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.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceji20
Intercultural Education
ISSN: 1467-5986 (Print) 1469-8439 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20
Study abroad learners’ metalinguistic and
sociocultural reflections on short- and long-term
international experiences
John W. Schwieter, Aline Ferreira & Paul Chamness Miller
To cite this article: John W. Schwieter, Aline Ferreira & Paul Chamness Miller (2018) Study
abroad learners’ metalinguistic and sociocultural reflections on short- and long-term international
experiences, Intercultural Education, 29:2, 236-257, DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2018.1429169
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1429169
Published online: 21 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 194
View Crossmark data
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION, 2018
VOL. 29, NO. 2, 236257
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1429169
Study abroad learners’ metalinguistic and sociocultural
reections on short- and long-term international
experiences*
John W.Schwietera,b, AlineFerreirac and Paul ChamnessMillerd
aDepartment of Languages and Literatures, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada; bCentre
for Applied Research and Outreach in Language Education, University of Greenwich, London, UK;
cDepartment of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA; dEnglish for
Academic Purposes, Akita International University, Akita-City, Japan
ABSTRACT
English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish who were taking part
in a four-week study abroad program in Spain and Japanese-
speaking learners of L2 English who were individually studying
in year-long abroad experiences participated in the present
study. Quantitative and qualitative data from language
questionnaires and contact proles along with open-ended
responses revealed details on learners’ engagement with and
use of their languages while abroad. We discuss the ndings
and their implications for programs, educators and learners.
Introduction
Students from every academic eld can benet from international experiences
(Coleman 2013; Collentine 2009; Kinginger 2011, 2013a; Schwald 2011) and
consequently, in recent years, study abroad (SA) research and programs in higher
education have gained traction (Dehmel, Li, and Sloane 2011; Pérez-Vidal 2014; Sanz
forthcoming). A SA experience can be an eective way to learn a second language
(L2) (Coleman 1997; DuFon and Churchill 2006; Isabelli 2004; Jackson and Schwieter
forthcoming; Kinginger 2009, 2013a; Kuntz and Belnap 2001; Pellegrino 1998). It
also provides a fruitful learning environment whose eects on L2 development
can be examined (Barron 2006; Díaz-Campos 2004; Isabelli; Laord 1995, 2004;
Schwieter 2013; Schwieter and Ferreira 2014; Schwieter and Kunert 2012)
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 15 December 2016
Accepted21 August 2017
KEYWORDS
Study abroad; language
contact; language
development; social capital
CONTACT John W. Schwieter jschwieter@wlu.ca
*A previous version of this paper was presented at the conference Mobilities, Transitions, Transformations:
Intercultural Education at the Crossroads (September 5–9, 2016) which was jointly organized by the International
Association for Intercultural Education and the Institute of Intercultural Psychology and Education at the Faculty of
Education and Psychology of the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 237
and political-, cultural- and identity-related issues (Block 2007; Kinginger 2013b;
Plews 2015; Schwieter and Ferreira 2016).
We can learn a great deal about the eects of SA by explicitly asking learners
to reect and report on their experiences and perceived outcomes. In the present
study, we focus on L2 learners’ reections on metalinguistic and sociocultural issues
from their short-term and year-long SA experiences. We dene metalinguistic in
accordance with Jessner (2006): it represents ‘what learners know about language
through reection on and manipulation of language’ (43) (see also Jackson 2014).
In the next section, we provide a brief background on relevant SA research that
has looked at L2 development, language contact and socialisation, language and
culture and social capital. Following this, we introduce the present study including
a description of the participants, methods and procedures and data analyses.
Finally, we discuss the ndings and implications for future research.
Key issues in study abroad research
One of the consequences of globalisation ‘and the push for internationalization on
[university] campuses’ (Jackson 2013 is the increase in student mobility (Pérez-Vidal
2014). As a result, a SA experience has become ripe for studying L2 development
(DuFon and Churchill 2006; Howard and Schwieter forthcoming; Sanz 2014),
language contact and socialisation (Coleman 2013), language and culture (Cohen
et al. 2005; Schwieter and Ferreira 2016) and social capital (Schwieter and Ferreira
2014). Collentine (2009) divides SA research into two periods, the rst of which
discusses the eectiveness of SA programs by measuring, from broad instruments,
gains in L2 abilities. The second period represents a shift towards investigating
internal cognitive mechanisms (e.g. Linck, Kroll, and Sunderman 2009) along
with the external sociolinguistic and sociocultural inuences of L2 learning (e.g.
Schwieter and Ferreira 2016). Research has suggested that a SA experience may
be more eective than traditional classroom settings regarding L2 development
even in linguistic areas that are complicated to acquire such as the acquisition of
pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence (see Taguchi 2015 for a recent review).
As we reect on the learning benets of a SA experience, we can identify key issues
that have been of interest in the literature. We review some of these relevant issues
in the following section.
L2 development in study abroad
Learning a L2 is a main reason why students decide to study abroad, given that
this type of experience is assumed to enhance their L2 prociency. Within the
complicated construct of prociency, there has been an ongoing examination of
lexical and grammatical development (Arnett 2013; Collentine 2004; Isabelli-García
2010; Grey et al. 2015; Schwieter and Klassen 2016; see Howard and Schwieter
forthcoming for a review) and reading development (Dewey 2004; Kline 1998).
238 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Common to many of these studies are the employment of learner questionnaires,
self-reports and general language tests (see Collentine 2009 for a review).
The level of L2 prociency at the onset of SA plays an important role in the
outcomes of the experience. For instance, although beginning L2 learners will be
able to participate in a limited number of advanced language situations, they may
have room for more growth in L2 development (Schwieter 2013). However, SA
learners can be resilient as seen in Schwieter and Ferreira’s (2014) study in which
only one out of the 14 beginning L2 learners expressed diculties to socialise in the
L2 due to low prociency. Although most SA learners experienced anxiety at the
beginning of the sojourn, this nervousness decreased in sync with L2 prociency
growth. Students also reported reduced anxiety as they became more integrated
into the community abroad and developed more condence in their L2 skills.
Studies comparing SA learning contexts to ‘at home’ (AH) settings have also
been conducted (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg 1995; Davidson 2010). Segalowitz
and Freed’s (2004) study compared L2 oral uency development between SA and
AH groups and found that only the SA group showed improvement from pre-test
to post-test. Milton and Meara (1995) compared vocabulary gains between SA and
AH learners and found that the SA group acquired signicantly more vocabulary
than the AH group. In terms of pronunciation, Stevens (2001) results revealed
improved phonological abilities for L2 learners in SA contexts compared to AH
learners. However, in terms of grammatical development there are mixed results
as to whether a SA context can be more conducive than an AH environment
(Howard and Schwieter forthcoming). For instance, while DeKeyser (1991) found no
dierences between SA and AH groups regarding their use of the L2 Spanish copulas
ser and estar, Collentine’s (2004) results showed that AH learners outperformed
SA learners on discrete grammatical and lexical features, but the SA group
showed better narrative abilities and more semantically dense language than the
AH learners.
