which remain to be answered.
What Remains To Be Learned About Language Learning and Study Abroad
As discussed above, a growing body of literature documents several aspects of the linguistic benefits of an overseas stay. Despite our growing understanding of the relationship between second language acquisition and study abroad, an obvious need remains to replicate the findings of smaller studies, enlarging the populations as well as refining and expanding the data analysis procedures. In addition, it is imperative that we broaden the scope of our inquiry by obtaining answers to numerous questions that, thus far, have been unexamined.
These questions fall neatly into several categories: Programmatic questions that relate to program organization, policy issues, the context of language learning and applied linguistic issues; Theoretical questions that focus on the relationship of language learning in a study abroad context and second language acquisition
1. Programmatic questions that relate to program organization, policy issues, the context of language learning and applied linguistic issues
Answers to questions such as those that follow will contribute to basic policy and programmatic decisions that underlie the creation and administration of successful overseas language learning programs.
• When is the best time in a student's language learning career to participate in a study abroad program? How does this vary for students studying the more commonly taught languages (e.g. Romance Languages) as compared to less commonly taught or languages more difficult to learn for American students?
• What is the minimal amount of time students should spend abroad to benefit linguistically from the experience?
30

• Should students with little or no prior exposure to the target language be encouraged to study abroad?
• Where should students be encouraged to live when abroad- in a homestay context, in student dormitories, in private apartments? Should living arrangements depend upon their linguistic level upon arrival in the overseas context?
• What is the relationship between level of proficiency, type of language instruction, and participation in a study abroad program?
• How can we best predict which students will benefit most from a study abroad experience? What is the ideal linguistic preparation before such experiences?
• What combination of experiences is most valuable for students who participate in study abroad programs? Should all students, regardless of their language proficiency, be required to take a formal language course in addition to content-based courses? What is the interaction of out-of-class contact and formal instruction?
• What are the positive and negative effects of permitting students with little or no linguistic background in the target language to study abroad in a setting that provides courses in English and attempts to replicate the at home educational context?
• What procedures should be implemented to better integrate the learning experiences that are provided in formal classroom structures and those that occur more spontaneously in the unstructured day to day activities in the native speech community?
• Are there systematic and significant differences (in demographic background, motivation, learning style, meta-cognitive abilities) between students who go abroad and those who remain at home?
• Which assessment tools are the most appropriate for measuring progress at all levels of study and in a number of linguistic areas for students in study abroad programs? What type of evaluation tools need to be developed to avoid the ceiling effects of most current tests?
• How can we best assess, describe and evaluate the quality and extent of student social contact, the nature of the immersion process itself and language use while abroad?
That is, how do students actually spend their time while abroad, which language they speak with friends and host families, and for what purposes and for what quantities of time do they use the target language as compared to their native language?
31

• What is the best way to assess student perceptions of the study abroad context as well as the relationship between language learning, the formal language classroom and immersion in the native speech community?
• What should students be encouraged to do upon their return to best reinforce and help maintain the linguistic progress made abroad?
• How do study abroad experiences compare with stateside immersion programs?
• Which positive aspects of the study abroad experience can be replicated in home learning environments?
• What role(s) should federal agencies play a role in providing standards for, supporting and developing valid infrastructures for study abroad programs? What is their responsibility for encouraging and assisting in the development of measurement tools which evaluate both program structure and the linguistic consequences of study abroad experiences?
2. Theoretical questions that focus on the relationship of language learning in a study abroad context and second language acquisition
Answers to questions of the type posed below will serve to enrich the general field of SLA research at the same time that as the response broaden our knowledge and expectations of the linguistic benefits to be derived from a study abroad sojourn.
• What are the actual linguistic benefits of time spent in a study abroad program: improved accent, greater use of idioms, improved accuracy, expanded discourse strategies, greater fluency, improved listening comprehension, improved oral or written communication, greater syntactic complexity, broader sociolinguistic range? How does this vary according to the pre-study abroad level of proficiency?
• how are individual skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) affected by study abroad experiences?
• What differences exist between instructed versus untutored language learning in an immersion context and what does this tell us about the process of SLA?
• In what specific ways do the linguistic skills of those who have been abroad compare to those of students who participate in stateside intensive immersion programs and those whose instruction is limited to the formal foreign language classroom?
32

