Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on Apr 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Aline Ferreira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aline Ferreira on Jan 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Aline Ferreira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aline Ferreira on Mar 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
When ‘domestic’and ‘international’students study abroad:
reflections on language learning, contact, and culture
John W. Schwieter
a,b
, Jane Jackson
c
and Aline Ferreira
b
a
Department of Languages and Literatures, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;
b
Department of
Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA;
c
Department of English, Chinese University
of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
The present study examines the language- and culture-learning
perceptions of domestic and international students from a Canadian
university who participated in an intensive four-week-long Spanish
language and cultural immersion program in Spain. The study draws on
quantitative and qualitative data to explore the ways in which the
participants’previous international, language learning experiences
influenced their acculturation in Spain. A language history questionnaire,
a language contact profile, and an open-ended questionnaire offered
insight into the participants’experience abroad, their perceptions of
language and intercultural learning, and their identified cultural
representations on which they drew to make sense of the new
environment. We review key findings and offer suggestions for the
enhancement of study abroad programs of this nature.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 16 December 2017
Accepted 27 February 2018
KEYWORDS
Study abroad; language and
intercultural development;
language contact; self-
reports
1. Introduction
When adult language learners pursue educational opportunities outside of their own country with
the intention of learning an additional language (L
n
), they are exposed to a new linguistic and cultural
environment. Compared to learners in traditional classroom settings, students who study abroad (SA)
may likely have more opportunities for meaningful interaction in the L
n
, which can enhance their
understanding of another culture. However, the assumption that learners who are immersed in an
L
n
significantly enhance their proficiency has been called into question (Coleman 2013; Kinginger
2009). Furthermore, integrating oneself into another language and culture can be challenging for
newcomers and can bring about varying degrees of acculturative stress (Paige et al. 2006), especially
at the beginning of the sojourn. Several issues explain why this transition may be difficult for some
learners. For instance, low L
n
proficiency levels and limited intercultural competence might cause dif-
ficulties initially, affecting other variables important to the adaptation processes, such as interaction
with the host community and appreciation of a new culture (DeKeyser 2010; Schwieter and Ferreira
2014). Even with these complexities, however, contact with native speakers of the L
n
is far more
accessible in a SA context compared to a traditional classroom setting back home.
One theme of growing interest in SA concerns learners’contact with and interaction in the host
language while abroad (Schwieter and Ferreira 2016; Taguchi, Xiao, and Li 2016). Findings from
studies that explore these elements can elucidate our knowledge of which elements language lear-
ners draw on to facilitate their language and intercultural development (Jackson 2018; Jackson and
Oguro 2018; Jackson and Schwieter forthcoming). It is conceivable that a previous international L
n
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT John W. Schwieter jschwieter@wlu.ca
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
2021, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 124–137
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1447545
experience may help students become more efficient language and culture learners in subsequent
sojourns. To gain further insight into this hypothesis, this present study reports on an investigation
that compared and contrasted the perceptions and experiences of domestic and international stu-
dents from a university in Canada who joined a four-week Spanish language and cultural immersion
program in Salamanca, Spain. The participants were asked to reflect on their language development
and contact while abroad and to offer their evolving perceptions of the host culture. Below, we
discuss related SA research and provide details about the current study, including a description of
the participants, the SA program, methodology, and data analyses. We then review the findings
related to L
n
development, intercultural contact, and cultural perceptions. Finally, we identify
some limitations of the present study and offer suggestions for future research and the enhancement
of short-term sojourns.
2. Background
Freed’s(1995) seminal volume on L
n
acquisition and SA sparked a notable growth in investigations of
the language and intercultural development of L
n
sojourners in various SA programs and contexts
(e.g. Byram and Feng 2006; DuFon and Churchill 2006; Ehrenreich, Woodman, and Perrefort 2008;
Jackson 2008,2010; Papatsiba 2006; Pellegrino Aveni 2005; Regan, Howard, and Lemée 2009;
Taguchi 2015). From this body of work, it is clear that a complex mix of factors, both internal and
external to the learner, can lead to dissimilar learning outcomes (Ballatore 2010; Coleman 2013;
Jackson 2012,2018; Kinginger 2008,2009; Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). Indeed, while some
SA learners significantly increase their L
n
proficiency, develop constructive intercultural relations,
and become more global-minded, others do so to a lesser degree or not at all. These stark differences
underscore the need for research to pay close attention to individual learner differences, environ-
mental factors, and the quality of sojourn learning (Coleman; Jackson 2018; Kinginger 2009,2013).
Work of this nature is essential to identify and/or design innovative pedagogical interventions that
can enhance the language and intercultural development of participants in particular SA contexts
and situations (Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017; Jackson and Oguro 2018).
Schwieter and Ferreira (2014) investigated adult language learners’self-evaluations and percep-
tions of their evolving identities and language development during a short-SA experience. In the
interviews, participants consistently claimed that the SA experience had ‘changed them positively
as a person …and that they would be able to apply what they have learned to social aspects in
their everyday lives’(pp. 122–123). The findings of the study suggested that many social benefits
can arise from SA, including enhanced L2/intercultural communication skills, identity expansion,
and, importantly, participants’realization that L
n
learning has the potential to increase their humani-
sitic social capital. The researchers also found, however, that some of the participants were afraid of
interacting with strangers in a language in which they had limited proficiency. The Japanese SA lear-
ners in Tanaka’s(2007) study also disclosed that they were insecure about their L
n
proficiency,
avoided interaction with their host families, and preferred to construct a ‘cozy Japanese environment’
(p. 50), rather than interact with L1 speakers in the host environment.
