1. Intercultural Competence Conference January 24, 2014
The Intersection of Language & Culture in Study Abroad: Assessment & Analysis of SA Outcomes
Intercultural Competence Conference
January 24, 2014
Dr. Jeff Watson
Dr. Richard Wolfel

2. Agenda Interconnectedness of Language and Culture in Study Abroad
What makes study abroad so rewarding?
Assessing SA Outcomes from a L2 Socialization Perspective
Language Proficiency and Intercultural Competence
Socialization Variables
Study Method & Results
Conclusions & Implications

3. Interconnectedness of Language & Culture in Study Abroad
DEFINITION
“…extraordinarily difficult and elusive task…” (Kasper & Omori, 2007)
LINK
“…language expresses, embodies, and symbolizes cultural reality” (Kramsch, 1998)
Language plays a role in the genesis of society (Watson, 2010) and is an intricate part of the “cultural fabric” within which “language is shaped and meanings are produced” (Duranti, 2009).

4. The “magic” of Study Abroad
SA provides a highly contextualized learning environment with virtually limitless access to native speech communities, authentic sociocultural behaviors, and identity-destabilizing experiences (Kinginger, 2008)
SA participants interact with this environment in ways unique to their own interests, motivations, and awarenesses and teach them “to think, feel, and act in accordance with the values, ideologies, and traditions” of their target community (Duff, 2008)

5. Assessing SA Outcomes from a L2 Socialization Perspective
SA outcomes are:
-complex, multidimensional, interrelated
-involve social interaction and the degree in which SA participants involve themselves in it
- typically “contextualized within particular routine activities” (Duff, 2008)

6. How & what do we assess? L2 Proficiency (Listening, Reading, Speaking)
Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT)
Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI)
Intercultural Competence
Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)
Socialization Variables
Lodging Type: Dormstay vs. Homestay
Interaction Time-on-task (self-report survey)
- Amount of English Spoken
- Amount of TL Conversation with Native Speakers
- Amount of Cultural Activities

7. Internationalization of the Curriculum: “Crawl, Walk, Run”
Developmental Path for Language Proficiency, Cross-Cultural Competence, & Regional Awareness
Advanced
Language
2LT
Semester
Abroad
Summer
Immersion
RUN
Intermediate
Language
WALK
Spring
Immersion
Semester
CRAWL
Basic
Language
Summer
Spring Break

8. Population & Research Design
Population: 279 semester-abroad participants
- AY
- juniors, seniors (self-selected)
- 225 males; 54 females
- 32 host institutions; 22 cities; 15 countries
- Languages:
Group 1: MSA, Mandarin, Russian
Group 2: French, German, Spanish, Portuguese
-Lodging: 176 dormstay; 103 homestay
Research Design: Pre- and post-immersion testing

9. Data Collection & Analysis
Pre- and Post-Immersion Seminars & Assessments:
Seminars: Culture Shock & Experience Processing, Maximizing SA
Focus Groups: Regional Awareness, ICC, Cultural Comparisons, Identity Shifts, Stereotypes
Language Assessments: DLPT & OPI
Culture Assessments: IDI & MPQ
Regional Assessments: ARK & RDT
Experience Processing Survey
Motivation/Learning Strategy Use Abroad
Time-on-task Survey

10. Arabic, Chinese, Russian French, German, Portuguese, Spanish
Gains in L2 Proficiency
Average gains: one half-step increase in proficiency after one semester.
Group 1:
Arabic, Chinese, Russian
Group 2:
French, German, Portuguese, Spanish
Wilcoxon Ranks
Cohen’s d
Listening
Z=-6.88, p=.001
d=-0.64 (med-large)
Z=-8.20, p=.001
d=-1.29 (large)
Reading
Z=-7.76, p=.001
d=-0.89 (large)
Z=-7.53, p=.001
d=-1.00 (large)
Speaking
Z=-8.52, p=.001
d=-0.97 (large)
Z=-8.24, p=.001
d=-1.09 (large)

