Centre for Research in International Education, AIS St Helens,
Auckland, NZ, Conference: “The Internationalization of Education
in New Zealand,” August 12-15, 2004
Enhancing Students’ Language and
Culture Learning in Study Abroad
Andrew D. Cohen
University of Minnesota & Visiting Professor,
University of Auckland
ad.cohen@auckland.ac.nz
Others on the International Research & Studies
Program Grant: Co-Investigator - Michael
Paige, Research Assistants - Rachel Shively,
Holly Emert, Joe Hoff at the Center for
Advanced Research in Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota
1
Overview of Presentation
 Significance
of Study Abroad
 Language Learning in Study Abroad
 The Need for an Intervention in
Study Abroad
 Research Design
 Instruments
 Findings
2
Significance of Study Abroad
Numbers


Close to 100 million students worldwide
study abroad each year.
Over 160,000 university students from the
United States study abroad each year.
Culture Learning


Study abroad programs have great
potential to enhance cultural awareness.
Learning culture reinforces language
learning.
3
Language Learning



Study abroad can offer an abundance of
out-of-class opportunities for language use
with native speakers (NSs) of the target
language (TL).
Study abroad can offer potential for gains
in students’ language proficiency.
Reaching advanced proficiency levels often
requires time spent in a TL country.
4
Despite the potential for increased
language proficiency that study
abroad seems to offer, students who
spend even a full academic
semester abroad do not always
make more significant language gains
in the TL than do their peers who
stay home and study the TL
(Freed, 1995).
Why is this the case?
5



Students may not have an overall strategic
plan for how to get the most out of their study
abroad experiences in- and out-of-class.
Students may be unaware of strategies that
would help them increase their contact with
the TL.
Language classes may give them only
“survival” language at best, rather than finetuned guidance on how to perform crucial
speech functions or speech acts such as
requesting, thanking, complimenting,
apologizing, and the like.
6
Need for an Intervention,
and Hence This Study




Generally, students may have limited preparation
to be language and culture learners in the study
abroad environment.
Students may lack specific strategies that they
can use in practice to deal with the target
language and the culture in its own context.
Few materials are available that guide students
and teachers in maximizing study abroad using
language and culture strategies.
Research is lacking on the effects of curricular
interventions in study abroad, especially those
emphasizing language and culture strategies.
7
Maximizing Study Abroad:
Students’ Guide and
Companion Guides for Study
Abroad Professionals and
Language Instructors
 The guides are a response
to the felt need for materials
to enhance study abroad.
 The guides employ a
strategies-based approach to
language and culture learning.
8
Strategies-Based Learning



Language and culture learning may be enhanced
if students become aware of the range of
strategies that they can employ to learn and use
a foreign language and deal with another
culture.
Strategies can be taught explicitly in the
classroom and by means of self-access materials
for students.
Examples of language and culture learning
strategies in the Students’ Guide can be found
at: http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/
9
Maximizing Study Abroad
Research Project


The Maximizing Study Abroad guides were fieldtested with a grant from the International
Research and Studies Program (IRSP), Office of
International Education (USDOE).
Primary Research Question: To what extent
does a strategies-based approach to developing
language and culture skills – transmitted
through a set of study abroad guides – promote
language gain and cultural adaptation by study
abroad students?
10
Student Study
Research Design
Research Questions:




What strategies do study abroad students
use to deal with language and culture?
In what contexts do they use these
strategies?
How frequently?
What is their overall perception of a
strategies-based approach?
11
Sample




Two cohorts of university students studying
abroad either in Spring 2003 (Cohort A) or Fall
2003 (Cohort B).
Cohort A: 42 students
(21 Experimental group, 21 Control group)
Cohort B: 44 students (21 E, 23 C)
Total: 86 students
(Stratified random sample)
Students had taken at least 4 semesters of
Spanish or French language classes.
Studying abroad in Spanish- or French- speaking
countries for one semester.
12
Treatment



The Experimental (E) Group received the
Students’ Guide before departure for their use
while studying abroad.
The E Group received a pre-departure
orientation on how to use some of the
language and culture strategies in the
Students’ Guide and speech acts.
The Control (C) Group did not receive the
Students’ Guide or the E group orientation –
just a brief orientation to the research.
13
Instruments