The relationship between language contact and perceptions of L
n
culture was explored in Schwi-
eter and Ferreira’s(2016) investigation of a five-week SA program. The findings showed that learners
utilized their free-time language contact situations (e.g. going paddle boating, spending time in
cafés, shopping with the host family, etc.) to better understand the host language and culture
rather than limit their learning to the more formal cultural activities (e.g. visits to museums and heri-
tage sites) that were arranged by the SA program organizers. These findings were replicated in Schwi-
eter, Ferreira, and Miller’s(2018) study of short-term SA participants but not among their learners who
participated in year-long abroad programs. For instance, whereas the short-term SA participants’
descriptions of the L
n
(Spanish) culture were replete with clichés like la siesta, tapas, eating dinner
late, and staying up late, learners in year-long SA programs elaborated on more profound issues
such as cultural diversity and social problems and injustices to define their view of the host
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 125
culture. Schwieter et al. suggested that when compared to short sojourns, ‘long-term SA affords the
student a more in-depth view on the community where they are living, where a short-term experi-
ence seems to result in a focus on superficial cultural elements of the location’(p. forthcoming).
Other studies, however, have found that duration is not necessarily a good indicator of the quality
of sojourn learning as there are numerous program variables that can play a role in the way SA experi-
ences unfold. It is possible for short-term SA students to experience significant growth in language
and intercultural competence development when guided, critical reflection is embedded in their
program (Jackson 2008,2010; Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). For example, English majors from
a Hong Kong university who participated in a five-week sojourn in England that included
language/intercultural mentorship experienced meaningful gains in intercultural competence and
language/sociopragmatic awareness (Jackson 2008,2010). Studies of short-term SA participants in
other contexts have followed with similar findings (Cuenat 2018; Hoult 2018; Jackson and Oguro
2018). Accordingly, in addition to individual differences, it is essential to pay close attention to
program characteristics when interpreting the findings of SA research.
Research on the acculturation of language learners in SA contexts has found that L
n
attitudes and
perceptions can influence L
n
learning and engagement in the host environment (Jackson 2018; King-
inger 2008,2009,2012). Accordingly, more and more SA scholars are taking note of student sojourner
perceptions of their hosts, the host environment, and L2/intercultural interactions to make sense of
their developmental trajectories. Further, some studies have demonstrated that prior language learn-
ing can predict subsequent L
n
proficiency gains abroad, regardless of whether these languages are
the same. For instance, Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg’s(1995) robust quantitative analyses showed
that previous learning of any foreign language significantly predicted growth in Russian language
proficiency during SA.
To our knowledge, no study has explicitly compared SA learners with prior SA experience to SA
learners without such previous engagement. However, there are suggestions to the effect that
other kinds of international experiences might help to positively affect learner dispositions in sub-
sequent SA participation.
1
For example, Wilkinson (1998) provided qualitative support for this in
her investigation of two students (Ashley and Molise) from an American university who were studying
in France. Unique to the study was the difference between the two participants’backgrounds. Molise
came from an immigrant family and had lived in Cambodia until she was six. This was followed by two
years of living in Thai and Philippine refugee camps before settling in the United States at the age of
nine. Ashley, on the other hand, was well-traveled, having toured nine countries on three continents
with her family. Perhaps not surprising, the comparisons between the two participants suggested
that their individual cross-cultural experiences prior to SA in France had a significant impact on
their constructed views of the host culture during their sojourn. More recently, Kinginger et al.
(2016) explored the variability in quality of homestay experience among three American high
school learners of Chinese who were participating in a summer program in Beijing. Two of these lear-
ners were from immigrant families (Sam from Ethiopia and David from Ecuador) and one (Henry) was
neither from an immigrant family nor had significant prior international engagement. The results
suggested that the quality of the host family stay as a contributor to learning of Chinese depended
on the predisposed investment of both the host family and learner: this was apparently higher for
Sam and David than for Henry. While these few studies offer reason to believe that prior SA experi-
ence may affect language learning in a subsequent SA experience, research is needed to explore this
claim.
Of novel contribution to previous inquiries, the present study explored the ways in which prior SA
experience can play a role in the outcomes of SA, within the context of short-term learners. This
exploratory investigation examined the perceptions and experiences of university students from a
Canadian university –both international and domestic –who participated in a four-week SA experi-
ence in Salamanca, Spain. We pay particular attention to the learners’language/intercultural contact
and impressions of the host culture. In the next section, we describe the present study, including the
126 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
SA program, the participants, and the mixed-method approach to data analysis, which combined
qualitative inquiry and quantitative measurement.
3. Present study
3.1. SA program overview
The present study is based on a four-week Spanish language immersion program in Spain which is
annually led by a faculty member. A typical weekday consisted of language instruction from 9 am to 1
pm, a break from 1 pm to 3 pm, and cultural instruction from 3 pm to 4 pm. This totaled approxi-
mately 75 h of Spanish language instruction and 10 h of cultural education. The latter was designed
to provide background information related to compulsory site visits (e.g. guided tours of heritage
sites, cultural events, visits to museums) which occurred on the weekends (see Schwieter and
Kunert 2012).
Students lived with Spanish host families during their stay abroad. In addition to three meals per
day, the learners often participated in other activities with the host family (e.g. visiting relatives of
their hosts, shopping, attending sporting events). Beyond the time spent with the host family and
in instructional hours, learners were free to participate in other extracurricular activities (i.e. some par-
ticipants went to local museums, parks, and cafés, while others went swimming or took dance or
cooking lessons). For more details, see Schwieter and Ferreira (2016, Table 2) for a program itinerary
that was similar to the one followed by the cohort in the present study.
3.2. Participants
Ten undergraduate students participated in this study, including four males and six females aged
between 20 and 25. All of them were currently enrolled in a medium-sized, English-speaking univer-
sity in Canada, either as international students from China (N= 5) or as domestic students (N= 5). The
five international students were native speakers of Mandarin with advanced proficiency in English.