Language contact and socialisation in study abroad
Coleman (2013) criticises SA research for having ignored ‘the most significant
elements of the sojourn’ (28), namely those that are not related to linguistic
issues but rather to life experiences (e.g. discovery of self and others,
development of cultural sensitivity, etc.). As research moves from ‘a
simplistic and inadequate model of causality and controllable (in)dependent
variables’ (29) to a more complex, holistic view of the SA experience in
which individuals’ trajectories are created, it is possible to identify patterns
without adopting a deterministic perspective. An important aspect of the
SA experience is the social circles with and within which students have
established themselves. Coleman explains how the role of social networks is
embedded in the learning outcomes because they provide access to linguistic
and cultural input as well as to the nature of language interactions.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 239
Coleman (2013) proposes a representation of SA social networks through a
model based on reports of socialisation and friendships during a SA experience
(see Figure 1). The model implicates language socialisation, use and learning and
distinguishes between three key players: co-nationals, other outsiders and locals.
These key players are based on work by Bochner, McLeod, and Lin (1977) who
identify the following: (1) ‘a conational network whose function is to express the
culture of origin’ (co-nationals); (2) ‘a multi-national network whose main function
is recreational’ (other outsides); and (3) ‘a network with host nationals, whose
function is the instrumental facilitation of academic and professional aspirations’
(locals) (277).
There is a tendency for SA learners to spend time with co-nationals and
culturally similar groups (in which they normally use a common L1) despite eorts
made by program leaders that encourage learners to establish connections with
native-speakers. This is especially apparent at the beginning of the SA experience.
Nonetheless, there is often a subtle progression across social networks in which
co-nationals begin to interact with other outsiders and then with the local
community (as shown by the arrow in Figure 1). However, this is not universal,
and dierences among students and programs should be taken into account. The
contact that SA learners share with other outsiders normally is a lingua franca or
entails code-switching between a lingua franca and the local language. Homestay
programs with families from the local community, along with other activities
designed to inspire learners to interact with locals, can facilitate access to the
outer portion of the social circle. Although the model oversimplies reality and
does not take into account individual dierences, it provides a ‘way of conceiving
socialization and acculturation patterns during study abroad’ (Coleman 2013, 31).
Other outsidersCo-nationals Locals
Figure 1.The concentric circles model of SA social networks (adapted from Coleman 2013).
240 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Language and culture in study abroad
Internationalisation has formed a niche as a core element in the strategic goals
and academic plans of universities around the world (Green, Luu, and Burris 2008).
These goals are designed so that learners will develop intercultural competency
skills that will help them to engage in an interconnected world (Deardor 2004).
Hammer (2004) denes intercultural competence as ‘the capacity to generate
perceptions and adapt behavior to cultural context’ (2). Several studies suggest
signicant gains in intercultural competence as a result of SA (Deardor 2006;
Engle and Engle 2004; Jackson 2008; Medina-López-Portillo 2004; Salisbury 2011;
Schauer 2009; Watson, Siska, and Wolfel 2013; Watson and Wolfel 2015; see also
the volume edited by Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). Although intercultural
competence may be facilitated through interaction between SA learners and those
who come from dierent backgrounds (e.g. cultural, linguistic, social, religious), it
also may develop because of the highly contextualised learning environment of
SA. According to Kinginger (2008), one unique characteristic of SA is that it provides
unlimited access to the target language community, sociocultural behaviours and
identity development situations.
Similarly, the contact hypothesis (Allport 1954), a view in a variety of elds such
as criminology, psychology and sociology, argues that contact may be one of the
most eective ways of improving relations and reducing prejudices among groups
that experience conict. In the context of study abroad, working together as a
group with common goals that help them to navigate in a new context provides
the opportunity to realise how contact with other cultures might challenge
learners’ prejudices and preconceived notions about others. Furthermore, when
learners are involved in a SA experience, they ideally participate in communicative
opportunities with individuals from other cultures. These exchanges, in turn, have
the potential to lead to an appreciation and understanding of other cultures.
During a SA experience, not only does learners’ understanding of the target
culture change but the perception of their own culture and language may also be
transformed. Domville-Roach (2007) presents a comparison of experiences and
expectations between international and American students studying abroad. The
study included a cross-cultural participant questionnaire, which was completed
by 155 international students and 252 American students. The results from the
questionnaire revealed specic objectives that the learners wanted to accomplish
including increased L2 prociency, relationships with the host nationals, culture
awareness and personal change. American SA students’ experiences more closely
aligned with their expectations in comparison to the international students.
Importantly, the learners viewed the overall SA experience as an investment of
several aspects, including L2 skill development. They expected socialisation and
cultural integration (see also Hellsten 2002) which appeared to hasten access to
learning outcomes. The results of Domville-Roach’s study implicate that SA is a
form of experiential learning which involves ‘observation, interaction, and sharing
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 241
with people in order to expand the learning process’ (37). Murphy-Lejeune (2003)
similarly argues that L2 learners who have limited intercultural language skills
may be marginalised abroad for a longer time than their peers who are more
comfortable with their abilities.
As argued by Schwieter and Ferreira (2014), even in just a few weeks abroad,
learners are able to reect on important metalinguistic and sociocultural issues.
This is partly because they come to share similarities and implicit anities with
other individuals abroad. As learners progressively integrate themselves with
locals, they develop a better understanding of a new culture, which encourages
them to explore themselves and build interpersonal relationships while abroad.
Social capital in study abroad
Many L2 learners view a SA experience as an opportunity to ‘invest’ in several
aspects of their lives: personal, economic, social, cultural and linguistic development
(Hellsten 2002). When an investment is made, a return is often expected. However,
unlike other forms of capital that incorporate possession, social capital is focused
on relationships that are built among people (Smith 2011). Bourdieu (1986) argues
that the original power of capital is its capacity to generate value. Individuals and
groups are able to obtain and add productive value from the cultural contexts of
the networks to which they have access (Clark 2006). In multilingual communities,
the language in which this is conducted plays an important role. It seems plausible
that individuals who can utilise the possibilities of socialising in two or more
languages – as those who participate in SA experiences – may have a unique
access to social capital.
The notion of social capital legitimises the value of humanistic relationships
from having achieved something (e.g. the acquisition of an L2). Smith (2011) argues
that social capital is traditionally associated with future employment opportunities
or social favours, but its use is also applicable to L2 acquisition. According to Smith,
social capital is ‘grounded in relationships, individuals’ attributes, and available
resources’ (2030). Under this assumption, relationships are built when there is
an explicit (based on purposive action) or implicit (loosely dened anities)
connection in which hybrid networks (including both implicit anities and explicit
connections) play a fundamental role in the analysis of social capital. According
to Field (2003), social capital interprets social networks as a valuable asset in the
sense that people interact to build communities and to commit themselves to each
other. When connections are maintained and possibly even strengthened over
time, people can work together to achieve objectives that otherwise would have
been achieved with great diculty, if at all. When people make connections and
share values with other members of the same network, these networks become
capital. A SA experience seems to be a fruitful opportunity to share similar proles
and learning objectives and to develop social capital.
