1. This speech/presentation is authorized by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and the Department of Defense. Contents of this presentation are not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, DoD, Department of the Army, or DLIFLC. The Effects of the Study Abroad Program Jean S. Ryu, PhD Assistant Dean, Asian School II Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

2. Korean Basic Program at DLIFLC Six-week OCONUS Program in Korea 5-8 groups go to Korean Universities each year Korea University (Seoul National University & Kyunghee University) Selection Criteria – GPA, Behavior, Season, etc. 2 nd semester (Unit 13 & 14) – New curriculum, from Jan 2012 3 rd Semester (Unit 17 & 18) – Old curriculum Study Abroad Program

3. Classroom language and culture study: 30 hours per week Daily Out-of-Class Activities – interviews, visits offices Weekly Field Trips Host Family Student Helper ( 도우미 ) Special Events: Observe Holidays and 명절 weekends: sports, concerts, movies, etc. Major Activities

4. 1.Are language skills improved after the 6-week Study Abroad Program? 2.How do students rate on academic programs and logistics? 3.Do affective factors (confidence, motivation, anxiety) change? Research Questions

5. Pre-Post Diagnostic Assessment Results Speaking: DA Interview (face to face) Reading: Online DA Listening: Online DA Data: 102 students (16 th -25 th groups): after implementing On-line DAs Analysis: Paired sample t-test for Pre-Post Language Skill Improvement

6. Changes in ILR Ratings

7. Paired Sample t-test Results Pre-DAPost-DAt valuedf =Sig. (2 tailed) Speaking (DA) m=1.608m=1.721t=-7.986df=101000*** Significant Reading (ODA) m=2.197m=2.269t=-2.019df=101.046* Significant Listening (ODA) m=2.045m=2.192t= -4.983df=101.000*** Significant Speaking and Listening skills are Improved; statistically significant, p<.001 Reading is improved; statistically significant p<.05

8. Pre-Post Speaking by Semester 2 nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)

9. Pre-Post Reading by Semester 2 nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)

10. Pre-Post Listening by Semester 2 nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)

11. PartItems (#)meanrank Part I. Academic Program A.Curriculum In-Class Program Out-of-Class Program Host Families (for lang. skill imprvment) B.Instruction Instructor Performance Instructor Relationship with Students 1 – 12 (12) 13 – 23 (11) 24 – 32 (9) 33 – 43 (11) 44 – 47 (4) 3.12 3.19 3.15 3.40 3.82 11 9 10 8 1 Part II. Logistics A.On-site Transportation B.Living Arrangement C.Food D. Medical Services E. Instructional Facilities F.Host Families (comfortable, helpful) 48 – 51 (4) 52 – 58 (7) 59 – 65 (7) 66 – 69 (4) 70 – 75 (5) 76 – 77 (2) 3.55 3.77 2.77 1.42 3.60 3.77 6 3 13 14 5 2 Part III. Overall Evaluation A.Affective Factors B.Miscellaneous C.Student Helper 78 – 81 (4) 82 – 90 (9) 91 – 92 (2) 3.66 3.06 3.42 4 12 7 Scales 0: No opinion, 1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Agree, 4: Strongly agree Student Opinion Questionnaire (N=109)

12. Part I. Academic Program

13. Part II. Logistics

14. Part III. Affective Factors

15. Students helper was helpful at all times (m=3.41) I recommend this program for future program (m=3.43) Negative Comments (free response) – Not always available (tests, part-time jobs, etc) – Roles are not clearly defined. Student Helper ( 도우미 )

16. ComponentsQuestion AreasScales 1. In-Class 2. Out-of-Class 3. Host Family 4. Student Helper 1.Listening 2.Reading 3.Speaking 4.Writing 5.Grammar 6.Culture 7.Area Studies 8.Interaction with native speakers 9.Interaction with speakers of wider variety of background 10.Discussing a wide variety of topics 11.Culturally appropriate behavior 12.Confidence level 13.Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in Korean 5: very beneficial 4: quite beneficial 3: beneficial 2: somewhat beneficial 1: not beneficial at all Part IV. Immersion Component Preferences

17. Immersion Component Preferences ( How beneficial)

18. Most to Least Beneficial Areas

19. 10. Provided opportunities for discussing a wide variety of topics. (m=4.24) 13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in the target language (m=3.96) 01. My listening comprehension (m=3.96) 06. My knowledge of the target language culture (m=3.91) 03. Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=3.89) In-class instructions (m=3.45)

20. 06. My knowledge of the target language culture (m=4.26) 08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction with native speakers of Korean (m=3.99) 13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in the target language (m=3.99) 07. My knowledge of the target country area studies (m=3.96) 03. Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=3.94) Out-of-class Activities (m=3.65)

21. 08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction with native speakers of Korean (m=4.19) 11. Provided opportunities for learning culturally appropriate behavior (m=4.18) 06. My knowledge of the target language culture (m=4.04) 12. My confidence level (m=4.02) 13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in the target language (m=4.01) Host Family (m=3.62)

22. 08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction with native speakers of Korean (m=4.43) 13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in the target language (m=4.23) 12. My confidence level (m=4.16) 3.Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=4.25) 8. Provided opportunities for discussing a wide variety of topics (m=4.07) Student Helper, 도우미 (m=3.70)

23. Long-term research (3 years) Study Abroad Program in Korea is Effective for – Language Skill Improvement – Confidence & Motivation Communications in all levels are crucial Various evaluation tools should be used Will be continued Conclusions

24. Thank You Very Much! Jean S. Ryu, PhD Professor & Assistant Dean Asian School II Defense Language Institute (831) 242-7820 jeansook.ryu@us.army.mil Q & A