Although they were registered in undergraduate programs in China, when the present study was
carried out they had been studying at the Canadian university for nearly one year as international
exchange students. It was during this year in Canada that they voluntarily chose to participate in
the four-week SA program to Spain which is the focus of the present study. The five domestic stu-
dents were native speakers of English with intermediate-level proficiency in French. Spanish was
the third language for all participants. For the sake of anonymity, pseudonyms are used to refer to
the participants.
Prior to going abroad, the learners reported having taken between one and three semester-long
Spanish courses at the Canadian university. Upon arriving in Spain, the host university administered a
placement test and all participants were placed into elementary Spanish classes (levels A1 and A2 on
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) (Council of Europe 2011).
3.3. Method
The data elicited in this study come from a language questionnaire (Schwieter and Ferreira 2014),
Language Contact Profile (Freed et al. 2004), and additional open-ended questions. The language
questionnaire was administered on the first and last days in the host environment to estimate
how the participants rated their own language abilities from pre- to post- SA. On their last day
abroad, the participants also completed the Language Contact Profile and responded in writing to
the following open-ended questions:
1. Describe Spanish culture. What things represent Spanish culture to you? What are some of the
elements that have helped you to understand Spanish culture?
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 127
2. If you are an international student in Canada, how did prior SA experience in Canada affect your
SA in Spain? How do you think the SA experience in Spain will affect your return to Canada?
OR
If you are a domestic (non-international) student in Canada, how did prior travel or international
experience, if any, affect your SA experience in Spain? How do you think the SA experience in
Spain will affect your return to Canada?
3. Discuss your feelings about your Spanish language development during this SA experience. In
what ways did it improve? In what ways did it not improve? What was most responsible for
your Spanish language learning?
4. Tell me about your use of English, Spanish, and your other language(s) during your SA experience.
When and where did you use these languages? With whom?
3.4. Data analyses
When conducting the analysis of the data, we aimed to better understand and compare the perspec-
tives of learners who may or may not have had prior SA experience. As mentioned above, areas of inter-
est included: (1) language development and contact; (2) perceptions and identified representations of
the host culture; and (3) prior SA and international experience. Pair-wise t-tests were conducted on par-
ticipants’self-ratings of language development prior to and at the conclusion of their SA experience. T-
tests were also run on the language contact data to compare averages and trends across participants.
2
Finally, as for the qualitative data, the participants’reflections on these issues were analyzed using a
content approach (Marshall and Rossman 2016; Schwieter 2011; Schwieter, Ferreira, and Miller
2018). More specifically, this material was subjected to open, thematic coding (Grbich 2013)in
which we devised codes to reflect what we observed in the data rather than limiting ourselves to pre-
conceived notions (Bazeley 2013). This process facilitated ‘a holistic and systematic way of examining
forms of communication to document patterns’(Schwieter, p. 39). The coded qualitative data was then
triangulated with the quantitative measures (e.g. student self-ratings of language proficiency).
4. Findings
3
4.1. Perceptions and identified representations of L
n
culture
In the open-ended post-sojourn questionnaire, the participants were asked to define the host culture
and identify elements which they believed had helped them to understand it. Table 1 provides some
examples of culture-related thematic words and quotes that were found in the participants’
responses to question 1.
A review of the excerpts in Table 1 reveals that many of the domestic and international students
engaged in stereotyping or over-generalizations, highlighting elements that are commonly associ-
ated with Spanish life (e.g. siestas,tapas). Many mentioned food, architecture, or artwork, that is,
visible elements of Spanish culture; however, few demonstrated a deeper awareness of cultural
elements (e.g. differing values, communication styles). This is not surprising given that they had an
elementary level of Spanish and their stay in the host environment was relatively short. Further,
the SA program did not include guided, critical reflection, which might have enhanced their language
and intercultural awareness as in the studies mentioned earlier (e.g. Jackson 2008,2010).
4.2. Prior SA and international experience
In the post-sojourn questionnaire, the participants were asked to elaborate on how their prior SA or
international experience had impacted their sojourn in Spain. The international students stated that
SA experience in Canada had helped them to overcome some of the obstacles that language learners
typically face abroad (e.g. a language barrier, L2 fatigue, homesickness, acculturative stress). For
128 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
example, when Chen compared his initial language learning experiences as an international
exchange student with those in Spain, he realized that he had learned to become more ‘brave’
and willing to use the host language with native speakers while in Canada.
The first time I studied abroad [in Canada], I could only put a few English words together to make a sentence.
Right now in Spain, it looks the same as before. This is my third language I learn and from my experience, to
learn a new language especially in a new environment, you need to be brave to speak out. (Chen).
Yang remarked that prior international experience had made him more accepting of mistakes when
using a L2; he realized that this was a normal and essential part of the language learning process. To
enhance his proficiency in Spanish, he added that he knew it was important to pay close attention to
his language usage:
Having studied abroad already has made me realize that one absolutely must make mistakes to learn and that in
order to improve my Spanish, I have to constantly reflect upon the sentences I say. (Yang).
Interestingly, both Li and Yang maintained that their adjustment to the host language and culture
had been smoother and quicker in Spain than in Canada because they had been able to draw on
their previous acculturation and L2 socialization experiences. In their estimation, the process of
adapting to the Canadian environment had helped them to become more mature, independent,
and self-reliant. As a result, they had approached the SA experience in Spain with a more self-con-
fident mindset, which enabled them to adapt more quickly to their new surroundings. Shu
explained that studying in Canada had helped him to ‘become more independent both in life
and education’, which enabled him ‘to do well in Spain’. Yang noted that he was willing to try
Table 1. A sample of thematic words and quotes in response to open-ended question 1.
Thematic
words Example quote
Domestic learners
Jake siesta, relaxed, tapas ‘Spanish culture is very laid back, relaxed, and slow-paced. People rarely
seem to rush, and usually take a ‘don’t-worry-about-it attitude’about
most things.’
