Metalinguistic Reflection and Computer-Mediated Communication: An Interventionist approach to Language Study Abroad

Abstract

This article reports on part of a mixed-methods study framed by sociocultural theory and aimed at assessing the impact of an intervention to promote metalinguistic awareness in language study abroad sojourners. Participants utilized a social media platform as a space to develop personalized e-portfolios for the purpose of in-depth metalinguistic reflection, paired with entirely computer-mediated researcher-participant mentoring. As such, this study addresses the importance of intervention in second language learning in study abroad, while also adding to the research available on its intersections within a 24/7 digitally connected world. Analysis of the data suggests that carrying out reflective practices and engaging with a mentor, even at distance, may be contributory in enhancing Spanish language proficiency. Further, this provides evidence that interventionist approaches to study abroad can be made accessible and meaningful even in the absence of significant resources, and without implementing prohibitively onerous tasks for either a student or practitioner.

Full text

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
192
Metalinguistic Reflection and Computer-Mediated Communication:
An Interventionist approach to Language Study Abroad
Meredith McGregor
Western University
Abstract
This article reports on part of a mixed-methods study framed by sociocultural theory and
aimed at assessing the impact of an intervention to promote metalinguistic awareness in
language study abroad sojourners. Participants utilized a social media platform as a space to
develop personalized e-portfolios for the purpose of in-depth metalinguistic reflection, paired
with entirely computer-mediated researcher-participant mentoring. As such, this study
addresses the importance of intervention in second language learning in study abroad, while
also adding to the research available on its intersections within a 24/7 digitally connected
world. Analysis of the data suggests that carrying out reflective practices and engaging with
a mentor, even at distance, may be contributory in enhancing Spanish language proficiency.
Further, this provides evidence that interventionist approaches to study abroad can be made
accessible and meaningful even in the absence of significant resources, and without
implementing prohibitively onerous tasks for either a student or practitioner.
Résumé
Cet article rend compte d'une partie d'une étude de méthodes mixtes, encadrée par la théorie
socioculturelle, dont l’objectif était d’évaluer l'impact d'une intervention visant à promouvoir
la conscience métalinguistique chez les apprenants en séjour linguistique à l’étranger. Les
participants ont utilisé une plateforme de médias sociaux comme espace pour développer des
e-portfolios personnalisés dans le but d'approfondir la réflexion métalinguistique, associée à
un mentorat chercheur-participant entièrement assisté par ordinateur. En tant que telle, cette
étude traite de l'importance de l'intervention dans l'apprentissage d'une langue seconde lors
d'un séjour d'études à l'étranger, tout en ajoutant à la recherche disponible sur ses
intersections dans un monde connecté numériquement 24 heures sur 24, 7 jours sur 7.
L'analyse des données suggère que la mise en œuvre de pratiques de réflexion et
l'engagement avec un mentor, même à distance, peuvent contribuer à améliorer la maîtrise
de la langue espagnole. En outre, cela prouve que les approches interventionnistes des études
à l'étranger peuvent être rendues accessibles et significatives même en l'absence de
ressources importantes, et sans mettre en œuvre des tâches trop coûteuses pour un étudiant
ou un praticien.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
193
Metalinguistic Reflection and Computer-Mediated Communication: An
Interventionist approach to Language Study Abroad
Study abroad imagined as a transformative and fully immersive context for
language learning is a compelling narrative and one that has long been mythologized.
Students who choose to study a foreign language abroad often do so with the intention of
immersing themselves in the language and learning in ways not thought possible in their
home community or within the confines of a traditional classroom. Unfortunately, students
are typically left to their own devices with little sociolinguistic preparation for their
endeavors, and this makes for an incomplete learning experience. Simply being immersed
in a speech community is not a guarantee that these students are acquiring linguistic
competencies in line with the expectations of their institutions or the expectations they
have for themselves, and this is truly doing a disservice to these students by not providing
them with more structured support. It is a missed opportunity to guide them through what
can be a rich and deeply formative experience and one that can elevate language learners to
a higher level of awareness of their learning processes. Ideally, students would be provided
with an occasion to prepare well in advance of their language study abroad, have access to
expert guidance throughout their sojourns to promote the metalinguistic awareness
necessary to examine their experiences critically, and to follow up their time abroad with
in-depth reflection and further study (see DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Jackson, 2008;
Kinginger, 2011; Pellegrino Aveni, 2005; Pérez Vidal, 2014 for related recommendations).