242 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Present study
The present study adds to the growing body of work exploring metalinguistic
and sociocultural issues from SA experiences. The study addresses the following
guiding questions: (1) How does SA impact L2 development? (2) In what ways does
SA aect language contact and socialisation in a new environment? (3) How does
SA inuence a student’s understanding of the local culture? and (4) In what ways
does SA aord the learner increased social capital?
Participants
There were two demographics included in the present study. The rst is a group of
Canadian undergraduate students (N=16) who were learning L2 Spanish in Spain
for four weeks.
1
These participants were recruited from a medium-sized university
in a primarily English-speaking area of Canada. They included 14 female and two
male undergraduate students who had been enrolled in L2 Spanish courses at the
university level anywhere from one to four semesters. The second demographic
includes independent Japanese learners (N=8) who were participating in year-
long SA experiences at English-speaking universities in countries such as the US,
Sweden and Finland. These participants were recruited from a small international
liberal arts university in Japan, where the entire curriculum is taught in English. They
included three female and ve male undergraduate students who were studying
abroad to full an international study requirement at their home university.
Although the objective of the present study is not to compare and contrast these
two demographics, the reader should keep in mind the vast dierences (e.g. one
month vs. one year abroad) among the two groups.
Method and procedures
Prior to departure and at the conclusion of the SA experience, all participants
completed a language questionnaire (see Schwieter 2013, Appendix), which
elicited information regarding language use and self-ratings of prociency in the L1,
L2 and any other language they might have known. Quantitative data was gleaned
from these ratings on which we later conducted t-tests, although our small sample
size requires us be mindful of this limitation. On the nal day of the SA experience,
participants responded to an adapted version of Freed et al.’s (2004) Language
Contact Prole which is designed ‘to assess second language contact for students
entering and completing language study programs in various contexts of learning’
(349). Also on the nal day, the participants completed an open-ended, reective
questionnaire (see Table 1). Because some of the terminology in the questions may
not have been familiar to the participants (e.g. social capital, humanistic value),
the researchers read each question aloud and/or provided opportunities for
participants to ask if they did not fully understand something on the questionnaire.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 243
Data analyses
Our objective was not to compare and contrast the two demographic groups but
to gather a diverse set of perspectives from short- and long-term SA participants.
Areas of interest included L2 development, language contact and socialisation,
language and culture and social capital. We measured L2 development by
comparing participants’ self-ratings of language abilities prior to and at the
conclusion of the SA experience as elicited from the language questionnaires.
We explored language contact by analysing averages and trends that participants
reported in their Language Contact Prole (Freed et al. 2004). Finally, we examined
participants’ reections on language and culture and social capital through their
responses on the open-ended questionnaires. We employed a content analysis
(Marshall and Rossman 2016; Schwieter 2011) on their responses, which Schwieter
argues is ‘a holistic and systematic way of examining forms of communication
to document patterns objectively’ (39). The researchers read the participants’
responses carefully, constantly comparing data throughout the analysis process
(Glaser 1992; Glaser and Strauss 1967). In so doing, the researchers were able to
discover themes that emerged from trends in the data. These initial themes were
rened as continued examination of the data occurred, and the researchers arrived
at the following themes that guided their study: (1) reliance on English as an L1
or L2, (2) length of time abroad inuences the depth of appreciation of the host
culture, (3) language development varies depending on the individual learner’s
goals and foci, (4) study abroad builds condence and encourages individuals
to become more outgoing and lastly, (5) the ability to see or articulate the social
capital gained from study abroad is not easily found, especially in a society where
social capital is not a common topic of discussion. In the following section, we
discuss these themes in greater detail with some notable observations from the
quantitative and qualitative data.
Table 1.Open-ended questionnaire.
1. Describe your experiences socialising in the L2 throughout the study abroad experience.
2. Describe your feelings on fitting in and adapting to a new environment. Did you feel part of your host
university? The community?
3. With which aspects of the L2 culture do you feel you identified most?
4. Do you think you have changed as a person from this study abroad experience? If so, in what ways? If not, why
not?
5. What aspects of this study abroad experience can you see yourself applying to your social life once home?
6. How has this study abroad experience (and its social learning environment) helped you creatively display and/
or explore yourself?
7. Did this study abroad experience help increase how you would rate your social capital? (e.g. the privileges and
power gained in terms of future employment, social status, etc.)?
8. Discuss other comments and thoughts that you may have that have not been addressed in the previous
questions.
244 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Findings
L2 development
The language questionnaire asked participants to rate their language abilities on
a 10-point Likert scale. This questionnaire was administered both at the beginning
and conclusion of the SA experience to explore any possible changes in how
participants estimated their L1 and L2 abilities. These self-ratings can be seen in
Tables 2 and 3.2
Tables 2 and 3 reveal some interesting ndings about perceived language
development among the participants, but should not be generalised to other
populations due to the small sample size. Perhaps not surprising is that the
Canadian students did not see an improvement in their English (L1) ability upon
returning from study abroad, but they did report an increase in ability in their
use of Spanish (their L2). However, unexpectedly, as Table 3 shows, the Japanese
students reported the opposite: a sense of improved ability in Japanese (their L1)
post-SA in all skills except ‘listening’ but not much improvement in English (their
L2) except in the area of writing and marginally for speaking.
Language contact and socialisation
Results from the Language Contact Prole for the Canadian learners can be seen
in Table 4 and for the Japanese learners in Table 5.
As these data show, many participants from both groups relied on English to
communicate with others in their host country, especially in cases where the SA
student could not speak the host country’s language. Data from the open-ended
questionnaire provides some qualitative explanation about this. For example, one
of the Canadian learners who went to Spain noted, ‘Speaking English was obviously
easier and more natural. At the beginning of the trip (rst couple of days) I only
spoke English and found Spanish extremely hard.’ A Japanese student also revealed
that ‘Before going to Sweden, I wasn’t condent at all especially in my speaking
Table 2.Self-ratings of language abilities for Canadian learners.
Note: The scores represent the participants’ self-assessment of language abilities based on a 10-point scale
(one=least proficient, ten=most proficient).
Pre-SA Post-SA T p
English (L1)
Reading 9.31 9.63 .96 .35
Writing 9.25 9.50 .94 .36
Speaking 9.25 9.63 1.19 .25
Listening 9.31 9.75 1.33 .20
Comfort level of expression 9.44 9.75 1.00 .33
Spanish (L2)
Reading 4.56 5.72 3.33 <.01
Writing 3.69 5.22 3.43 <.01
Speaking 3.50 5.03 3.81 <.01
Listening 3.63 6.09 4.79 <.001
Comfort level of expression 3.38 5.22 3.82 <.01
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 245
skills. However, I was forced to speak English in Sweden and it was an amazing
experience that I didn’t have much trouble talking in English.’ However, the attitude
of the two groups towards the use of English with non-native speakers was quite
dierent. The Canadian students often described their experience as ‘frustrating’ and
‘stressful’ when the local Spanish community could not speak English, demonstrating
potential evidence of English imperialism. The Japanese learners, however, were
more concerned about their own L2 English ability in addition to their ability to
connect with others because of their perceived weak language skills. A few of the
Japanese students, using L2 English, admitted that they did occasionally struggle
to understand other L2 English speakers. One such student commented on the
experience with the following: ‘Sometimes the contact [in English] with speakers in
Finland was dicult. I was not able to understand what non-native English speakers
said because of their accent, but I came to be used to it day by day.’