Jessica siesta, socializing, bullfights Spanish culture to me includes the concept of the siesta and the tapas
culture. From a Canadian standpoint, the idea of everyone going home in
the middle of the day to rest/nap is bizarre.’
Marge siesta, night life, socially oriented,
colorful fashion
‘The night life is a big part of Spanish culture. In Spain, it is normal to go out
at night and stay out until after the sun rises. In Canada, that would be
seen very negatively. I notice that Spain, though, is more socially-oriented
whereas in Canada, we are more consumer-oriented.’
Mike siesta, colorful, history, artistic ‘To go out for ice cream or coffee and walk past countless ancient structures
is perhaps the most foreign and thus one of the most representative
components of Spanish culture to me.’
Sybil long days, night life, passionate,
siesta, creative fashion
‘Spanish culture is very passionate. The public displays of affection of
couples in the park, the entire city rallying over a soccer game, the rich
food, and a painting [‘Guernica’by Pablo Picasso] held out of Spain to
protest a dictator all show this passion.’
International learners
Chen castles, cathedrals, flamenco, street
art
‘I never saw street art before where poor people dress up as effigies to get
money.’
Li artistic heritage, flamenco, historical ‘There are so many things that represent Spanish like Flamenco music and
dance, bullfights, fantastic beaches, and lots of sunshine.’
Shu artistic and stylistic, cathedrals,
enthusiastic/polite people
‘Everything is artistic and stylistic …the architecture is beautiful and there
is also lots of artistic graffiti in the streets.’
Yang flamenco, bullfights, plazas, tapas ‘The most representative thing about Spanish culture to me are tapas.I
didn’t know tapas before our teacher encouraged us to try them. It was a
very enjoyable experience.’
Zhang enjoy life, plazas, soccer, tapas ‘I think that Spanish culture is about enjoying life and the slow pace of life. I
was surprised about their love of soccer and they would even meet in the
plazas to watch it together.’
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 129
new foods in Spain and attributed this openness to his previous international experience. In his
view, prior cross-cultural experience afforded him some advantages over sojourners who were
abroad for the first time.
Unlike the first time I went abroad [to Canada] when I felt lonely and hada hard time adjusting, in Spain, I adjusted
in a very short time because I was able to become familiar with the new culture faster. I also have experience
adjusting to time changes. (Li)
The adjustment period was much, much shorter than the first time I studied abroad. Just getting used to things
like food was not a problem for me in Spain compared to the other students who had never been abroad. (Yang).
Many of the students who had already had international, L
n
educational experience when they
arrived in Spain believed that they were more efficient language learners as a result. Zhang appreci-
ated the accelerated path to language proficiency that SA had provided, noting that when he was in
Canada he learned to take advantage of opportunities to practice English with L1 speakers. In Spain,
he applied the same strategy to enhance his proficiency in Spanish.
Having compared learning English in China to learning it in Canada, I see that the fastest way to learn another
language is by conversing with native speakers. This is why I tried my hardest to always interact with as many
Spanish-speakers as I could in Spain. (Zhang).
A review of the responses of the international students suggests that while they were in Spain they
were indeed able to apply some of the language learning strategies that they had found useful in
Canada. Although these two experiences involved learning two very different languages, the meta-
cognitive awareness that they had developed during their earlier sojourn appeared to have influ-
enced their language learning in Spain. In a short-term SA program where time is limited, this
finding suggests that it can be helpful for students to have had previous L
n
experience in a SA
context, especially if they make an effort to apply or adapt the language learning strategies they
had developed earlier.
None of the domestic Canadian students had participated in a SA experience before traveling to
Spain, although they had explored other countries as tourists. Interestingly, their responses to the first
open-ended question suggested that they appeared to transfer skills they had acquired through
tourism to their SA situation. Marge, for example, maintained that in her travels she had learned
to optimize her time in the host country by seeking out ways to get to know the local culture:
…because I have travelled before, I realize how important and fun it is to really get to know a new city. This made
me more actively seek out ways to experience Spain as much as I could. (Marge).
Some of the students who had little or no international experience were anxious about what lay
ahead and acknowledged that they had been inadequately prepared for homestay life. For example:
I was probably rather unprepared to live with a host family since I’ve never done that before, but this has made
me more aware of what it’s like to live with people you don’t know in a place very different from home. (Jerry).
Mike was able to see the bright side of his lack of prior travel experience: ‘Not having travelled outside
of North America has given me a deep appreciation for every experience in Spain.’During the
sojourn, he was optimistic and excited about being in a new environment.
Overall, the identified benefits from prior travelexperienceamongthedomesticstudents
generally centered on personal gains: self-confidence, flexibility, and adaptability, which they
believed helped to ready them for their stay abroad. ‘Previous travelling experience helped
me to be comfortable with this SA so that I was not nervous’(Jessica); ‘Prior travel prepared
me to be more flexible and adaptive in Spain’(Sybil), and ‘Because I’d travelled before, it
helped me to adjust to the culture in Spain more easily’(Jerry). None of their comments centered
on language learning strategies or ways to cultivate intercultural relationships, suggesting that
they may have used their first language, English, an international language, in their travels
rather than an additional language.
130 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
4.3. Language development and contact
Prior to and at the conclusion of the SA program, the participants were asked to rate their English and
Spanish reading, writing, speaking, and listening abilities, and indicate how comfortable they felt
expressing themselves in each language, using a ten-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = less- profi-
cient to 10 = more-proficient. The self-ratings for the domestic and international participants are pre-
sented in Tables 2 and 3respectively.