While this comprehensive interventionist approach is one that requires resources
that may or may not be available to university departments, there are ways that it can be
made accessible. It is worth the investment to work with students and offer them a
framework upon which to build their metalinguistic faculties so that they can make the
most of the language learning opportunities presented to them. Without this, we are
conceding to the myth that language learning is something effortless that automatically
happens to a person while studying abroad. In fact, variability tends to be the rule rather
than the exception in language gain (Anderson, 2014; Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown, &
Martinsen, 2014; DeKeyser, 2010; George, 2014; Grey, Cox, Serafini, & Sanz, 2015;
Magnan & Back, 2007, among others) due to a number of influential and individual
factors. To this end, this study looks at the efficacy of an intervention during a semester
abroad carried out via digital communication tools that are open-source and easily
accessible, and its impact on language proficiency. Participants carried out meaningful, but
not onerous, reflective tasks through a participant-managed, interactive e-portfolio, and
worked with a mentor for the purpose of engaging in defining, supportive conversations
throughout the semester.
Literature review
This study is based on the hypothesis that intervention to guide sojourners in their
language study abroad, while not frequently employed in language study abroad
programming, is a practice that has the potential to be highly impactful to the learning
process. To date, research on intervention in study abroad has focused primarily on the
acquisition of intercultural competencies (Bathurst & La Brack, 2012; Doctor &
Montgomery, 2010; Engle & Engle, 2004; Hemming Lou & Bosley, 2008; Pedersen, 2010;

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
194
Vande Berg, Quinn & Menyhart, 2012). However, there has been some noteworthy work
carried out on intervention to specifically support the acquisition of language skills in study
abroad, namely the on-going research within the Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota and their Maximizing
Study Abroad (MAXSA) project (Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, & Lassegard, 2002).
Additionally, the Georgetown Consortium Project (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, Paige,
2009) at Georgetown University has also demonstrated the influence of mentoring for both
intercultural and linguistic gain.
Following a socio-constructivist approach, the intervention in this study is based on
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which suggests that more can be achieved when working
with another person to make sense of the input and consolidate understanding. This is
referred to by Vygotsky (1978) as the Zone of Proximal Development. This approach,
whereby an expert mentor, instructor, or facilitator is positioned to initiate, and support
sustained, in-depth, dialogic (van Compernolle, 2014) reflection throughout the study
abroad experience has been used effectively in virtually all of the aforementioned
interventionist studies (as well as Henery, 2014). It is frequently cited as one of the most
influential and meaningful components of the interventionist approach, accounting for
greater progress than any other type of intervention in both intercultural and metacognitive
advancement.
Further, this study is framed within a modern study abroad context. In other words,
it acknowledges the trajectory of study abroad concurrent to the rise of social media and
digital connectedness, and its impact on the experiences of sojourners today. The role
digital technologies play in the lives of most sojourners is significant, making study abroad
qualitatively different than it was even two decades ago. The ability to retrieve information
and engage in communicative practices via the Internet is (almost) at all times the mainstay
within the consciousness of those who participate in wired societies, as was the case for the
participants of this study. This can represent a distraction from the immersive opportunities
presented (see Seibert Hanson, & Dracos, 2016, research on higher motivation levels and a
correlation with greater linguistic gains and less technology use), and even though students
are warned of the consequences of remaining too digitally connected, it’s ingenuous to
expect them to forego on-going communications with their friends and family back home.