An interesting nding in the data is that nearly all participants noted how the
SA experience built his or her condence. One Japanese student admitted that
‘with this experience, I got a little condent with my speaking and listening ability’.
Another wrote: ‘I am now condent about myself, which would help me throughout
my life in Japan.’ Students also noted a boost in condence as it relates to social
skills. One student remarked, ‘I am now condent about myself which would help
me throughout my life in Japan.’ Similarly, a Canadian student commented that: ‘I
feel more comfortable meeting new people and approaching people who speak
dierent languages. I gained much more condence in my social skills.’
In addition to condence, some students noted how the SA experience helped
them to become more outgoing. One Canadian participant stated, ‘I think I have
been able to become a more vocal person who was able to guide some people in
trying to see some aspects from a perspective that is a little dierent from what
they were used to.’ A student from Japan revealed that ‘I have become much more
active in my social life. Before that, I thought I was passive. However, because of
this change, I got more condence in many things.’ Another Japanese learner
echoed these feelings by noting, ‘I feel I have become much more active in doing
Table 3.Self-ratings of language abilities for Japanese learners.
Note: The scores represent the participants’ self-assessment of language abilities based on a 10-point scale
(one=least proficient, ten=most proficient).
Pre-SA Post-SA T p
Japanese (L1)
Reading 8.13 9.38 2.76 .03
Writing 8.00 9.25 2.76 .03
Speaking 8.38 9.50 2.55 .04
Listening 8.25 8.88 1.93 .10
Comfort level of expression 8.88 9.38 2.65 .04
English (L2)
Reading 7.13 7.50 .75 .48
Writing 6.38 7.25 2.50 .04
Speaking 6.25 7.25 2.16 .07
Listening 6.75 7.00 .68 .52
Comfort level of expression 6.63 7.25 1.17 .28
246 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
something. During my study abroad, I had to push myself to let others know me and
do something with others in class and outside class than I was in Japan before that.’
Language, culture and social capital
An interesting nding suggests that long-term SA aords the student a more
in-depth view on the community where they are living, where a short-term
Table 4.Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for Canadian learners’ language contact
while abroad.
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.
Days per week Hours per day
1. Spoke in Spanish outside of class with fluent Spanish speakers 6.23 (1.01) 2.12 (1.00)
2a. Spoke in Spanish with instructor 4.29 (1.77) 1.71 (1.42)
2b. Spoke in Spanish with friends who are fluent Spanish speakers 3.64 (2.34) 1.11 (.76)
2c. Spoke in Spanish with classmates 4.57 (2.16) 1.68 (1.30)
2d. Spoke in Spanish with strangers 4.14 (2.24) .89 (.54)
2e. Spoke in Spanish with host family 6.21 (1.25) 1.82 (.96)
2f. Spoke in Spanish with service personnel 4.00 (2.91) .82 (.52)
3a. Used Spanish outside of class to clarify classroom-related work 3.64 (2.73) 1.29 (1.31)
3b. Used Spanish outside of class for directions or information 3.93 (1.82) .79 (.45)
3c. Used Spanish outside of class for superficial/brief exchanges with host
family
6.50 (1.02) 1.57 (1.22)
3d. Used Spanish outside of class for extended conversations with host
family
5.25 (2.39) 1.43 (.80)
4a. Tried to use things learned inside the classroom in situations outside
of the classroom
6.00 (1.47) 1.29 (.77)
4b. Took things learned outside the classroom back to the classroom for
questions or discussion
4.36 (2.27) 1.32 (.96)
5a. Spoke a language other than Spanish or English 1.29 (2.46) .21 (.25)
5b. Spoke Spanish to native or fluent speakers of Spanish 5.43 (2.44) 1.82 (1.38)
5c. Spoke English to native or fluent speakers of Spanish 3.50 (2.93) 1.04 (1.01)
5d. Spoke Spanish to non-native speakers of Spanish 5.21 (2.33) 1.32 (1.16)
5e. Spoke English to non-native speakers of Spanish 6.50 (.85) 2.79 (1.44)
6a. Overall reading in Spanish outside of class 5.14 (1.88) .79 (.45)
6b. Read newspapers in Spanish outside of class 1.07 (1.07) .54 (.44)
6c. Read novels in Spanish outside of class .64 (1.28) .25 (.41)
6d. Read magazines in Spanish outside of class 1.14 (1.46) .46 (.58)
6e. Read schedules, announcements and menus in Spanish outside of
class
5.57 (1.79) 1.07 (.49)
6f. Read e-mail and webpages in Spanish outside of class 2.14 (2.21) .75 (.94)
6g. Overall listened in Spanish outside of class 6.36 (1.50) 2.86 (1.67)
6h. Listened to television and radio in Spanish outside of class 4.50 (2.95) .89 (.74)
6i. Listened to movies or videos in Spanish outside of class 1.07 (1.27) .42 (.48)
6j. Listened to songs in Spanish outside of class 4.21 (2.69) 1.18 (.82)
6k. Listened to catch other people’s conversations in Spanish outside of
class
5.43 (2.62) 1.14 (.79)
6l. Overall wrote in Spanish outside of class 2.64 (2.02) .75 (.70)
6m. Writing homework assignments in Spanish outside of class 4.89 (1.90) 1.50 (.76)
6n. Wrote personal notes or letters in Spanish outside of class 1.86 (2.32) .57 (.62)
6o. Wrote e-mail in Spanish outside of class .79 (1.42) .25 (.41)
6p. Filled in forms or questionnaires in Spanish outside of class 1.04 (1.82) .32 (.41)
7. Spoke in English outside of class 7.00 (.00) 3.71 (1.41)
8a. Read newspapers, magazines or books; watched movies, TV or videos
in English outside of class
2.14 (2.18) .75 (.77)
8b. Read e-mail or webpages in English outside of class 5.43 (1.87) 1.43 (1.59)
8c. Wrote e-mail in English outside of class 3.79 (2.55) 1.04 (.77)
8d. Wrote personal notes or letters in English outside of class 2.64 (3.05) .71 (.62)
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 247
experience seems to result in a focus on supercial cultural elements of the
location. For example, the Canadian students, when asked to discuss their views
on the local culture, mostly wrote about Spanish clichés like la siesta, tapas, eating
dinner late and staying up late. Not one student recalled deeper level cultural
elements of the community where they were living. However, the Japanese
students, who were on SA for one academic year, discussed deeper cultural aspects
of the local community. For example, one student described the diversity of his SA
experience: ‘It’s everywhere: classrooms, dormitory, supermarkets or in the city.
Table 5.Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for Japanese learners’ language contact
while abroad.
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.