Given that the domestic students were native speakers of English who were in Spain to study
Spanish, it was expected that there would be no growth in their English self-ratings. Table 1
shows that this assumption was correct: ratings only changed from 9.76–9.88 (p> .05). However,
as for their perceptions of their Spanish language proficiency, there was a significant increase
from pre- to post-SA (3.76–5.60). T-tests confirmed that this perceived growth was significant, t=
3.04, p< .05. A similar trend was reported for Spanish (1.28–2.36) among international students, as
seen in Table 2.T-tests once again confirmed that their perceived growth was significant, t= 6.65,
p< .01. Furthermore, the magnitude of perceived Spanish development among domestic students
was no different than that of the international students (p>.05). There was an unexpected, yet
not surprising, finding that international students rated their English significantly higher after the
Spanish SA experience (6.08–6.96). A t-test showed that this perceived growth was significant, t=
4.27, p< .01.
Further to these self-ratings, question 3 asked participants to provide more information about
their language development and identify what they perceived to be the primary catalysts for their
learning while abroad. All five of the international students cited the host family as an important con-
tributor to their Spanish language learning. From their responses, it was clear that communicating
with their host families has been a challenge that they embraced.
Lunch and dinners with the host family would usually take an hour and a half because we talked a lot. When I
spoke to them and got grammar or vocabulary wrong, they would always correct me. I learned a lot from
them. (Shu).
For the first few days, I had to try to talk to the host family even though I couldn’t understand anything they were
saying but at the end of the trip, we could understand each other in simple sentences. To be honest, I’m proud of
the progress I made speaking and understanding the host family. (Li).
Two of the domestic students also mentioned the important role of the host family in their language
learning. Additionally, all five of them elaborated on interactive situations with Spanish speakers that
occurred outside the home during their free time. Their comments suggested that they took more
advantage of affordances in the host environment than the international students.
Table 2. Domestic students’self-ratings of English and Spanish abilities pre- and post-SA.
Pre-SA Post-SA
Jake Jessica Marge Mike Sybil Jake Jessica Marge Mike Sybil
English
Reading 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Writing 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Speaking 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Listening 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Comfort 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Average 10.09.010.09.810.010.09.410.010.010.0
Average 9.76 9.88
Spanish
Reading 3.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 5.0
Writing 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0
Speaking 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0
Listening 5.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 6.0
Comfort 2.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 3.0
Average 2.84.04.45.22.47.05.25.26.64.0
Average 3.76 5.60
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 131
Meeting, hanging out, and talking in Spanish to other international students in Salamanca who were learning
Spanish and feeling some of the same insecurities was very important for my Spanish learning. (Marge).
To meet Spanish-speaking people in every coffee shop, bar, store, etc. forced me to adapt and embrace the
Spanish language. While the classes were vital to my learning, it was the immersion and interaction with Spa-
niards that was ultimately the most valuable component of my experience. (Mike).
Interacting with native Spanish speakers was the most impactful component of the experience. The times where
we met Spaniards in bars or restaurants were very important for practicing and learning Spanish. They were
usually around our same age and taught us lots of cool slang. They were very patient and helpful with our
limited Spanish. (Jessica).
Data elicited from the Language Contact Profile (see Table 4) provided some quantitative expla-
nation of the observation that the domestic students valued interaction in Spanish during free-
time situations more than the international students who largely focused on the role of the host
family. Table 4 also presents other factors that may have served as valuable input for language
development.
As seen in Table 4, most of the t-tests found no differences (p> .05) between international and
domestic learners’time spent in contact with and use of Spanish during the month sojourn.
However, the international students reported speaking in Spanish significantly less (p< .05) with
strangers (2d); they also had fewer superficial/brief exchanges (3c) and extended conversations
with their host families (3d) compared to the domestic students. Even so, the international students
reported speaking English with native or fluent Spanish speakers significantly more often than the
domestic students (5c). The international students also reported using a language other than
English and Spanish (likely Mandarin amongst themselves) while abroad (5a) more than domestic stu-
dents did with French, their L2. Finally, domestic students reported listening to music in Spanish (6j)
significantly more than the international students.
Qualitative data that was generated from student responses to question 4 helped to make sense
of the findings in the language contact data. Not surprisingly, the responses from both international
and domestic students reflected the fact that they always used Spanish during instructional hours.
However, their language use outside of class time varied: while all five of the international students
reported Mandarin exclusively with their Chinese peers and English with the domestic students. The
domestic students emphasized that they highly valued interaction in Spanish with native speakers of
the language. Accordingly, they made more comments about real-life experiences in restaurants,
cafés, and bars than the international students. In these settings, they also would have gained
more exposure to Spanish music (6j).
Table 3. International students’self-ratings of English and Spanish abilities pre- and post-SA.
Pre-SA Post-SA
Chen Li Shu Yang Zhang Chen Li Shu Yang Zhang
English (L2)
Reading 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 6.0
Writing 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 5.0
Speaking 8.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 9.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 5.0
Listening 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 5.0
Comfort 8.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 9.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0
Average 7.25.65.47.05.28.66.85.88.05.6
Average 6.08 6.96
Spanish (L3)
Reading 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
Writing 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Speaking 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Listening 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Comfort 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 3.0
Average 1.01.01.81.01.62.22.62.42.02.6
Average 1.28 2.36
132 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
I spoke in Spanish in all my classes or during any conversation with a native Spanish speaker such as with waiters
and other customers in restaurants, bus drivers, teachers, and anyone I met along the way. (Sybil).
I use Spanish during class and to communicate with professors and my host family. I use English with Cana-
dian students and other students studying here in Spain. With my Chinese classmates, I only speak Chinese.
(Chen).
Table 4. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for domestic and international learners’language contact while abroad.
Domestic learners International learners
p-
value
Days per
week
Hours per
day
Days per
week
Hours per
day
1. Spoke in Spanish outside of class with fluent Spanish
speakers.
7.0 (0.0) 2.7 (1.7) 6.2 (1.0) 1.5 (1.5) 0.33
2a. Spoke in Spanish with instructor. 1.1 (1.6) 0.4 (0.5) 4.0 (2.2) 1.7 (1.5) 0.14
2b. Spoke in Spanish with friends who are fluent Spanish
speakers.