• What can be learned about the roles of comprehension, interaction, and negotiation in the acquisition process by observing these variables in both in-class and out-of-class context?
• What impact does a study abroad experience (including the putative immersion in the native speech community) have on long term maintenance of the target language and/or loss of these skills?
• What can be learned about the respective roles of "comprehensible input" and
"comprehensible output" by studying second language acquisition in the target language community?
• Are there negative linguistic aspects of a study abroad experience? What linguistic variables tend to become fossilized as a result of an extended stay abroad? How can this phenomenon be reversed?
• Can our knowledge of linguistic universals, the linguistic environment, and their interaction in language acquisition be enhanced by studying second language learning in a study abroad context?
Summary
No list of questions ever penetrates adequately into the vast realms of the unknown.
However, the general categories listed above summarize the primary areas in which information is still needed, both to confirm existing knowledge and to document information crucial to the creation of improved opportunities for language growth abroad. Knowledge such as this is required, not only for undergraduates who study overseas, but also for teachers wishing to enhance their linguistic skills and graduate students and/or scholars whose aspirations include improved competence in a second language complementary to expanded mastery of domain-specific research. As a group questions such as these remind us of the continuing need to respond to Lambert's (1990) suggestion that we address ourselves to discovering just what is actually learned, by what kind of students, in what type of learning environments, and how this compares with what they would have learned at home.
Answers to these and other questions will contribute to our understanding of the second language learning process as well as supply us with the necessary data to make wise policy and programmatic decisions, fundamental to the creation and maintenance of well designed overseas experiences for learners of all types.
Prospects for the Future: Discussion and Conclusion
33

As we look toward the future, a few additional facts must be considered as we attempt to reconcile the superficial treatment that language received in the context of the President's
Commission Report, the explosion of knowledge pertaining to language learning in a study abroad context that has evolved in the intervening twenty years and the questions that remain before us.
First is the fact that this period has seen a significant increase in the numbers of students who study abroad annually. In 1977-78 Open Doors, (the annual publication of the Institute for
International Education) reported that 24,471 American students spent some period of time in a study abroad context. By 1996-97, the last year for which reliable data are available, almost 100,000 American students participated in similar programs. While these data are not totally comparable (the data source having changed from programs to institutions), they provide a clear indication of the expansion of study abroad as part of the fabric of American undergraduate life. Not only have the numbers increased but so have the options, the countries where students choose to go and the periods of time they spend abroad.
The growing number of American students who spend a portion of their educational career in an international setting may be attributed, in part, to the increased availability of funding to support such options.
3.
It may also be in response to the widespread efforts on campuses across the country to "internationalize the curriculum." It is certainly possible that the Report of the President's Commission served, in part, as a catalyst for this revitalized effort to promote overseas experiences for a wider segment of the American population. Indeed,
"study abroad" has become for many, a shorthand symbol for an "international" conscience in academe - a fact which may be linked to the failure of members of the President's
Commission to differentiate carefully between international studies and language learning abroad. If the discussion above has established anything, it is that "study abroad," in and of itself, is not the magical experience needed to transform neophyte language learners into fluent speakers of a another language.
This increase in the numbers of students who go abroad has been accompanied by another unfortunate fact. This burst of interest in overseas study has resulted in a burgeoning of idiosyncratic program options - new consortia, campus based programs, governmentsponsored opportunities, individual initiatives - all of which fall under the general rubric of
"study abroad." Few if any of these programs have been complemented by a systematic or consolidated effort to better elucidate the relationship between language learning and study
34