Days per week Hours per day
1. Spoke in English outside of class with fluent English speakers 6.23 (1.01) 2.12 (1.00)
2a. Spoke in English with instructor 4.29 (1.77) 1.71 (1.42)
2b. Spoke in English with friends who are fluent English speakers 3.64 (2.34) 1.11 (.76)
2c. Spoke in English with classmates 4.57 (2.16) 1.68 (1.30)
2d. Spoke in English with strangers 4.14 (2.24) .89 (.54)
2e. Spoke in English with host family 6.21 (1.25) 1.82 (.96)
2f. Spoke in English with service personnel 4.00 (2.91) .82 (.52)
3a. Used English outside of class to clarify classroom-related work 3.64 (2.73) 1.29 (1.31)
3b. Used English outside of class for directions or information 3.93 (1.82) .79 (.45)
3c. Used English outside of class for superficial/brief exchanges with host
family
6.50 (1.02) 1.57 (1.22)
3d. Used English outside of class for extended conversations with host
family
5.25 (2.39) 1.43 (.80)
4a. Tried to use things learned inside the classroom in situations outside
of the classroom
6.00 (1.47) 1.29 (.77)
4b. Took things learned outside the classroom back to the classroom for
questions or discussion
4.36 (2.27) 1.32 (.96)
5a. Spoke a language other than English or Japanese 1.29 (2.46) .21 (.25)
5b. Spoke English to native or fluent speakers of English 5.43 (2.44) 1.82 (1.38)
5c. Spoke Japanese to native or fluent speakers of English 3.50 (2.93) 1.04 (1.01)
5d. Spoke English to non-native speakers of English 5.21 (2.33) 1.32 (1.16)
5e. Spoke Japanese to non-native speakers of English 6.50 (.85) 2.79 (1.44)
6a. Overall reading in English outside of class 5.14 (1.88) .79 (.45)
6b. Read newspapers in English outside of class 1.07 (1.07) .54 (.44)
6c. Read novels in English outside of class .64 (1.28) .25 (.41)
6d. Read magazines in English outside of class 1.14 (1.46) .46 (.58)
6e. Read schedules, announcements and menus in English outside of class 5.57 (1.79) 1.07 (.49)
6f. Read e-mail and webpages in English outside of class 2.14 (2.21) .75 (.94)
6g. Overall listened in English outside of class 6.36 (1.50) 2.86 (1.67)
6h. Listened to television and radio in English outside of class 4.50 (2.95) .89 (.74)
6i. Listened to movies or videos in English outside of class 1.07 (1.27) .42 (.48)
6j. Listened to songs in English outside of class 4.21 (2.69) 1.18 (.82)
6k. Listened to catch other people’s conversations in English outside of
class
5.43 (2.62) 1.14 (.79)
6l. Overall wrote in English outside of class 2.64 (2.02) .75 (.70)
6m. Writing homework assignments in English outside of class 4.89 (1.90) 1.50 (.76)
6n. Wrote personal notes or letters in English outside of class 1.86 (2.32) .57 (.62)
6o. Wrote e-mail in English outside of class .79 (1.42) .25 (.41)
6p. Filled in forms or questionnaires in English outside of class 1.04 (1.82) .32 (.41)
7. Spoke in Japanese outside of class 7.00 (.00) 3.71 (1.41)
8a. Read newspapers, magazines or books; watched movies, TV or videos
in Japanese outside of class
2.14 (2.18) .75 (.77)
8b. Read e-mail or webpages in Japanese outside of class 5.43 (1.87) 1.43 (1.59)
8c. Wrote e-mail in Japanese outside of class 3.79 (2.55) 1.04 (.77)
8d. Wrote personal notes or letters in Japanese outside of class 2.64 (3.05) .71 (.62)
248 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Especially in dormitory, more than half of the residents are from abroad, even
though they are mostly full-time students there.’ Another student discovered that
‘In the United States, their style is more casual. In other words, I felt like the distance
between people was closer than Japanese. Also they are more outgoing and social
… Through my study abroad, I learned nationalities or races did not matter to
become friends. Also I became more sensitive about international social problems,
for example, the race, sexual minorities, poverties and so on.’ Yet another noted,
‘In some classes, I was the only Asian. These helped me accept more cultures and
be more open minded.’ These data show that perhaps a long-term SA will help
students understand more about the world, their place in the world and how their
lives may change as a result. This is strikingly dierent from the Canadian learners
who noted that their lives have not changed at all after SA.
The Canadian participants often identied ways in which they had gained social
capital as a result of studying abroad, the most common of which is being more
marketable for employment. One student noted that: ‘having an experience of
being abroad can give an impression that that person is tough, capable to adapt
to new environment and likes challenging to new things. Many companies tend
to like these types of people as their work force. Thus, I believe (and hope …) it
would be a plus for my job hunting.’ The Japanese students largely struggled to
identify how studying abroad and speaking another language gives them social
capital, although most agreed that it does (but could not provide any specic
examples of how). One student from Japan acknowledged that capital could also
simply be social awareness: ‘I saw lots of problems happening in Europe right now.
I considered how education can confront with these issues globally and what is
necessary in practice doing that. It was only a year to be there and learn those ideas
so it is not enough to deepen my understanding and knowledge to conclude my
opinion. But it is the good rst step for my further study and motivation to learn,
work and contribute to society in any way.’
One Canadian student admitted ‘I experienced how life is in another country
just by living in Europe for one month. I feel more culturally aware of dierences
and disadvantages that are not what I have experienced in Canada.’ And another
remarked that ‘I have learned so much on this trip that I think will not only benet
me, but everyone around me.’ And one student from Japan reected:
I’m not afraid to talk in English as I used to be. [Now back home,] I even started a part
time job which uses English to help people from abroad. When I was in Sweden, I had
time to reect my life in Japan. I realized how harsh it is for the people from foreign
countries to live in Japan where people speak only Japanese and things are written all
in Japanese. It is true that almost everything is written in Swedish in Sweden. However,
it helped me a lot that almost everyone could speak English which would not happen in
Japan. Therefore, I’ve started to think that I want to help and let people from abroad feel
comfortable when they come to Japan by talking English with them.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 249
Discussion
The present study explored Canadian and Japanese learners’ reections on
short- and long-term SA experiences. We were particularly interested in how
these learners viewed their L2 development and contact with and socialisation
in their languages while abroad. The study also looked at learners’ perspectives
on language, culture and social capital after their sojourn abroad. Although our
objective was not to compare and contrast the Canadian and Japanese learners,
there are patterns within and across these two demographics that deserve further
discussion.
In terms of L2 development and language contact and socialisation, all of the
participants reported a need to rely on English. For the Japanese learners, this
meant a need to interact in their L2 while for the Canadian learners, this implied
reliance on their L1. Although this expected nding is no doubt related to their L2
prociency level prior to SA, it is interesting to note that this did not mirror their
self-ratings of language development. For instance, Japanese learners noted a
signicant growth for L1 reading, writing and speaking and marginally for listening.
It may be the case that students who are learning an L2 tend to develop more
self-criticism towards the L1, increasing their metacognitive awareness. However,
for their L2, they felt as though only their productive abilities (speaking, writing)
improved. Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal’s (2007) study showed improvement in
students’ oral skills more so when certain sociolinguistic conditions were met.