By extension of this, the current study attempted to leverage the affordances of
digital technologies as integral to the intervention design, with the expectation that
connected participants would be able and willing to access digital tools for the purpose of
metalinguistic reflection. There are studies that have explored interventions in language
study abroad, which have successfully incorporated some online components into their
programming (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Hemming Lou & Bosley, 2008; Paige, Cohen,
Kappler, Chi, & Lassegard, 2003; Stewart, 2010; Vande Berg et al., 2012), some
integrating digital tools more than others. Where the literature is less robust, is in the area
of assessing more diversified methods of carrying out interventions via digital tools that
permit students to reflect upon, document, and share their study abroad experiences within
the dynamic Web 2.0 forum, which allows user-generated content. One such tool, the e-
portfolio, has appeared only marginally in research on measuring learning outcomes
(Rhodes, Chen, Watson, & Garrison, 2014). A meta-analysis of the publications available
on e-portfolios (Bryant & Chittum, 2013) showed that the majority were not developed
with specific theoretical frameworks (a similar pattern has been noted in research on digital

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
195
technologies and language acquisition [Wang & Vasquez, 2012]) or control groups for
comparison. More relevant to the present study, only a small minority featured objectives
specific to measuring or analyzing language acquisition. The Council of Europe has done
pioneering work with the development of their European Language Portfolio (ELP), and
the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages (NCSSL) has adopted a similar
model in their LinguaFolio and Global Language Portfolio. However, this is a growing
body of research that has not yet been explored fully, in particular from a North American
gaze. Previously, researchers have not had access to the type or amount of content that can
be produced within e-portfolio spaces, so this is an area that represents what could be a
revolutionary approach to exploring language development over time (Cummins &
Davesne, 2009, p.856). With growing access to online social media platforms that may be
used to document and share experiences, e-portfolio research has more recently gained
scholarly attention related to language learning (Barrot, 2016; Cheng & Chau, 2009;
Sharifi, Soleimani, & Jafarigohar, 2017; Williams, Chan, & Cheung, 2009).
Being digital, an e-portfolio can be accessed anywhere, at any time, as long as there
is a computer or online connection, so it may be used flexibly. Furthermore, essential to
sociocultural theory, e-portfolios afford the opportunity for in-depth reflection (Brandes &
Boskic, 2008; Lin, 2008; OKeeffe, 2012), especially enabling students to “recognize” one’s
“own learning” (Johnsen, 2012, p.147), that may be carried out through a variety of media.
They provide learners “a space to construct a reflective narrative” (Ehiyazaryan-White,
2012, p. 184). In this way, learners are “co-constructors of assessment information”
(Sanford, Hopper, & Fisher, 2014, p.73), actively negotiating their learning and assessing
their progress, a skill that contributes to more independent, committed (p.78), and sustained
learning habits. Also, as Desmet, Miller, Griffin, and Balthazor (2008) point out,
“reflection is both process and product” (p. 19). In developing an e-portfolio, a learner is in
effect participating in a process of learning but can then also look back at it as an entity and
explore the evolution of their learning experiences. In reviewing the literature, it is clear
that there is significant room for research in the area of how e-portfolios and other outlets
for facilitating reflective practices can serve as tools for concretely augmenting learner
outcomes in language acquisition.
The current study
Drawing on part of a larger project, this article focuses on addressing the following
research question: Does intervention to promote metalinguistic awareness during language
study abroad have a significant effect on students' ability to acquire language competencies
in study abroad, and if so, do any particular tendencies emerge? The working hypothesis
for this research question was that yes, there would be evidence to suggest that intervention
to promote metalinguistic awareness can have a significant effect on students' ability to
acquire language competencies in study abroad.