Background Questionnaire
Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer &
Bennett, 1998, 2001)

Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture (Paige,

Rong, Zhang, Kappler, Hoff, & Emert, 2002)
Language Strategy Survey (Cohen & Chi, 2001)
Speech Act Measure of Language Gain (Cohen &
Shively, 2002)
Bi-weekly Electronic Journal Entries

Exit Language Contact Profile

Follow-up Interview Protocol


14
Background Questionnaire
Items in the instrument address:








Demographics (gender, year in school, major).
Host country and study abroad TL.
Native/dominant language(s).
Family language(s).
Language of pre-college education.
Length of study of the TL.
Study of languages other than the TL.
Self-assessment of ability in TL aural skills, and
in TL literacy skills in both “popular” and
academic registers.
15
Intercultural
Development Inventory


Measures “people’s basic orientations to
cultural difference.”
Includes 50 questions, based on Milton
Bennett’s Developmental Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity, which has 6
sequential stages:
 Ethnocentric stages:
Denial  Defense  Minimization
 Ethnorelative stages:
Acceptance  Adaptation  Integration
16
Strategies Inventory
for Learning Culture


Measures the frequency of use of culture
strategies.
Has nine categories of culture strategies for:









Surroundings that are culturally different.
Dealing with difficult times in another culture.
Making interpretations in another culture.
Communicating in another culture.
Dealing with different communication styles.
Understanding non-verbal communication.
Interacting with people in another culture.
Dealing with the living situation.
Maintaining cultural ties to the host culture after
returning home.
17
Learning Strategy Survey



Measures the frequency of use of
language strategies.
Has language strategies organized by skill:
Listening, Vocabulary, Speaking, Reading,
Writing, Strategic Use of Translation.
Earlier versions of the language and
culture strategies surveys can be found at:
http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/guides.html
18
Speech Act Measure



Employed written discourse completion
tasks (DCT’s) with multiple rejoinders to
assess performance in making requests
and apologies.
Included 5 apology and 5 request
vignettes (10 vignettes total).
Had the description of each vignette in
English, but the rejoinders in Peninsular
Spanish, Latin American Spanish, or
French.
19


Each vignette differs with regard to three
variables:
 social distance,
 relative status,
 severity of the infraction (apologies) or
degree of imposition (requests).
Each version was translated from an
English prototype by a native speaker of
the respective language or dialect (in the
case of Spanish).
20
E-journals


E group students submitted a total of 7
e-journal entries on the research website, at
bi-weekly intervals during their semester abroad.
In their e-journals, students were to answer the
following questions:
What were your impressions of the readings and
activities in the assigned section?
 What types of language and culture strategies are you
using in order to deal with the host country language and
culture?
 What are the contexts and situations in which you use
these language and culture strategies?
 How have the readings and activities related to your
study abroad experience? Please give examples with
explanations.
21

Exit Language Contact
Profile
Items in the instrument address:





Study abroad living situation (e.g., host family,
dorm, apartment).
Use of the TL in the home with native and nonnative speakers of the TL.
Use of the TL outside of class.
Portion of friends who were native speakers
of the TL.
Participation in structured activities outside
of class.
22






Type(s) of study abroad program and
coursework (e.g., regular university courses,
courses for study abroad students, internship,
field experience).
Self-assessment of language ability (identical to
rating scale on the Entrance Questionnaire).
Motivation to study the language of the host
country (increased/decreased).
Travel plans after courses are completed.
Perceived impact of the Students’ Guide (E
group only).
Recommendation of the Students’ Guide
(E group only).
23
Follow-up Interview
Protocol


Research assistants (RAs) selected a
purposive sub-sample of E group students
(10 E group students from each cohort;
total of 20 students) to interview 3 to 5
months after students’ return to the U.S.
from studying abroad.
Interviews were one-on-one between
students and RAs, semi-structured, and
approximately 1 hour in length.
24
Data Collection