abroad: how to prepare for it, how to structure it, how to enhance it and how to evaluate it.
In fact, a study of 23 selected peer institutions demonstrated that as late as the early 1990s there were few, if any, institutions of higher education which set goals for language learning abroad and/or included research and evaluation as part of their study abroad options (Freed
1993, 1995a). 4.
While the range of program types is large and the experiences available to learners diverse, an interesting observation on the prototypical American program lends credibility to the weaknesses in many of our programs. "Europeans perceive American 'study abroad programs' as the often short-term relocation of cohesive groups to a new geographical base...where they benefit from formal (classroom) teaching but without necessarily abandoning the academic structures and support systems of the home institution" (Coleman
1998:174). This comment, while certainly not descriptive of all American programs abroad, captures the flavor of many American student enclaves, where the need for access to e-mail, the home campus newspaper and the opportunity to "surf the net" is paramount in student evaluations of their study abroad experiences, often to the detriment of what we know about language learning.
As we -- linguists, area studies specialists, politicians, teachers, administrators, study abroad advisors -- urge more and more students to go abroad, predicting the needs of the international market place and preaching the message of global understanding, we must be able to describe with precision what types of students will profit most from what types of situations, at what points in their careers and we must prepare them better for what they will encounter while abroad. Given what we have learned from prior research, it is now incumbent upon us to extract and apply the most compelling aspects of recent investigations, particularly those that have revealed the unpredictably varied and complex nature of the immersion setting and the strikingly personal responses students have while abroad. We must assume the responsibility to utilize this knowledge to deliver what we promise to students and deliver it in the most economical and cost effective manner.
Mobilizing these goals is an obvious priority agenda item for the language learning profession at large, those interested in second language acquisition and those concerned with policy issues and program design. Initial steps in this direction have been taken by several scholars (Brecht and Walton 1994, Coleman 1998, Huebner 1998 and the contributors to the
Guide for Evaluating Foreign Language Immersion Training, 1997) who have included policy
35

issues in the midst of their broader discussion of language learning and study abroad.
Building on their initiatives, the issues I see before us include the following:
1. the design of large scale cross linguistic investigations to replicate preliminary findings and to answer some of the major questions that will contribute to a better understanding of language learning abroad as compared to learning at home.
2. the establishment, articulation and dissemination of appropriate goals and realistic expectations as to the linguistic benefits that may be derived from participation in a study abroad programs of various types.
3. the design of a framework for study abroad programs and placements which calibrate students needs and strengths with specific instructional, residential and extra-curricular formats.
4. the implementation of systematic evaluation procedures vis à vis goals and expectations.
5. the delivery of a comprehensive package of study abroad guidelines which provide adequate pre- program preparation, appropriate in-country experiences and post-program follow-up
6. the creation of viable partnerships and collaborative efforts among SLA experts, area studies specialists, study abroad advisors, host country teachers and program personnel in the design, implementation and management of study abroad programs
Responding to issues such as these will provide the necessary transition from the datacollection research mode of the recent past to a more general programmatic and policy driven approach in the future. While the continued contributions of SLA-oriented research is to hoped for, it is equally true that national needs now dictate a more focused attention to those aspects of the study abroad enterprise that will maximize the potential for linguistic gain and the maintenance of these competencies once learners have returned home.
Given the increasing emphasis of American institutions of higher education to provide international dimensions to their curricula, we are certain to see ever-growing numbers of students spend some portion of their undergraduate careers in a foreign destination.
Adopting "strength through wisdom," the best of established knowledge in this field, it is
36

time to move forward cooperatively, building the strongest collaborative partnerships possible to integrate the domains of second language acquisition and international studies.
Such partnerships will make it possible to usher the next generation of American students into the international programs which best suit their needs and to help them reap the benefits that accrue to the country at large as a larger segment of our population recognizes and develops pride in the benefits of speaking a second language.
37