Participants
The participants in this study were recruited from incoming international (non-
native Spanish speakers) students at a university in Central America in July of 2016. A
total of 23 participants participated in this study to completion. Both the control group and

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
196
experimental groups were made up of male and female participants, all born between the
years 1986 and 1995. The control group was made up of primarily native speakers of
German, as well as two native speakers of Czech and one native speaker of French. In the
experimental group there were six native speakers of French and four native speakers of
German. In terms of language repertoires, all control group participants and all
experimental group participants reported competency in Spanish, as well as English, with
varying proficiency, aside from their native languages. Some reported competency in a
fourth language, and, among the participants in the control group, even fifth, sixth, and
seventh languages. Of the control group participants, nine had previously spent time (of
varying durations) in Spanish-speaking regions, as had six of the experimental group
participants. Crucially, only three of the control group participants indicated that they had
had any pre-departure study abroad training of any kind. In the experimental group, only
two participants had been briefed on administrative processes, medical warnings, and/or
culture shock. Full details about each participant group can be found in Table 1 and Table
2.
Table 1
Control group participants’ general information
ID No.
Gender
Birth
Year
L1
Other Languages
Received Formal Pre-
SA Preparation
UCR-4
F
1995
German
Spanish, English
No
UCR-7
F
1990
German
Spanish, English
Cultural Workshop
UCR-12
F
1993
German
Spanish, English, Sign Language,
French, Italian
No
UCR-13
F
1995
German
Spanish, English, French,
Portuguese
No
UCR-14
F
1986
German
Spanish, English
No
UCR-15
F
1992
German
Spanish, English, Portuguese,
Latin, Dutch, Turkish
No
UCR-18
M
1993
German
Spanish, English
No
UCR-19
F
1994
German
Spanish, English, Italian
No
UCR-21
F
1995
German
Spanish, English, Latin
No
UCR-22
F
1994
German
Spanish, English, French, Latin
SA Prep. Course
UCR-23
M
1993
Czech
Spanish, English, French
No
UCR-25
M
1994
Czech
Spanish, English
General Prep.
UCR-27
F
1993
French
Spanish, English
No

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
197
Table 2
Experimental group participants’ general information
ID No.
Gender
Birth
Year
L1
Other Languages:
Received Formal Pre-SA
Preparation
UCR-8
F
1997
French
Spanish, English, Italian
No.
UCR-9
M
1995
French
Spanish, English
Conference on admin./culture
shock
UCR-10
F
1992
German
Spanish, English, French
No
UCR-11
F
1995
French
Spanish, English, German
Medical warnings
UCR-16
M
1992
German
Spanish, English
No
UCR-17
F
1995
French
Spanish, English
No
UCR-20
M
1994
French
Spanish, English
No
UCR-26
F
1988
German
Spanish, English, Italian
No
UCR-28
M
1995
German
Spanish, English
No
UCR-30
M
1996
French
Spanish, English
No
Sources of data
Participants in the control group were only asked to complete what is referred to
here as Part I of this study: filling out a language profile, completing a Spanish proficiency
test at the beginning and end of their study abroad sojourns, and answering a final
questionnaire. Participants in the experimental group were asked to complete Part I and
Part II of the study. They completed everything the control group did, and also completed
an e-portfolio via the online social network platform Google+, guided by a series of prompt
questions for each e-portfolio entry, and participated in one-on-one mentoring sessions
whereby the participants engaged with a researcher-mentor, via online communication, to
discuss their e-portfolio entries and experiences living and studying in the host country. All
interactions between the participants and the researcher-mentor took place online, via
computer-mediated digital communications.
Spanish proficiency test and post-study abroad questionnaire. The Spanish proficiency
test (provided to the researcher by Dr. Bruhn de Garavito and Dr. Montrul, who developed
this unpublished test at McGill University in the 1990s), was drawn in part from the larger,
internationally recognized Diplomas de Español como Lengua Extranjera (DELE) Spanish
proficiency exam as well as from the Modern Language’s Association (MLA) Spanish
proficiency test. It includes two parts, with a total of 50 questions, all multiple choice. The
test targets a range of Spanish language skills including general comprehension,
vocabulary, verb tenses, prepositions, as well as more advanced questions involving use of

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
198
the subjunctive. This test, which has been used in multiple studies (Bruhn de Garavito &
Valenzuela, 2008; Cuza & Frank 2010; Duffield & White, 1999; Montrul & Slabakova,
2003, among others), holds up as a valid tool for participant Spanish proficiency
assessment, and as such, was selected for use in the present study to measure participants’
proficiency and test achievement. In addition to repeating the proficiency test at the end of
the semester, participants were asked a series of questions regarding their experiences as
international students studying abroad. These questions related to their living
circumstances, communication back home, cultural reception, and overall experiences
living in the host community. Participants were also asked to rate their Spanish proficiency
gain in reading, writing, listening, speaking, and pragmatics on a scale of 1-5 and explain
how they felt their Spanish skills had improved. Specific to the experimental group,
participants were asked to comment on their perspectives on the use of an e-portfolio as a
tool for learning and on the mentoring sessions they participated in.