1.8 (1.9) 0.9 (0.7) 4.0 (3.0) 0.6 (0.5) 0.52
2c. Spoke in Spanish with classmates. 4.8 (2.6) 1.4 (1.2) 3.8 (2.4) 1.7 (1.6) 0.77
2d. Spoke in Spanish with strangers. 5.2 (2.4) 1.1 (0.5) 2.8 (1.8) 0.5 (0) 0.04
2e. Spoke in Spanish with host family. 7.0 (0) 2.9 (1.5) 6.6 (0.8) 1.3 (0.4) 0.07
2f. Spoke in Spanish with service personnel. 5.2 (2.7) 0.8 (0.9) 2.6 (2.6) 0.5 (0) 0.51
3a. Used Spanish outside of class to clarify classroom-related
work.
2.6 (2.1) 0.7 (0.9) 3.8 (2.5) 1.2 (1.2) 0.55
3b. Used Spanish outside of class for directions or information. 4.4 (2.8) 0.9 (0.5) 3.0 (2.3) 0.6 (0.5) 0.41
3c. Used Spanish outside of class for superficial/brief exchanges
with host family.
7.0 (0) 1.5 (0) 4.8 (2.6) 0.6 (0.5) 0.01
3d. Used Spanish outside of class for extended conversations
with host family.
6.6 (0.8) 2.5 (0.9) 6.2 (1.0) 0.7 (0.4) 0.01
4a. Tried to use things learned inside the classroom in
situations outside of the classroom.
6.8 (0.4) 2.7 (1.5) 5.4 (1.5) 1.5 (1.1) 0.23
4b. Took things learned outside the classroom back to the
classroom for questions or discussion.
3.6 (2.2) 1.5 (0.9) 4.6 (1.6) 1.5 (1.1) 1.00
5a. Spoke a language other than Spanish or English. 1.0 (2.0) 0.5 (1.0) 6.0 (1.3) 3.5 (1.8) 0.02
5b. Spoke Spanish to native or fluent speakers of Spanish. 7.0 (0) 2.9 (1.7) 6.2 (1.0) 1.5 (2.0) 0.32
5c. Spoke English to native or fluent speakers of Spanish. 0.4 (0.8) 0.4 (0.6) 7.0 (0) 2.7 (1.7) 0.04
5d. Spoke Spanish to nonnative speakers of Spanish. 6.0 (0.9) 2.1 (1.9) 5.8 (1.0) 0.7 (0.4) 0.18
5e. Spoke English to nonnative speakers of Spanish. 4.4 (2.7) 1.8 (1.3) 4.6 (2.6) 2.7 (1.7) 0.43
6a. Overall reading in Spanish outside of class. 2.4 (2.3) 1.3 (1.1) 3.8 (2.9) 1.6 (2.0) 0.80
6b. Read newspapers in Spanish outside of class. 0.6 (1.2) 0.1 (0.2) 1.6 (2.7) 0.1 (0.2) 1.00
6c. Read novels in Spanish outside of class. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
6d. Read magazines in Spanish outside of class. 1.4 (1.2) 0.7 (0.7) 0.6 (0.5) 0.3 (0.2) 0.30
6e. Read schedules, announcements, and menus in Spanish
outside of class.
5.4 (1.6) 1.3 (0.4) 3.8 (3.2) 0.8 (0.6) 0.20
6f. Read e-mail and webpages in Spanish outside of class. 3.8 (2.8) 1.0 (0.9) 3.0 (2.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.72
6g. Overall listened in Spanish outside of class. 6.2 (1.6) 3.3 (1.6) 6.0 (2.0) 2.5 (1.7) 0.51
6h. Listened to television and radio in Spanish outside of class. 6.3 (2.0) 1.9 (1.9) 6.0 (1.3) 1.5 (1.5) 0.75
6i. Listened to movies or videos in Spanish outside of class. 2.6 (2.5) 1.4 (1.2) 1.8 (2.6) 0.3 (0.2) 0.11
6j. Listened to songs in Spanish outside of class. 6.6 (0.8) 3.3 (1.8) 3.4 (3.1) 0.9 (1.0) 0.05
6k. Listened to catch other people’s conversations in Spanish
outside of class.
6.2 (1.6) 1.9 (1.0) 3.0 (2.6) 1.6 (2.0) 0.80
6l. Overall wrote in Spanish outside of class. 0.6 (0.8) 0.2 (0.2) 2.4 (3.0) 0.8 (1.4) 0.41
6m. Writing homeworkassignments in Spanishoutside ofclass. 5.4 (1.4) 2.9 (1.4) 6.6 (0.8) 3.1 (1.4) 0.84
6n. Wrote personal notes or letters in Spanish outside of class. 0.6 (0.8) 0.4 (0.6) 1.8 (1.9) 0.9 (1.0) 0.40
6o. Wrote e-mail in Spanish outside of class. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
6p. Filled in forms or questionnaires in Spanish outside of class. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.2) 0.35
7. Spoke in English outside of class. 6.8 (0.4) 2.5 (0) 6.6 (0.8) 3.1 (0.8) 0.17
8a. Read newspapers, magazines, or books; watched movies,
TV, or videos in English outside of class.