NOTES
____________________
1. Appreciation is expressed to Todd Davis of the Institute for International Education who generously shared the history of the Open Doors reports and provided data on the 1977-78 publication and to Dr. John Lett of the Defense Language Institute who provided a copy of
DLI's Guide for Evaluating Foreign Language Immersion Training. Thanks are also extended to the publishers of Frontiers - the Study Abroad Journal and to John Benjamins and Co. for permission to use small portions of my prior publications.
2. Immersion Training (IT) as used by the federal government (Guide for Evaluating Foreign
Language Immersion Training, 1997) refers to a "broad range of programs, from eighteen months of on- the-job internship combined with language training in the country of the target language...to a week-end immersion at a 'safe house' as part of a regular training course."
(1997:3.1). These experiences, both in-and out-of- country, have been classified according to program length and characteristics of the immersion learning environment. Huebner's (1998) complementary taxonomy of institutional types includes academically organized programs, others designed for secondary students (e.g. American Field Service Programs), those sponsored by the national government (e.g. Peace Corps and FSI), still others organized by proprietary language schools, as well as experiences enjoyed by those who spend time overseas for the purpose of language learning without participating in any formal language programs. Huebner carefully notes that we "cannot lose sight of the variation among these programs types with respect to philosophies, goals, student demographics, program design and...the language learning situation. (Huebner 1998: 5).
3. For example, many institutions have recently made scholarship aid and work study funds available for students who wish to study abroad. At the institutional level also, there has been a resurgence of special grants and awards for study abroad opportunities. At the national level, several recent initiatives have also provided new funding which encourages study abroad: The National Security Education Program, the Freedom Exchange Act, The
Edmund Muskie Fellowships and the Freedom Exchange and Training Act.
4. One pertinent example illustrates the general lack of initiative with respect to programmatic issues, program management and related data collection. In 1993, Freed and
Ginsberg gathered information on study abroad program organization, data collection procedures and pre- and post-test language study practices in a cross-section of peer
38

institutions in the United States. Responses were received from 17 (of the 23 solicited) major
American institutions, each with an established reputation in study abroad. Results of the survey indicate that in 80% of these institutions, responsible for 101 study abroad programs in 5 different languages, no effort had been initiated to collect or analyze data which relate to the linguistic skills of students who have been abroad. With respect to systematic pre- and post-testing of study abroad program participants, 8 of the institutions (responsible for only
14 of the 101 programs) reported that they had such assessment procedures in place. Further analysis revealed that the vast majority of the testing in these programs was limited to
Russian. It turns out that these programs were actually related to the multi-year multiinstitution study of Russian referred to elsewhere in this paper. While no claim is made that the data from this survey are necessarily representative of institutions throughout the country, the dearth of published material on the topic lends credence to the fact that these results would be consistent with those of a larger scale study. Today, almost a decade later, there appears to be no change in this sate of affairs.
39

References
ACTFL, 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines.
New York: The American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages.
Baron, B. & A. Smith (eds.) 1987. Higher Education in the European Community . Study Abroad in the
European Community. Luxembourg.
Brecht, R., D. Davidson, & R. Ginsberg. 1990. The empirical study of proficiency gain in study abroad environments of American students of Russian. American contributions to the VII International
Congress of MAPRIAL ed. by D. Davidson. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Teachers of
Russian. 123-52.
Brecht, R.D. & D. Davidson. 1991. Language acquisition gains in study abroad: Program assessment and modification. Paper presented at the NFLC Conference on Language Testing, Washington D.C.
March, 1991.
Brecht, R., D. Davidson, & R. Ginsberg. 1993. Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. Washington D.C.: National Foreign Language Center.
Brecht, R. & J. L. Robinson. 1993. Qualitative analysis of second language acquisition in study abroad:
The ACTR/NFLC Project. Washington D.C.: National Foreign Language Center.
Brecht, R., D. Davidson & R. Ginsberg. 1995. Predicting and Measuring Language Gains in Study
Abroad Settings. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 37-66.
Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brecht, R.D. & J. L. Robinson. 1995. On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: Student reactions in context. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 317-
334. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bryam, M. 1988. A Year in France . Durham. University of Durham.
Carlson, J., B. Burn, J. Ussem & D. Yachimowicz. 1990. Study abroad: The Experience of American
Undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. Westport , Conn.: Greenwood Press.
40

Carroll, J.B. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals 1: 131-151.
Coleman, J. 1996. A comparative survey of the proficiency and progress of language learners in British universities. In Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und prakische Anwendungen , ed. by R. Grotjahn.
Bochum, Brockmeyer volume 3 : 367-399.
Coleman, J. 1997a.Supporting language students during their year abroad' (with Bill Brierley), The
Linguist , vol.36, 1:2-5.
Coleman, J. 1997b. Residence abroad within language study, Language Teaching , 30, 1:1-20.
Coleman, J. 1998. Language learning and study abroad: The European perspective. Frontiers . Fall
1998:167-203.
Coleman, J. & A. Rouxeville (eds.) 1993. Integrating new approaches . Association for French Studies in association with the Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Bedfordbury,
London.
Coleman, J., R. Grotjahn, C. Klein-Braley & U. Raatz. 1994. The European language proficiency survey: a comparative investigation of foreign language learners in schools and universities in several
European countries. Language Testing Update.
Clement, L. R. 1978. Motivational characteristics of francophones learning English. Quebec, Centre
International de Recherche sur le Bilinguisme.
Dalichow, F. & U. Teicher. 1986. Higher Education in the European Community. Recognition of study abroad in the European Community. Luxembourg.
DeKeyser, R. 1986. From learning to acquisition? Foreign language development in a U. S. classroom and during a semester abroad. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford U.
DeKeyser, R. 1991. Foreign language development during a semester abroad. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom ed. by B. Freed, 104-119. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath & Co.
41