E-portfolio. The experimental group participants were asked to develop an e-
portfolio throughout the duration of their semester abroad, documenting and reflecting
upon their experiences with both learning Spanish and living in the host country as an
international student. In this way, the objective was to construct both a progressive and
reflective e-portfolio eliciting participant observations and reflections. The platform chosen
for the e-portfolio was Google’s Google+. This platform was chosen for a number of
reasons. It is open-source, freely accessible, and user-friendly. Also, it provides ease of
access as part of the Google Suite, available on a computer or through its cellular device
application, it has the potential for familiarity and repeated use among the participants
(Levy, 2009), and it allows for dynamism as a tool permitting multi-media output. While
Google is certainly not the only company that allows users to post and share via a portfolio-
like platform (arguably Facebook, Twitter, and other social-networking sites can act as
tools to do the same), many people are familiar with the Google brand, and it presented a
high-quality product that was slightly lesser-known compared to the usual social-
networking sites frequented by so many people. Therefore, it provided a space for
participants to explore their study abroad experiences without feeling as though it would
impede or somehow be connected to their personal and social interactions.
To guide their reflections, participants were provided with tasks including prompt
questions they could answer in their different posts. The first task was to think about 3
SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based) goals for their
semester to come, related to their language learning and study abroad experiences. The
second task was to share a linguistic autobiography and discuss their language backgrounds
and language learning experiences, including challenges they have faced in learning a
language and approaches they have found work for them to acquire language skills. The
third task was to discuss the linguistic landscapes around them (see Piller, 2011 on
language and embedded ideologies) while living in the host country and studying at the
host university. The fourth task asked participants to share a typical day in their lives as
international students studying abroad, to discuss language use, interpersonal interaction,
and other daily activities. The fifth and last task focused on the participants’
communication in Spanish: aspects of the language they felt they could use with ease, as
well as challenges and miscommunications they had experienced.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
199
Mentoring sessions. Mentoring has been shown to be the most salient contributing factor to
intercultural competence gain and oral proficiency (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige,
2009). In this study, participants were asked to engage in discussions with a mentor regarding
their study abroad experiences. This included discussing pragmatic aspects of language,
participant identity as an international language study abroad student, and further discussing
their e-portfolio contributions. Each participant engaged in a total of three semi-structured
mentoring sessions during their semester abroad. During these sessions, the mentor provided
the participants with several questions based on their e-portfolio reflections, and on linguistic
and cultural observations they had made while living abroad. They were also asked questions
intended to support them in navigating challenges they had faced in communicating in
Spanish. Questions were about specific strategies they had employed in attempting to learn
Spanish and gain more access to native Spanish speakers, as well as how they had approached
pragmatic acts, such as making a complaint or responding to a compliment. The participants
were, in turn, encouraged to ask questions that they had regarding any aspect of their learning
process studying and living abroad. Participants asked questions related to the usage of
certain linguistic forms such as the Spanish subjunctive and pronouns of address, as well as
vernacular forms they had heard and were attempting to use among their Spanish-speaking
peers. In some cases, participants were provided with further details on linguistic forms and
rules of use as follow-up to their questions in an effort to support them in successfully
applying the new forms in situ. What makes this mentoring model more innovative than
previous studies in language acquisition in study abroad, is the leveraging of digital
technologies to test their viability as tools that can effectively facilitate mentor-mentee
engagement when combined with the above described reflective documentation via the e-
portfolio. Further, the emphasis on pragmatic decision-making and identity performance, as
per the gaps in the literature highlighted by Kinginger (2013), widens the scope of how the
interventionist approach is being tested.