E and C groups completed the instruments
as pre-measures before departing for
study abroad and as post-measures at the
end of their semester abroad.
The E group submitted bi-weekly
electronic journals describing their use of
the language and culture strategies
included in the Students’ Guide.
25
Data Analysis



Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
data is currently being conducted by the
research team.
Students’ performance on the Speech Act
Measure (pre and post) was rated by 2
native speakers (NS) each of French,
Peninsular Spanish, and Latin American
Spanish (total of 6 NS raters).
The NS raters received the students’
Speech Act Measure responses unlabeled
as to whether pre- or post-measure.
26
Speech Act Measure
Rating Criteria
Native speakers of Peninsular Spanish, Latin
American Spanish, and French rated the
appropriateness of each response for each of
the following categories:
• register: 3 separate scales; one each for
vocabulary choice, verb tense/inflection,
and subject pronoun choice.
• politeness (requests only).
• directness (requests only).
• overall success of the request or the
apology.
27

In order to help interpret the native speaker
ratings, the researchers are also currently
assessing the following elements:
 coherence and cohesion in the subject’s
response, given the preceding and following
rejoinders.
 speech act-specific strategies used:
 Requests: e.g., preparation, giving
reasons, and minimizing imposition.
 Apologies: e.g., apology expression, offer
of repair, explanation, acknowledgement of
responsibility, and promise of nonrecurrence.
28
Findings

Quantitative findings:





Intercultural Development Inventory
Language Strategy Survey
Strategies Inventory for Learning
Culture
Speech Act Measure of Language Gain
Qualitative findings:
 E group electronic journals
 E group follow-up interviews
29
Intercultural Development
Inventory (IDI): Findings


The sample as a whole shifted in the
direction of greater intercultural sensitivity on
the IDI, suggesting that study abroad in
general has an impact on students’
“intercultural worldview.”
There were no statistically significant
differences between the E and C groups on
the IDI, suggesting that the treatment did
not have a measurable impact on students’
intercultural sensitivity.
30
Language Strategy
Survey (LSS): Findings
Sample as a whole:
 Whereas students increased in their reported
use of speaking and listening strategies, they
decreased in their reported use of reading and
vocabulary strategies.
 The context of study abroad may help explain
this finding. While abroad, students are likely to
have more frequent opportunities to interact
with native speakers and so strategies for
listening and speaking effectively are likely to
become more crucial to them.
31

While there was no statistically significant difference between the E and C
groups as to reported gain in language strategy use overall from pre- to
posttest, there was a difference at the .05 or better level on eight of the
survey items.
E group mean
C group mean
Item #
LSS Item Description
9
I pay special attention to specific aspects of the
language; for example, the way the speaker pronounces
certain sounds. (Listening)
p value
gain
gain
.10
-.36
.05
13
I listen for word and sentence stress to see what native
speakers emphasize when they speak. (Listening)
.31
-.11
.03
52
I ask questions as a way to be involved in the
conversation. (Speaking)
.38
-.07
.02
61
I use gestures as a way to try and get my meaning
across. (Speaking)
.07
-.34
.05
88
I try to understand what has been heard or read
without translating it word-for-word into my own
language. (Translation)
.57
.07
.02
27
I pay attention to the structure of the new word.
(Vocabulary)
-.17
.25
.06
28
I break the words into parts that I can identify.
(Vocabulary)
-.40
.02
.05
36
I use flash cards in a systematic way to learn new
words. (Vocabulary)
-.14
-.64
.0432



Vocabulary strategies: E group decline on the
vocabulary items #27, #28, and both E and C
group decline on #36 was probably a function of
the L2 study abroad environment since
vocabulary could be acquired without the need
for the conscious focus which often characterizes
FL study.
Speaking strategies: Items #52 and #61 show
E group gains compared to the C group
decreases. This difference may reflect the fact
that the Guide advises students to make ample
use of both of these strategies.
Translation strategies: The E group reported a
greater shift away from word-for-word
translation over time than the C group. The
Guide advises students not to depend entirely on
such word-to-word translations.
33
Strategies Inventory for Learning
Culture (SILC): Findings
Sample as a whole:


E & C students together increased in their reported
use of 41 of the 52 culture strategies from pre- to
posttest, and decreased in reported use of 11
culture strategies.
Decreases occurred on items pertaining to homestay
strategies and on strategies to use upon returning
home. These findings are difficult to interpret since
we might have expected an increase in reported
homestay strategies, given that 74% of the students
were in homestays. In addition, we would think the
students would be more directed to post-study
abroad strategies as their overseas experience was
34
ending.