Desruisseaux, P. 1998. More American students than ever before are going overseas for credit..
Chronicle of Higher Education . Dec. 11, 1998. A70.
Dyson, P. 1988. The year abroad. Report for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges .
Oxford University Language Teaching Centre.
Fenwick, M.. Dissenting Views. Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability.
1979
Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402
Ferguson, C.A. 1995. Foreword. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F.
Freed, xi-xv. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Foltz, D. 1991. A study of the effectiveness of studying Spanish overseas. Paper presented at the
Pennsylvania State Modern Language Association Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.
Frank, V. 1997. Potential negative effects of homestay. Middle Atlantic Conference of the American
Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Albany, NY, March 22, 1997
Freed, B. 1990. Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. Linguistics,
Language Teaching and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice and
Research ed. by J. Atlatis, 459-477. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Freed, B. (ed.) 1991. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, Mass.:
D.C. Heath & Co.
Freed, B. 1994. Assessing the linguistic impact of study abroad: What we currently know - what we need to learn. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4:4, 151-166.
Freed, B.1995a. Language learning and study abroad.
Second language acquisition in a study abroad contex t ed. B.F. Freed, 3-33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Freed, B. 1995b. What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent?. Second language acquisition in a study abroad contex t ed. B.F. Freed, 123-148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Co.
42

Freed, B. 1998. Language Learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers , Fall 1998: iv-viii.
Freed, B. Lazar, N. So, S. 1998. "Fluency in Writing: Are There Differences Between students have studied abroad and those who have not? Modern Language Association, December, 1998. San
Francisco, CA.
Freed, B. So, S.,. Lazar, N. 1999. Perceptions of oral and written fluency in L2 use. AAAL. Stamford,
CONN. March 1999
Gardner, R. Glicksman & Smyth. 1978. Attitudes and behaviour in second language acquisition: a social psychological interpretation. Canadian Psychological Review 19: 173-186.
Ginsberg, R., R. Robin & P. Wheeling. 1992. Listening comprehension before and after study abroad.
National Foreign Language Center Working Papers. Washington D.C.: National Foreign Language
Center.
Ginsberg, R. 1992. Language gains during study abroad: An analysis of the ACTR data. National
Foreign Language Center Working Papers. Washington D.C.: National Foreign Language Center.
Goodwin, C. & M. Nacht. 1988. Abroad and beyond: Patterns in American overseas expansion .
Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press
Guide for evaluating foreign language immersion training . 1997. Defense Language Institute Foreign
Language Center. Presidio of Monterey, Ca.
Guntermann, G. 1992a. An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, por and para.
Hispania 75:177-187.
Guntermann, G. 1992b. An analysis of interlanguage development Over Time: Part II, ser and estar.
Hispania 75:1294-1303.
Guntermann, G. 1995.The Peace Corps Experience: Language Learning in Training and in the Field.
Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 149-169. Amsterdam
/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
43