Sasaki (2004, 2007) found that both at-home and SA students improved written
quality/uency while DuFon and Churchill (2006) reported students’ progress in
oral prociency and uency. Llanes and Prieto Botana’s (2015) study showed that
participants’ overall listening comprehension improved substantially but that
contextualisation played a crucial role. It might be the case that the lack of context
hampered Japanese learners’ listening comprehension. Regarding reading skills,
there was little improvement in the group of Japanese learners. Brecht, Davidson,
and Ginsberg (1995) suggested that students who improve more in reading than
oral skills may not engage in adequate social interaction. As the participants in
the present study improved their speaking skills but not their reading skills, it
might be the case that they focused more in developing their oral skills and did
not spend enough time with reading. This may also be a response to the Japanese
government’s push for learners to develop English communication skills, which
is also reected in the English language curriculum of Japan. Furthermore, the
Japanese students were already accustomed to reading in English since all of their
courses at their home institution are taught in English. Additionally, many of the
Japanese learners’ SA experience was in a country where English is not the L1 of
the local people (e.g. Sweden, Finland and France). It may be that these students
did not see themselves as having improved much because they were focused on
learning the local language. Whatever the reason, this puzzling nding is dierent
from how the Canadian learners rated their language development. Perhaps
250 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
more expectedly, the Canadian learners felt that their L2 signicantly improved
in reading, writing, speaking and listening but that their L1 was unaected. For the
Japanese learners, more engagement with the host community could have helped
to develop their L2 receptive abilities (listening and reading) and for the Canadian
learners, more engagement could help to reduce frustration and expectations for
community members to speak in English. Future work should further investigate
this among larger sample sizes.
With respect to language and culture, Canadian students who only spent four
weeks abroad, identied supercial cultural elements such as the relaxing, slower-
paced lifestyle, food and siestas as integral to their perceptions and appreciation
of Spanish culture. Japanese learners who were abroad for an entire year, however,
noted a deeper appreciation for culture through multiple lenses that emerged over
time. Although simply being immersed in another country ‘does not necessarily
lead to the development of an understanding of the host culture, appreciation for
it, or ability to communicate eectively within it’, (Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich
2002, 64) perhaps because the Japanese students were abroad an entire year,
they were able to successfully develop such an understanding and appreciation.
In order to truly understand this context, future research should directly test
the eects of time abroad on cultural learning, and should incorporate more
stringent methods (e.g. using control groups and pretest/posttest designs) ‘that
can empirically demonstrate the value added of studying abroad’ (Tarrant, Rubin,
and Stoner 2015). Programs – both short- and long-term – may benet by testing
the eects of specic representations of culture (art, media, politics, history, music,
dance, painting, architecture, cuisine, customs and so forth) on cultural perceptions
through strictly controlled measures, to balance out the tendency of perpetuating
stereotypes of the host culture.
The participants felt that the SA experience, whether one month or one year,
helped them to be more outgoing and condent. In terms of social capital, one
underlying theme across Canadian learners was the professional value of the SA
experience. These learners noted that they gained marketable and professional
skills from having studied abroad, which they could take back home with them.
Optimism towards social capital was also seen among the Japanese learners, some
of whom acknowledged the positive eects of SA on their ability to learn, work
and contribute to society, although an ability to identify specically what that
capital is was challenging. This is, most likely, due to the fact that the concept
of social capital is new to most Japanese learners, as they have spent their lives
preparing for one entrance exam after another. Consequently, they have not had
opportunities to think critically about society and their role in the world until
university (Miller 2017). Future research would benet from exploring ways to help
learners fully understand the social capital that they gain from SA experiences,
especially when the learners come from countries where critical thinking is not a
common component of the curriculum.3 Ideally, a SA program should encourage
learners, before participating in a SA experience, to ask themselves why they want
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 251
to go abroad. Similarly, post-SA, the learners should reect on the outcomes and
benets they gained from the program. Future work may also seek to explore
how language attitudes and motivation interact with the learning outcomes,
both perceived and measured, that L2 learners take from a SA experience (refer
to seminal work by Gardner and Lambert 1959).
Conclusion
There is much to learn about what learners take away from a SA experience.
This study has provided a glimpse of the potential benets that are reaped from
studying in another country, as well as a few challenges that SA programs may wish
to address in order to maximise the cultural understanding that takes place. The
ndings revealed that SA promotes a stronger self-condence and learners hone
their social skills. The data also suggest that it is important for learners to take full
advantage of opportunities that allow them to engage with the host community
while abroad in order to develop a deeper knowledge of the culture and maximise
their L2 language skills. Collaborative group work, such as service learning and
internships (Ducate 2009; Kurasawa and Nagatomi 2006) or technology-based
assignments such as video projects (Goulah 2007), e-journals (Stewart 2010) and
blogs (Comas-Quinn, Mardomingo, and Valentine 2009), is a way to encourage
such engagement.
Future studies should take advantage of social media and incorporate online
communication with members from the host community (Brubaker 2007;
Kinginger and Belz 2005; Pertusa-Seva and Stewart 2008; Tudini 2007). Even for
learners who are not able to partake in a SA experience, it may be benecial to
encourage online communication, a safe and time-eective option, which could
spark learners’ interest in studying abroad at a later date. The ndings also pointed
to several areas for future study. One of these is the perhaps overlooked factor
of social capital development from SA experiences. Although participants in SA
programs might be aware of the linguistic and cultural learning that comes with
studying abroad, they likely do not consider social capital in their reasons for going
abroad. Future SA programs and research alike should consider discussing social
capital pre- and post-SA. Only with more research that explores social capital in SA
along with the issues we have discussed in the present study can we understand
which variables are more amendable to SA and which ones require pedagogical
or programming intervention.
Notes
1. We would like to thank an anonymous peer reviewer for pointing out the potential
eects of culture shock in a short-term SA experience. While we do not discuss this
in the present study due to space limitations, we refer the reader to Allen (2010) who
argues that while travelling and learning with peers from the home institution may
252 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
help ease cultural shock and raise student comfort level, short-term SA experiences
may also present some challenges (see also Schwieter and Kunert 2012).
2. Because of the small sample size in the present study, care must be taken when
interpreting the quantitative results in Tables 2 and 3.
3. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that although the
concept of social capital may be very important in SA experiences that are motivated
by L2 acquisition, its aect is unclear on learners who travel to places for motives other
than to acquire another language (e.g. SA learners who go to places that share their
same L1). For these learners, knowledge of and learning about another culture may be
more relevant.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the three anonymous peer reviewers, the associate editor and the
editorial team for their valuable feedback and suggestions for improvement to this paper. We
express our gratitude to peers at the conference who provided insightful comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict 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 in Canada and a Visiting Professor of Applied
Linguistics at the University of Greenwich in England. He is the Executive Editor of the
book series Bilingual Processing and Acquisition and some of his research has appeared in:
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition; The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics; Diaspora,
Indigenous, and Minority Education; Language Learning; Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism;
The Mental Lexicon; The Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics; Study Abroad Research in Second
Language Acquisition and International Education and Translation, Cognition, and Behavior.