5.2 (2.2) 0.9 (0.5) 5.4 (2.1) 1.9 (1.4) 0.20
8b. Read e-mail or webpages in English outside of class. 6.0 (1.5) 0.9 (0.5) 5.6 (2.0) 1.3 (1.2) 0.54
8c. Wrote e-mail in English outside of class. 3.8 (2.8) 0.6 (0.5) 3.2 (2.1) 0.7 (0.4) 0.76
8d. Wrote personal notes or letters in English outside of class. 2.6 (3.2) 0.4 (0.5) 2.2 (2.0) 1.1 (1.7) 0.46
Note: The days per week scores are based on a 7-point scale and the hours per day scores are based on a 5-point scale. The p-values
are from t-tests conducted on international and domestic learners’mean ‘hours per day’.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 133
5. Discussion and conclusion
The present study explored the impact of previous international experience on the perceived
language and cultural learning of novice-intermediate learners of Spanish from a Canadian univer-
sity who participated in a short-term Spanish language enhancement program in Spain. Some
interesting similarities and differences were found when comparing the data generated by the
international students from China and the domestic Canadian students. The findings identified
gaps in their language and intercultural learning and pointed to the need for pedagogical interven-
tions before and during SA.
The Chinese students claimed that they were more self-confident and willing to try new things in
Spain because of their acculturation experience in Canada (e.g. they had learned how to deal with
homesickness and unfamiliar ways of being). They also stated that they were able to apply some
of the language learning strategies that they had developed during their year-long stay in Canada
when interacting with their host families. They were, however, less engaged in the host community
and did not take advantage of opportunities to initiate intercultural interactions and use the host
language in informal, social situations outside of the homestay. Further, they demonstrated a ten-
dency to engage in stereotyping and did not display a sophisticated awareness of the complexity
and diversity of Spanish culture.
While the Canadian students had had no previous SA experience before arriving in Spain, they
were able to draw on their experiences as tourists to ease their adjustment in the host environment.
Most believed that they had become more independent and self-reliant through traveling and also
more open to exploring the host environment and initiating intercultural interactions in Spain. This, in
turn, afforded them more exposure to Spanish in informal, social situations. Even so, like the inter-
national students, they tended to engage in stereotyping and did not develop a deep awareness
or understanding of the host environment. Further, in contrast with their Chinese peers, the Canadian
sojourners did not cite any specific language learning strategies that they had used to enhance their
proficiency in Spanish and cultivate relationships with their hosts. Their reliance on the use of English
as an international language while traveling and no prior SA experience may partially explain this
finding.
In addition to benefiting from previous SA and international experience (e.g. travels), the partici-
pants believed that they had enhanced their Spanish language skills through the immersion program
in Salamanca. In general, they were quite positive about their learning and the program. This is impor-
tant as student attitudes and perceptions can influence their degree of investment in language and
intercultural enhancement and significantly impact sojourn outcomes (e.g. Jackson 2018; Kinginger
2009,2013). Students with a positive mindset are more apt to make concrete plans for future
language enhancement and international experience.
While the participants’positive comments about the SA program and their learning were
encouraging, a review of the data suggests that there were many missed opportunities for
deeper levels of language acquisition and intercultural engagement. The domestic students in par-
ticular did not display much awareness of language learning strategies, pointing to the need for
strategy-training in the pre-sojourn phase. Further, among both groups, student responses to
open-ended questions were replete with stereotypes and superficial observations of the host
environment. This discovery suggests the need for intercultural education prior to and during
the stay abroad.
International experience, including SA, does not necessarily lead to a higher level of intercultural
competence or L
n
proficiency, especially when the participants do not engage in structured reflection
and meaning-making (Jackson 2018; Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). Regular debriefings facilitated
by an intercultural mentor during stays abroad can help students make sense of what they are
observing and experiencing in the host environment. The mentor could remind students of their
sojourn goals, help them process intercultural interactions, and motivate them to be more active
and engaged in the host environment.
134 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Many contemporary studies have found that the language learning and intercultural development
of short-term sojourners can be significantly enhanced through research-driven, carefully-designed,
learner-centered pedagogical interventions (Jackson and Oguro 2018; Jackson and Schwieter forth-
coming). Interventions of this nature should be learner-centered and draw on the participants’pre-
vious international, L
n,
and SA experience. For example, data of this nature could be amassed before
students go abroad to design appropriate language and cultural-related interventions. As the present
study suggests, however, it would be naïve to equate previous SA and international experience with
intercultural competence and the mastery of L
n
learning strategies. For this reason, it is essential to
gather more information about the participants’language and intercultural attitudes and mindset.
6. Limitations and future research
This study focused on the perceptions and experiences of a small number of SA students in Spain,
drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data. Introspective data can offer useful insight into
the personal, sociocultural, linguistic, and academic development of student sojourners and help
provide direction for interventions in SA programs. However, it is important to bear in mind that
first-person accounts may not be complete or fully accurate due to the limitations of memory and
other factors (e.g. desire to please the researcher) (Pavlenko 2007). Also, the data collected was
largely limited to questionnaire surveys. For these reasons, care must be taken when interpreting
the findings of this exploratory study.
Much more research is needed to tease apart the complicated roles that language socialization
and acculturation play in SA experience. Indeed, this study demonstrated that newcomers do not
necessarily understand the motives, actions, or worldviews of their hosts and this can impact the
quality of their sojourn. In addition to investigating sojourner perceptions, as we have in the
present study, it is also essential to study the perceptions and actions of other individuals (e.g.
local native speakers, other international students) who inhabit the SA setting and interact with
the learners. A holistic investigation of L2 socialization in SA contexts, including the interplay of
leaner-host interactions, requires a longitudinal timeframe and careful micro-ethnographic obser-
vation of routine socializing encounters.
Notes
1. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for noting this.
2. Given the small number of participants, care must be taken when interpreting the trends found in the t-tests.
3. Minor corrections were made, when necessary, to international students’grammatically-incorrect constructions in
the English quotes elicited from the open-ended questions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
John W. Schwieter is an Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics and Faculty of Arts Teaching Scholar at Wilfrid
Laurier University.
Jane Jackson is a Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of English at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Aline Ferreira is an Assistant Professor of Cognitive Linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the Uni-
versity of California, Santa Barbara.