Hanna G, A.H. Smith, L.D. McLean, & H.H. Stern. 1980. Contact and communication: An evaluation of bilingual student exchange programs . Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.
Hashimoto, H. 1994, Language acquisition of an exchange student within the homestay environment.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4(4):209-224.
Hart, D.S., S. Lapkin & M. Swain. 1994. Impact of a six-month bilingual exchange program: Attitudes and achievement. Report to the Department of the Secretary of State. Toronto: OISE Modern Language
Centre.
Huebner, T. 1991. Effects of overseas study: A preliminary report on an intensive beginning-level course in Japanese. Paper presented at the annual PACIE Conference, Pittsburgh PA.
Huebner, T. 1995. The Effects of Overseas Language Programs: Report on a Case Stucy of an Intensive
Japanese Course. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 171-
193. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Huebner, T.
1998 . Methodological considerations in data collection for language leanring in a study abroad context. Frontiers . Fall 1998:1-30.
Inkster, G. 1993. Integrating the year abroad. Integrating new approaches . ed. by J. Coleman &
A.Rouxeville. 133-145. Association for French Studies in association with the Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Bedfordbury, London.
Johnson, S.J. & R.J. Edelstein. 1993. Beyond borders: Profiles in international education .
Washington, D.C. Association of American Colleges and American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of
Business
Kaplan, M. 1989. French in the community: A survey of language use abroad. The French Review
63:2 (290-301).
Kline, R. 1993.The social practice of literacy in a program of study abroad. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Kline, R. 1998. The acquisition of second languge literacy in a study abroad context. Frontiers ., Fall
1998: 139-166.
44

Klein, W. 1986. Second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koester, J. 1985. A profile of the U. S. student abroad . New York: Council on International Exchange.
22.
Laudet, C. 1993. Oral performance of ERASMUS students: An assessment. Teanga 13, pp. 13-28.
Lafford, B. 1995. Getting Into, Through and Out of a Situation: A Comparison of Communicative
Strategies Used by Students Studying Spanish Abroad and 'At Home.' Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 97-121. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Lambert, R.D. 1989. International Studies and the Undergraduate . American Council on Education.
Washington, DC.
Lambert. R.D. 1990.. Language instruction for undergraduates in American higher education. NFLC
Occasional Papers. Washington D. C. National Foreign Language Center.
Lambert, R. D. 1994. Some issues in language policy for higher education. Annals of the American
Academy of political and social sciences . 532:123-37.
Lapkin, S. D. Hart & M. Swain. 1995. A Canadian Interprovincial Exchange: Evaluating the Linguistic
Impact of a Three-Month Stay in Quebec.
Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 67-94. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Laubscher, M.R. 1994.
Encounters with difference: Student perceptions of the role of out-of-class experiences in education abroad. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. 1984. Comparison of the oral proficiency of students of Spanish in a study abroad program and those in regular academic programs. As quoted in Liskin-Gasparro and Beyer, 1987.
Magnan, S. S. 1986. Assessing speaking proficiency in the undergraduate curriculum: Data from
French. Foreign Language Annals 19.5: 429-38.
45

Marriott H.E. 1993a. Changing trends in Australia-Japan and Japan-Australia student exchanges and study abroad programs. Paper presented at Celebrate Australia Educational Exchange Programs
Forum, Tokyo, November 1993.
Marriott H.E. 1993b. Acquiring sociolinguistic competence: Australian secondary students in Japan.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4:4, 167-192.
Marriott, H.E. 1995. The Acquisition of Politeness Patterns by Exchange Students in Japan. Second
Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 197-224. Amsterdam
/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Marriott. H. and S. Enomoto. 1995. Secondary exchanges with Japan: exploring students' experiences and gains. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S, 12, 64-82.
Mauranen, A. & R. Markkanen. 1994. Students Abroad: Aspects of exchange students' language.
Finlance XIII
Mauranen, A. 1994. Two discourse worlds: Study genres in Britain and Finland. Finlance XIII: 1-40.
Meara, P. 1994. The year abroad and it effects. Language Learning Journal , 10, 32-38.
Meara, P. 1998. The year abroad: an opportunity or a nightmare? Manuscript.
Miller, L. & R. Ginsberg. 1995. Folklinguistic Theories of Language Learning. Second Language
Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 293- 315. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Milleret, M. 1990. Assessing the gain in oral proficiency from summer foreign study. Paper Presented at the Summer Meeting of AATSP.
Milton, J and P. Meara, 1995. How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language.
Review of Applied Linguisics.
107-108: 17-34.
Möehle, D. 1984. A comparison of the second language speech of different native speakers. Second language productions ed. by H. Dechert et al. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. 26-49.
46