As a whole, there was no statistical difference between
the E and C groups as to reported gain in culture
strategy use overall on the SILC from pre- to posttest.
5 individual items were at or near significance (p <.05),
3 with greater gain in reported strategy use for the C
group and 2 with greater gain for the E group.
E group mean
gain
C group mean
gain
p value
5
I counter stereotypes others use about people
from my country by using generalizations and
cultural values instead. (Interpreting Culture).
.64
.14
.06
31
I respect the way people from another culture
express themselves. (Communication).
.14
-.20
.03
2
I figure out what cultural values might be involved
when I encounter a conflict or something goes
wrong. (Interpreting Culture).
.10
.43
.06
25
I build relations with local people by finding
opportunities to spend time with them.
(Communication)
-.05
.48
.05
49
I take a class that will help me keep up with the
other culture. (Reentry).
-.40
.36
.05
Item #
SILC Item Description
35
Speech Act Measure:
Findings


On the rating criteria “overall success”, the
E group had a higher mean gain score
compared to the C group (E = 4.38, C =
1.24). This difference became statistically
significant (p < .05) when the scores were
grouped into 3 categories (loss, no
change, gain): E = .74, C = .41.
The higher achievement of the E group in
“overall success” on the language gain
measure as a whole may be attributed to
the treatment.
36
Directness
 When looking at the gain scores for the request
vignettes grouped together, the E group came out
significantly higher than the C group on the rating
criteria “appropriateness of the level of directness” (E
= 2.38, C = 1.09). The Guide does specifically
recommend that students consider their level of
directness in performing requests.
Register
 The E group also came out higher on the vignette #9,
“forgetting a meeting with your professor” for two
criteria: “overall success” (E = .56, C = .01) and “fit
between vocabulary and formality level” (E =.37, C =
-.08). This result may be an outgrowth of the
treatment since the Guide instructs students to be
sensitive to the social status of the interlocutor as well
as to the social situation when they perform speech
acts.
37
E Group Correlations
Between Language Strategy
Use & Rated Language Gain
1. Higher reported use of the translation strategy
“Put my own language out of mind and think only
in the target language as much as possible” in the
posttest correlated with a positive gain score on
the professor apology vignette, #9 (r = .44**).
[Note: * p<05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001]
Interpretation: This finding suggests that (1)
consciously trying to think as much as possible in
the target language may be related to improved
language performance, and (2) explicit training in
using this strategy may be related to rated
language gain (i.e., correlations were found for the
E group only).
38
2. Higher reported use of the listening
strategy “Use the speakers’ tone of voice as
a clue to the meaning of what they are
saying” in the posttest correlated with a
positive gain score on the measure as a
whole (r = .62***), and on apology
vignettes #3 (“losing friend’s book”) (r =
.50***) and #9 (“forgetting meeting with
professor”) (r = .53**) respectively.
Interpretation: This finding suggests
that E group students may have been able
to improve their language ability by reading
about this strategy in the Guide and then
becoming more strategic about listening by
not only paying attention to words but also
to the tone of voice.
39
3. Lower reported use of the speaking strategy
“Figure out and model NSs’ language
patterns when requesting, apologizing, or
complaining” in the posttest correlated with a
positive language gain score on the request
vignette #10 (“sibling to leave for school
earlier”) (r = .52***).
Interpretation: We would have expected
the contrary. One possible explanation is
that students may have not had many
opportunities during study abroad to use this
strategy, as some speech acts may have
occurred relatively infrequently in the
contexts that students were exposed to.
40