Results
Pre/post Spanish language proficiency tests
The quantitative results from the proficiency testing at the outset of the semester
showed no significant difference in the two groups’ (N = 23) scores. By the end of the
semester, however, the statistical analyses revealed some significant differences.
Explanation of the proficiency test results will be broken down into three categories: Part I,
out of a total of 30 points, Part II out of a possible 20 points, and the total test scores out of
a possible 50 points.
In Part I of the test, the average control group (n = 13) score moved from 19.46 out
of 30 or 64.86% (SD = 6.98) to 23.76 out of 30 or 79.2% (SD = 3.67). The average
experimental group (n = 10) score moved from 20.3 out of 30 or 67.66% (SD = 5.75) to
26.0 out of 30 or 86.66% (SD = 3.19). This denotes a percentile increase of 14.34% in the
control group and a 19.0% increase in the experimental group, a difference of 4.66%
between the two groups. A summary of these scores can be seen in Table 3.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
200
Table 3
Control/experimental groups’ pre/post proficiency test performance - Part I
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Av.
Score
/30
%
S.D.
Av.
Score
/30
%
S.D.
%
Increase
Control
Group
19.46
64.8
6
6.98
23.76
79.2
3.67
14.34
Experimental
Group
20.3
67.6
6
5.75
26.0
86.66
3.19
19.0
In Part II of the test, the average control group score moved from 10.84 or 54.2%
(SD = 3.21) down to 10.46 or 52.3% (SD = 2.25) out of 20, and the average experimental
group score in Part II moved from 10.8 or 54% (SD = 2.89) to 12.6 or 63% (SD = 3.06).
This denotes a percentile decrease of 1.9% in the control group and an increase of 9% in
the experimental group, a difference of 7.1%. A summary of these scores can be seen in
Table 4.
Table 4
Control/experimental groups’ pre/post proficiency pest performance - Part II
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Av.
Score
/20
%
S.D.
Av.
Score
/20
%
S.D.
%
Change
Control
Group
10.84
54.
2
3.21
10.46
52.3
2.25
-1.9
Experimental
Group
10.8
54.
0
2.89
12.6
63.0
3.06
+9.0
For the overall test, the average control group score moved from 30.30 or 60.6%
(SD = 9.49) to 34.23 or 68.46% (SD = 5.27) out of 50, and the average experimental group
score moved from 31.1 or 62.2% (SD = 8.04) to 38.6 or 79.2% (SD = 5.31). This denotes a
percentile increase of 7.86% in the control group and an increase of 14.92% in the
experimental group, a difference of 7.06%. These overall average mean scores for the
control group and the experimental group can be seen in Table 5.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
201
Table 5
Control/experimental groups’ pre/post proficiency test performance - Overall scores
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Av.
Score
/50
%
S.D.
Av.
Score
/50
%
S.D.
%
Increase
Control
Group
30.30
60.
6
9.49
34.23
68.46
5.27
7.86
Experimental
Group
31.1
62.
2
8.04
38.6
79.2
5.31
14.92
A series of independent samples and paired samples t-tests were conducted to see if
the two groups differed significantly in their scores for the pre-test and post-test. In
interpreting the results of the statistical analyses, I considered not only significant results
that emerged, but also those approaching significance, noting that both offer interesting
findings that either support the hypotheses in this study or indicate trends that could be
explored further in future research. It is worth noting, however, that no Bonferroni
corrections were made in any of the following analyses. In comparing the pre-sojourn test
scores between the two groups, no significant results were found for Part I of the test, p =
0.762, Part II of the test, p = 0.972, or total test, p = 0.835. This suggests that the two
groups performed similarly at the outset of the study, a desirable starting point. There was
not a significant difference between the scores of the control group and those of the
experimental group in the post-sojourn test either in Part I of the test, p = 0.142. However,
for Part II of the test and in comparing the overall scores, there was an apparent difference
approaching statistical significance: p = 0.067 and p = 0.063, respectively.