Möehle, D. & M. Raupach. 1983. Planen in der Fremdsprach . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
O'Connor, N. 1988. Oral proficiency testing of junior year abroad: Implications for the Undergraduate curriculum. Paper presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the MLA
Open doors. 1998. U.S. College-sponsored study-abroad programs for the academic year 1977-78. New
York, NY. Institute for International Education. 73-80.
Opper, S., U. Teichler , & J. Carlson, eds. 1990. Impact of study abroad programmes on students and graduates , London: Jessica Kingsley.
Pellegrino. V. 1997a. Social and psychological factors affecting spontaneous second language use during study abroad: A qualitative study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Bryn Mawr college.
Pellegrino. V. 1997b. speaking abroad: How interpersonal relations affect American students' use of
Russian beyond the classroom. MLA Convention, Toronto, Canada. December 29, 1997.
Pellegrino. V. 1998. Student perspectives on language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers .,
Fall 1998: 910120.
Polanyi, 1995.
Language Learning and Living Abroad. Second Language Acquisition in a Study
Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 271-291. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Raupach, M. 1984. Formulae in second language speech production. Second language productions H.
Dechert et al., 114-37. Tubingen: Gunter Nair.
Raupach, M. 1987. Procedural learning in advanced learners of a foreign language. Duisburg;
Universitat Gesamthochschule Duisburg. (L.A.U.D. Papers B 167).
Regan, V.1998. Sociolinguistics and language learning in a study abroad context. Frontier s. Fall 1998:
61-90.
Regan, V. 1995. The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year abroad on second lLanguage learners of French. Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by
B. F. Freed, 245- 267. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
47

Rivers , W. P.. 1998. Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language gain during study abroad. ACTFL 31,4: 492500
Ryan, J. M. & Lafford, B. 1992. Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment: ser and estar and the Grenada experience. Hispania 75: 714-722.
Siegel, M. 1995. Individual Differences and Study Abroad: Women Learning Japanese in Japan.
Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context.
ed. by B. F. Freed, 225- 243. Amsterdam
/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stern, H. H.. 1983. Fundamentals of language teaching . Oxford: Oxford UP.
Strength through wisdom: A critique of U.S. capability . 1979 Superintendent of Documents. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 20402
Towell, R. 1995. The growth of linguistic knowledge and language processing in advanced language learning. Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching eds. G. Doble & P. Fawcett, 1-25. Bradford:
Department of Modern:Language, University of Bradford ( Bradford Occasional Papers no. 13).
Teichler, U. 1997. The ERASMUS experience. Major findings of the ERASMUS evaluation research.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Teichler, U. & W. Steube 1991. The logics of study abroad programmes and their impacts. Higher
Education . 21, 325-349.
Twombly, S.B. 1995. Piropos and friendships: Gender and culture clash in study abroad. Frontier s.
1:1-27.
VanPatten, B. 1987. Classroom learners' acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for developmental patterns. Foreign language learning: A research perspective ed. by B. VanPatten, T.R. Dvorak and J.F.
Lee, 19-32. Cambridge: Newbury House.
Veguez, R. 1984. The oral proficiency interview and the junior year abroad: Some unexpected results.
Paper presented at the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Language. NYC April 1984.
48

Walsch, R. 1994. The year abroad - A linguistic challenge. Teanga 14: 48-57.
Wieland, M. 1990. Politeness-based misunderstandings in conversations between native speakers of
French and American advanced learners of French. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Wilkinson, S.1995. Foreign language conversation and the study abroad transition: A case study.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Wilkinson, 1997. Separating fact from myth: A qualitative perspective on language learning during summer study abroad. MLA Annual Conference. Toronto. December 27-30, 1997.
Wilkinson, S.1998a. Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A challenge to common beliefs.
Foreign Language Annals 31 (1) 23-39.
Wilkinson, S. 1998b. The nature of immersion during study abroad: Student perspectives. Frontiers .;
Fall 1998:121-138.
Willis, F., G. Doble, U. Sankarayya. & A. Smithers. 1977. Residence abroad and the student of modern languages. A preliminary study . Bradford: Modern Language Centre. U of Bradford.
Ylönen S. 1994. Die Bedeutung von Textsortenwissen fur die interkulturelle Kommunikation -
Kommunikative Unterschiede im Biologiestudium an den Partneruniversitaten Jyvaskyla und Bonn.
Finlance . XIII: 89-113.
49

o
50