Aline Ferreira is an Assistant Professor of Cognitive Linguistics in the Department of Spanish
and Portuguese at the University of California, Santa Barbara where she is the Director of
the Bilingualism, Translation, and Cognition Laboratory. She has co-edited: The Handbook
of Translation and Cognition; Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and
interpreting; and The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies
from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science. Her research has appeared in Translation and
Interpreting Studies; Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics; Reading and Writing; The Routledge
handbook of translation and linguistics; Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language
Acquisition and Bilingualism; Cognitive control and consequences of multilingualism; Cadernos de
Tradução; and the Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Paul Chamness Miller is a Professor in the English for Academic Purposes Program at Akita
International University in Japan. His research focuses on instructional methods of teaching
languages, critical pedagogy and the issues of under-represented youth and teachers in the
K-12 setting. He has published in Queer Studies in Media and Popular Culture, Teaching and
Teacher Education, Journal of Thought, Multicultural Perspectives, Journal of Second Language
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 253
Teaching and Research and the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. He is also editor-in-
chief of Critical Inquiry in Language Studies and co-editor of the book series, Research in Queer
Studies.
References
Allen, H. 2010. “What Shapes Short-term Study Abroad Experiences? A Comparative Case Study
of Students’ Motives and Goals.” Journal of Studies in International Education 14 (5): 452–470.
Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arnett, C. 2013. “Syntactic Gains in Short-term Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 46 (4):
705–712.
Barron, A. 2006. “Learning to Say ‘You’ in German: The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence
in a Study Abroad Context.” In Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts, edited by M. DuFon
and E. Churchill, 59–88. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Block, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Bochner, S., B. McLeod, and A. Lin. 1977. “Friendship Patterns of Overseas Students: A Functional
Model.” International Journal of Psychology 12 (4): 277–294.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education, edited by J. Richardson, 241–246. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
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. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Brubaker, C. 2007. “Six Weeks in the Eifel: A Case for Culture Learning during Short-term Study
Abroad.” Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 40 (2): 118–123.
Clark, T. 2006. Language as Social Capital. Applied Semiotics 8 (18): 29–41.
Cohen, A., R. Paige, R. Shively, H. Emert, and J. Ho. 2005. Maximizing Study Abroad through
Language and Culture Strategies: Research on Students, Study Abroad Program Professionals,
and Language Instructors. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition.
Coleman, J. 1997. “Residence Abroad within Language Study.” Language Teaching 30: 1–20.
Coleman, J. 2013. “Researching Whole People and Whole Lives.” In Social and Cultural Aspects of
Language Learning in Study Abroad: Language Learning and Language Teaching, edited by C.
Kinginger, 17–44. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Collentine, J. 2004. “The Eects of Learning Contexts on Morphosyntactic and Lexical
Development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 227–248.
Collentine, J. 2009. “Study Abroad Research: Findings, Implications, and Future Directions.” In
The Handbook of Language Teaching, edited by M. Long and C. Doughty, 218–233. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Comas-Quinn, A., R. Mardomingo, and C. Valentine. 2009. “Mobile Blogs in Language Learning:
Making the Most of Informal and Situated Learning Opportunities.” ReCALL 21: 96–112.
Davidson, D. 2010. “Study Abroad: When, How Long, and with What Results? New Data from the
Russian Front.” Foreign Language Annals 43 (1): 6–26.
Deardor, D. 2004. “The Identication and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student
Outcome of Internationalization at Institutions of Higher Education in the United States.”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Deardor, D. 2006. “Assessing Intercultural Competence in Study Abroad Students.” In Living and
Studying Abroad: Research and Practice, edited by M. Byram and A. Feng, 232–256. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
254 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Dehmel, A., Y. Li, and F. Sloane. 2011. “Intercultural Competence Development in Higher
Education Study Abroad Programs: A Good Practice Example.” Interculture Journal 15: 14–36.
DeKeyser, R. 1991. “The Semester Overseas: What Dierence Does It Make?” ADFL Bulletin 22
(2): 42–48.
Dewey, D. 2004. “A Comparison of Reading Development by Learners of Japanese in Intensive
Domestic Immersion and Study Abroad Contexts.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition
26: 303–327.
Díaz-Campos, M. 2004. “Context of Learning in the Acquisition of Spanish Second Language
Phonology.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 249–273.
Domville-Roach, E. 2007. “A Comparative Study of International and American Study Abroad
Students’ Expectations and Experiences with Host Countries.” Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN.
Ducate, L. 2009. “Service Learning in Germany: A Four-week Summer Teaching Program in
Saxony-Anhalt.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 42: 32–40.
DuFon, M., and E. Churchill, eds. 2006. Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Engle, L., and J. Engle. 2004. “Assessing Language Acquisition and Intercultural Sensitivity
Development in Relation to Study Abroad Program Design.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad 10: 219–236.
Field, J. 2003. Social Capital. London: Routledge.
Freed, B., D. Dewey, N. Segalowitz, and R. Halter. 2004. “The Language Contact Prole.” Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 26: 349–356.
Gardner, R., and W. Lambert. 1959. “Motivational Variables in Second-language Acquisition.”
Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266–272.
Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Goulah, J. 2007. “Village Voices, Global Visions: Digital Video as a Transformative Foreign
Language Learning Tool.” Foreign Language Annals 40: 62–78.
Green, M., D. Luu, and B. Burris. 2008. Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2008 Edition.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Grey, S., J. Cox, E. Serani, and C. Sanz. 2015. “The Role of Individual Dierences in the Study
Abroad Context: Cognitive Capacity and Language Development during Short-term Intensive
Language Exposure.” The Modern Language Journal 99 (1): 137–157.
Hammer, M. 2004. Assessment of the Impact of the AFS Study Abroad Experience. Accessed 16
January 2018 https://idiinventory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/afs_study.pdf
Hellsten, M. 2002. “Students in Transition: Needs and Experiences of International Students in
Australia.” Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart,
Tasmania.
Howard, M., and J. W. Schwieter. Forthcoming. “The Development of Second Language Grammar
in Study Abroad.” In The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice, edited by
C. Sanz. New York, NY: Routledge.
Isabelli, C. 2004. “Study Abroad for Advanced Foreign Language Majors: Optimal Duration for
Developing Complex Structures.” In Advanced Foreign Language Learning: A Challenge to
College Programs, edited by H. Byrnes and H. Maxim, 114–130. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Isabelli-García, C. 2010. “Acquisition of Spanish Gender Agreement in Two Learning Contexts:
Study Abroad and at Home.” Foreign Language Annals 43 (2): 289–303.
Jackson, J. 2008. Language, Identity, and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Equinox.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 255
Jackson, J. 2013. “Study Abroad”. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by C. Chapelle.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781405198431.
Jackson, D. 2014. “Learner Dierences in Metalinguistic Awareness: Exploring the Inuence
of Cognitive Abilities and Language Experience”. In Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second
Language Research Forum, edited by R. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. M.