11. Gains in Intercultural Competence
55-85
85-115
55-85
85-115

12. Gains in Intercultural Competence
Group 1:
Arabic, Chinese, Russian
Group 2:
French, German, Portuguese, Spanish
t-test
Cohen’s d
IDI
M=5.53
SD=12.11 t(95)=4.47
p=.001
d = .917 (large)
M= 3.85
SD=12.10 t(78)=2.83
p=.006
d = .640 (medium)

13. Socialization Variables
Group 1 Average
Group 2 Average
Lodging type:
Dormstay: 104 (74.3%)
Homestay: 36 (25.7%)
Dormstay: 72 (51.8%)
Homestay: 67 (48.2%)
Percentage of English used: (inverse relationship with gains expected)
41%
28%
Time spent in TL conversation: average hours per week
17.9 hrs./week
33.6 hrs./week
Participation in Cultural Activities: average hours per week spent in cultural activities outside of class (e.g., tours, excursions, attending sporting events, clubs, church, community service)
13.6 hrs./week
18.1 hrs./week

14. Lodging Type Analysis: Group 1
2011-present

15. Lodging Type Analysis: Group 2
2011-present

16. Average hours of TL Conversation Average hours of Cultural Activities
Correlations
Listening Gain
Reading Gain
Speaking Gain
ICC Gain
Amount of English used
Average hours of TL Conversation
Average hours of Cultural Activities r
Group 1
1.00
.416**
.329**
-0.11
-.295*
0.17
0.04
Group 2
.301**
0.06
0.15
0.00
.311**
.287**
-0.08
0.08
0.07
.188*
0.20
0.21
-0.02
-0.13
-.388**
-0.04
-0.21
-0.06
0.05
IC Gain
0.16
0.22
.386**
-.363**
0.01
-0.24
-0.12
.257*
.508**

17. Discussion
Gains in L2 Proficiency don’t necessarily affect gains in intercultural competence. (Ouch!)
One semester abroad may not be enough to see a meaningful relationship between these two variables.
Lodging type remains an important variable but perhaps not as important as the type(s) of interaction available in each type.
Participation in cultural activities outside of class seems to play a role in gaining intercultural competence but not always. Why?
Participation in cultural activities outside of class seems to provide opportunities for conversation in the target language but not always.
Amount of English spoken abroad seems to affect gains in Listening & Speaking but not always. Why?

18. Implications
What specific cultural activities abroad play a role in increasing intercultural competence?
What specific cultural activities abroad provide opportunities for TL interaction and play a role in increasing L2 proficiency?
What types of TL interactions are typical of and most meaningful in dormstay vs. homestay contexts?
In which context(s) is English used by SA participants abroad? How can we encourage more TL use?
What individual differences (strategies, motivation, characteristics) are evident in SA participants abroad? Which types of individual differences are most meaningful for gains in L2 proficiency and IC competence?
Which during-immersion activities by SA participants will provide useful qualitative data and further reinforce language and culture learning abroad?

19. Evidence-based Suggestions for Program Administration
pre-departure assessment analysis to “match” students with a lodging situation or institution abroad most conducive to their strengths
teach strategies pre-departure for increasing language contact during cultural activities or when navigating daily life in a host family or dormitory environment
work with host institutions to provide/encourage structured language contact opportunities outside of class such as community service, peer coaching, travel or family activities, along with reflection exercises that can be used for mentoring, reinforcement of program goals, and benefit analysis.
Use student performance data to assess the effectiveness of SA host institutions and improve goal alignment with home program

20. Intercultural Competence Conference January 24, 2014
The Intersection of Language & Culture in Study Abroad: Assessment & Analysis of SA Outcomes
Intercultural Competence Conference
January 24, 2014
Dr. Jeff Watson
Dr. Richard Wolfel