When grouping students’ mean language gain scores
on all apology and all request vignettes separately,
five significant correlations with specific items on the
LSS emerged:
LSS item
Mean gain score on
LSS
Mean gain score on
Apology vignettes
Ask for clarification if I don’t
understand it the first time around.
(#22)
E .05
C -.18
E .43**
C ---
Use the speakers’ tone of voice as
a clue to the meaning of what they
are saying. (#23)
E .17
C .07
E .65***
C ---
Find things to read for pleasure in
the target language. (#64)
E .48
C .34
Review words periodically so I
don’t forget them. (#38)
E .10
C -.05
Draw on my general background
knowledge to get the main idea.
(#25)
E -.05
C -.07
Mean gain score on
Request vignettes
E .44**
C ---
E --C -.41**
E --C .41**
41
Exit Language Contact
Profile: Findings



The difference between the E and C groups in
frequency of language contact was not statistically
significant.
Students who took subject courses in the TL for
study abroad students achieved a significantly
higher language gain score than did students who
took subject courses in the TL intended for TL native
speakers. This finding may reflect the fact that the
courses designed for study abroad students were
directed more specifically at their language needs.
Living with a host family was found to help C group
students achieve a significantly higher language gain
score than that obtained by their peers not living with
a family. Living with a host family had no statistical
impact on the E group’s language gain score.
42
E-journals: Findings


Overall, students reported finding the
language and culture strategies in the
Students’ Guide useful for study abroad.
“Maximizing [Study Abroad] has been an
effective book not because it answers all of
my questions, but because it provides
guidance and structure during a time when
one can feel utterly lost, wandering around in
a mental, physical, and cultural landscape
without any landmarks in sight.” – Student in
Salamanca, Spain; Spring, ’03 Week 11
43


Language strategies helped
students communicate more
effectively in the target language.
“I was in a hurry to get some food
before meeting a friend. I wanted to
say that I need the food ‘to go.’
Obviously saying comida ir, the literal
translation would not work, so following
the advice of the guide, I substituted
words. I said I needed plastic plates
because I had to take it with
me.” – Student in Havana,
Cuba; Spring ’03, Week 6
44


Culture strategies helped students become
more knowledgeable about
communication styles.
One of the greatest things about this guide is that it
helps put new words to things we've been struggling
with, things that are an inherent part of any
experience like [study abroad]. Sometimes, it names
the things we struggle with and helps us recognize
that they're there – often you'll struggle in a situation
and feel irritated or discouraged, but not really be sure
why, and then you do your readings for the week and
you realize the source of the problem...I sit up late
nights reading in my mosquito net and all of a sudden
think, "Oh! It's because I'm a linear communicator and
she's a circular communicator. Huh." And then the
suggestions about how to negotiate those things help
me digest and deal better with the issue.” – Student in
Cameroon; Spring ’03, Week 8
45


The Students’ Guide encouraged
students to be data gatherers to
improve language learning.
“The [Students’ Guide] section on
Varying Strategies for Apologizing
was important. I seem to be always
saying the wrong thing. I am still working
on [apologies] and playing language
detective by asking my host mom about
appropriate expressions.” – Student in
Santiago, Chile; Spring ’03, Week 4
46
Follow-up Interviews:
Findings



Students’ overall reaction to the Guide some threeto-five months after returning to the U.S. was very
positive.
While most students expressed the desire to
maintain their target-language skills after returning
to the U.S., many found they were either too busy
or not motivated enough to follow the strategies for
language maintenance contained in the Guide.
Many students reported that they maintained some
link, however small, to the culture in which they had
lived during study abroad. Examples included
regularly reading a host country newspaper on-line
and choosing to do research papers on the host
47
country in university content courses.
Conclusions





The treatment appears to have enhanced speech act
performance among study abroad students in
Spanish- and French-speaking countries over time.
The reported gain in use of certain language
strategies by the treatment group was correlated
with rated gain in speech act performance.
The treatment did not appear to have a measurable
impact on the development of students’ intercultural
sensitivity. However, many E group students
reported that the Guide helped them to improve
their intercultural skills.
Students reported finding the Guide to be a useful
tool for language and culture learning during their
study abroad.
Data analysis is on-going and more findings will be
available in the near future.
48