Miguel, A. M. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, and D. Walter, 211–226. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Jackson, J., and J. W. Schwieter. Forthcoming. “Study Abroad and Immersion”. In The Cambridge
Handbook of Language Learning, edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Benatti. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jessner, U. 2006. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Juan-Garau, M., and C. Pérez-Vidal. 2007. “The Eect of Context and Contact on Oral Performance
in Students Who Go on a Stay Abroad.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4:
117–134.
Kinginger, C. 2008. “Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France.”
The Modern Language Journal 92: 1–124.
Kinginger, C., ed. 2009. Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kinginger, C. 2011. “Enhancing Language Learning in Study Abroad.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 31: 58–73.
Kinginger, C., ed. 2013a. Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad.
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Kinginger, C. 2013b. “Language Socialization in Study Abroad”. In The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics, edited by C. Chapelle. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
book/10.1002/9781405198431.
Kinginger, C., and J. Belz. 2005. “Sociocultural Perspectives on Pragmatic Development in Foreign
Language Learning: Case Studies from Telecollaboration and Study Abroad.” Intercultural
Pragmatics 2: 369–421.
Kline, R. 1998. “Literacy and Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context.” Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4: 139–165.
Kuntz, P., and R. Belnap. 2001. “Beliefs about Language Learning Held by Teachers and Their
Students at Two Arabic Programs Abroad.” Al-Arabiyya 34: 91–113.
Kurasawa, I., and A. Nagatomi. 2006. “Study-abroad and Internship Programs: Reection and
Articulation for Lifelong Learning.” Global Business Languages 11: 23–30.
Laord, B. 1995. “Getting Into, Through, and Out of a Survival Situation: A Comparison of
Communicative Strategies Used by Students Studying Spanish Abroad and “At Home”.”
In Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, edited by B. Freed, 97–121.
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Laord, B. 2004. “The Eect of the Context of Learning on the Use of Communication Strategies
by Learners of Spanish as a Second Language.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26:
201–225.
Linck, J., J. Kroll, and G. Sunderman. 2009. “Losing Access to the Native Language While Immersed
in a Second Language: Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Second-language Learning.”
Psychological Science 20 (12): 1507–1515.
Llanes, À., and G. Prieto Botana. 2015. “Does Listening Comprehension Improve as a Result of a
Short Study Abroad Experience?” Revista Española de Linguística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of
Applied Linguistics 28 (1): 199–212.
Lutterman-Aguilar, A., and O. Gingerich. 2002. “Experiential Pedagogy for Study Abroad:
Educating for Global Citizenship.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 8:
41–82.
256 J. W. SCHWIETER ET AL.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 2016. Designing Qualitative Research. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Medina-López-Portillo, A. 2004. “Intercultural Learning Assessment: The Link between Program
Duration and the Development of Intercultural Sensitivity.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad 10: 179–200.
Miller, P. C. 2017. “Challenging the Myth of Homogeneity in Japan in First-year Writing.” In Diversity
in Japanese Education, edited by N. Araki, 83–101. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Milton, J., and P. Meara. 1995. “How Periods Abroad Aect Vocabulary Growth in a Foreign
Language.” ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 107–108: 17–34.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. 2003. “An Experience of Interculturality: Student Travelers Abroad.” In
Intercultural Experience and Education, edited by G. Alred, M. Byram, and M. Fleming, 101–113.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pellegrino, V. 1998. “Student Perspective on Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context.”
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 91–120.
Pérez-Vidal, C., ed. 2014. Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction Contexts.
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Pertusa-Seva, I., and M. Stewart. 2008. “Virtual Study Abroad 101: Expanding the Horizons of the
Spanish Curriculum.” Foreign Language Annals 33: 438–442.
Plews, J. 2015. “Intercultural Identity-alignment in Second Language Study Abroad, or the
More-or-less Canadians.” In Social Interaction, Identity and Language Learning during Residence
Abroad, edited by R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, and K. McManus, 281–304. Amsterdam:
European Second Language Association.
Salisbury, M. 2011. “The Eect of Study Abroad on Intercultural Competence among
Undergraduate College Students.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA.
Sanz, C. 2014. “Contributions of Study Abroad Research to Our Understanding of SLA Processes
and Outcomes: The SALA Project, an Appraisal.” In Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and
Formal Instruction Contexts, edited by C. Pérez-Vidal, 1–14. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Sanz, C., ed. Forthcoming. The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sasaki, M. 2004. “A Multiple-data Analysis of a 3.5 Year Development of EFL Student Writers.”
Language Learning 54 (3): 525–582.
Sasaki, M. 2007. “Eects of Study-abroad Experiences on EFL Writers: A Multiple-data Analysis.”
Modern Language Journal 91 (4): 602–620.
Schauer, G. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London:
Continuum.
Schwald, R. 2011. “Short-term Study Abroad Programs for Business Students: Insights from a
Project in Europe.” Proceedings from the International Conference and Exhibition on Knowledge-
based Business, Industry and Education, Management, and Economics, 1–17. Manama, Bahrain.
Schwieter, J. W. 2011. “Migrant Hispanic Students Speak Up: Linguistic and Cultural Perspectives
of Low Academic Attainment.” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: An International
Journal 5 (1): 33–47.
Schwieter, J. W. 2013. “Immersion Learning: Implications for Non-native Lexical Development.”
In Studies and Global Perspectives of Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by J. W.
Schwieter, 165–185. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
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. C. Miller, 107–128. Grandville, MI:
International Society for Language Studies.
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 257
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., and G. Klassen. 2016. “Linguistic Advances and Learning Strategies in a Short-
term Study Abroad Experience.” Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and
International Education 1 (2): 217–247.
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.
Segalowitz, N., and B. Freed. 2004. “Context, Contact, and Cognition in Oral Fluency Acquisition:
Learning Spanish in at Home and Study Abroad Contexts.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 26: 173–199.
Smith, M. 2011. “A Computational Framework for Social Capital in Online Communities.”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Stevens, J. 2001. “The Acquisition of L2 Spanish Pronunciation in a Study Abroad Context.”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Stewart, J. 2010. “Using e-Journals to Assess Students’ Language Awareness and Social Identity
during Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43: 138–159.
Taguchi, N. 2015. ““Contextually” Speaking: A Survey of Pragmatics Learning Abroad, in Class,
and Online.” System 48: 3–20.
Tarrant, M. A., D. L. Rubin, and L. Stoner. 2015. “The Eects of Studying Abroad and Studying
Sustainability on Students’ Global Perspectives.” Front iers: The Interdisciplinary J ournal of S tudy
Abroad 26: 68–82.
Tudini, V. 2007. “Negotiation and Intercultural Learning in Italian Native Speaker Chat Rooms.”
Modern Language Journal 91: 577–601.
Vande Berg, M., R. Paige, and K. Lou, eds. 2012. Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are
Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can Do about It. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Watson, J., P. Siska, and R. Wolfel. 2013. “Assessing Gains in Language Prociency, Cross-cultural
Competence, and Regional Awareness during Study Abroad: A Preliminary Study.” Foreign
Language Annals 46 (1): 62–79.
Watson, J., and R. Wolfel. 2015. “The Intersection of Language and Culture in Study Abroad:
Assessment and Analysis of Study Abroad Outcomes.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad 25: 57–72.