ORCID
John W. Schwieter http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1798-3915
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 135
References
Ballatore, M. 2010.Erasmus et al mobilité des jeunes Européens: entre mythes et réalités. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Bazeley, P. 2013.Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: Sage.
Brecht, R., D. Davidson, and R. Ginsberg. 1995.“Predictors of Foreign Language Gain During Study Abroad.”In Second
Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, edited by B. Freed, 37–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Byram, M., and A. Feng, eds. 2006.Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Coleman, J. 2013.“Researching Whole People and Whole Lives.”In Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in
Study Abroad, edited by C. Kinginger, 17–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Council of Europe. 2011.Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cuenat, M. 2018.“Plurimobil: Pragmatic Enhancement of Intercultural Learning in Study Abroad Contexts.”In Intercultual
Interventions in Study Abraod, edited by J. Jackson, and S. Oguro, 175–189. London: Routledge.
Deardorff, D., and L. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds. 2017.Intercultural Competence in International Higher Education:
International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. 2010.“Monitoring Processes in Spanish as a Second Language During a Study Abroad Program.”Foreign
Language Annals 43: 80–92.
DuFon, M., and E. Churchill, eds. 2006.Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ehrenreich, S., G. Woodman, and M. Perrefort, eds. 2008.Auslandsaufenthalte in Schule und Studium: Bestandsaufnahmen
aus Forschung und Praxis. Münster: Waxmann.
Freed, B., ed. 1995.Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Freed, B., D. Dewey, N. Segalowitz, and R. Halter. 2004.“The Language Contact Profile.”Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 26: 349–356.
Grbich, C. 2013.Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. 2nd ed.London: Sage.
Hoult, S. 2018.“Aspiring to Postcolonial Engagement with the Other: Deepening Intercultural Learning Through
Reflection on a South India Sojourn.”In Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, edited by J. Jackson, and S.
Oguro, 71–87. London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. 2008.Language, Identity, and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Equinox.
Jackson, J. 2010.Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Jackson, J. 2012.“Education Abroad.”In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, edited by
J. Jackson, 449–463. London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. 2018.Interculturality in International Education. London: Routledge.
Jackson, J., and S. Oguro, eds. 2018.Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Jackson, J., and J. W. Schwieter. forthcoming.“Study Abroad and Second Language Learning.”In The Cambridge
Handbook of Language Learning, edited by J. W. Schwieter, and A. Benati. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kinginger, C. 2008.“Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France.”The Modern Language
Journal 92: 1–124.
Kinginger, C. 2009.Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kinginger, C. 2012.“Language Socialization in Study Abroad.”In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by C. A.
Chapelle. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kinginger, C. 2013.“Introduction.”In Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad, edited by C.
Kinginger, 3–16. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kinginger, C., Q. Wu, H.-S. Lee, and D. Tan. 2016.“The Short-Term Homestay as a Context for Language Learning: Three
Case Studies of High School Students and Host Families.”Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and
International Education 1: 34–60.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 2016.Designing Qualitative Research. 6th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paige, R., A. Cohen, B. Kappler, J. Chi, and J. Lassegard. 2006.Maximizing Study Abroad: A Student’s Guide to Strategies for
Language and Culture Learning and use. 2nd ed.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition.
Papatsiba, V. 2006.Des étudiants européens.‘Erasmus’et l’aventure de l’altérité. Bern: Peter Lang.
Pavlenko, A. 2007.“Autobiographic Narratives as Data in Applied Linguistics.”Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 163–188.
Pellegrino Aveni, V. 2005.Study Abroad and Second Language use: Constructing the Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Regan, V., M. Howard, and I. Lemée. 2009.The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Schwieter, J. W. 2011.“Migrant Hispanic Students Speak Up: Linguistic and Cultural Perspectives on Low Academic
Attainment.”Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: An International Journal 5 (1): 33–47.
Schwieter, J. W., and A. Ferreira. 2014.“Intersections of Study Abroad, Social Capital, and Second Language Acquisition.”
In Readings in Language Studies, vol. 4: Intersections of Language and Social Justice, edited by M. Mantero, J. Watze, and
P. Chamness Miller, 107–128. Grandville, MI: International Society for Language Studies.
136 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Schwieter, J. W., and A. Ferreira. 2016.“On the Interrelated Nature of Study Abroad Learners’Language Contact,
Perceptions of Culture, and Personal Outcomes.”The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 151–173.
Schwieter, J. W., A. Ferreira, and P. Miller. 2018.“Study Abroad Learners’Metalinguistic and Sociocultural Reflections on
Short- and Long-Term International Experiences.”Intercultural Education 29.
Schwieter, J. W., and S. Kunert. 2012.“Short-Term Study Abroad and Cultural Sessions: Issues of L2 Development, Identity,
and Socialization.”In Readings in Language Studies (vol. 3): Language and Identity, edited by P. C. Miller, J. Watze, and M.
Mantero, 587–604. Grandville, MI: International Society for Language Studies.
Taguchi, N. 2015.Developing Interactional Competence in a Japanese Study Abroad Context. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Taguchi, N., F. Xiao, and S. Li. 2016.“Assessment of Study Abroad Outcomes in Chinese as a Second Language: Gains in
Cross-Cultural Adaptability, Language Contact and Proficiency.”Intercultural Education 27 (6): 600–614.
Tanaka, K. 2007.“Japanese Students’Contact with English Outside the Classroom During Study Abroad.”New Zealand
Studies in Applied Linguistics 13: 36–54.
Vande Berg, M., R. Paige, and K. Lou. 2012.“Student Learning Abroad: Paradigms and Assumptions.”In Student Learning
Abroad: What our Students are Learning, What They’re not, and What we can do About it, edited by M. Vande Berg, R.
Paige, and K. Lou, 3–28. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wilkinson, S. 1998.“On the Nature of Immersion During Study Abroad: Some Participant Perspectives.”Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4 (2): 121–138.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 137