Table 6
Between group analyses of pre/post proficiency tests - Part I, Part II, and Overall scores
Part I
Part II
Overall
Pre-Test
p = 0.762
p = 0.972
p = 0.835
Post-Test
p = 0.142
p = 0.067
p = 0.063
Following the between-group analyses, within-group analyses were conducted to
compare the pre/post-sojourn test scores for each individual group. The control group’s
scores in Part I of the test showed a statistically significant difference between the pre-
sojourn and post-sojourn tests: p = 0.003. Similarly, a significant difference was observed
between the pre-test and post-test for the total score, p = 0.026. However, for Part II of the
test, there was no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test: p = 0.648.
This suggests that the control group did not demonstrate significant change in its responses

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
202
in the second, more advanced part of the proficiency test. Conversely, for the experimental
group, there were statistically significant differences between the pre-test and the post-test
for all three measures: in Part I, p = 0.004, in Part II, p = 0.048, and in the total test scores,
p = 0.002. Thus, while the within-group pre-post-sojourn analyses for the control group did
not show a significant difference in test scores in Part II of the proficiency test, those of the
experimental group did. This indicates that participants in the experimental group were
able to advance their Spanish language proficiency on the most challenging aspect of the
test while those within the control group were not.
Table 7
Within group analyses of pre/post proficiency tests - Part I, Part II, and Overall scores
Part I
Part II
Overall
Control Group
p = 0.003
p = 0.648
p = 0.026
Experimental
Group
p = 0.004
p = 0.048
p = 0.002
Reported Spanish Proficiency Improvement
The reported post-sojourn Spanish proficiency improvement data from the post-
sojourn questionnaire shows some variability across the participant groups. As Table 8
shows, on the whole, the control group rated their improvement in the four skills (reading,
writing, listening, and speaking) on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the highest
improvement) higher than the experimental group participants. In terms of individual
categories, the control group reported more improvement in reading (M = 3.69, SD = 1.03),
writing (M = 3.62, SD = 0.87), and speaking (M = 3.69, SD = 0.85) skills compared to the
experimental group, in which M=3.4 (SD = 1.07), M=3.5 (SD = 0.77 ), and M=3.3 (SD =
0.82) respectively. The only skill for which the experimental group reported more
improvement than the control group was listening. The control group mean for listening
was 3.77 (SD = 1.01) and for the experimental group, it was 3.9 (SD = 0.74). From the data
described in the previous section, it is clear that, while test results did not show greater
improvement in the control group compared to the experimental group, self-reports by
participants suggest that the control group did progress more. In particular, it is of value to
look at the reported improvement in the skill of reading, as it is one skill that is heavily
represented in the proficiency test. Independent samples t-tests comparing the responses of
the control group with those of the experimental group showed no significant difference in
any of the reported skills improvement data: Reading p = 0.515, Writing p = 0.736,
Listening p = 0.735, Speaking p = 0.280 with a 95% confidence interval of difference
containing zero in all cases; however, the above means indicate that there was some
variance in the reported ratings with the control group perceiving their improvement to be
slightly higher.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
203
Table 8
Control/experimental groups’ reported Spanish proficiency improvement
Control Group
Experimental Group
T-Test
Skill
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Sig.
Reading
3.69
1.03
3.4
1.07
p = .515
Writing
3.62
.87
3.5
0.77
p = .736
Listening
3.77
1.01
3.9
0.74
p = .735
Speaking
3.69
.85
3.3
.82
p = .28
When the participants were asked to explain more precisely how their Spanish
language skills had improved and to cite specific examples, some interesting insights
emerged. This provided qualitative data to further expand upon the self-reported ratings,
and it presented participants with an opportunity to describe specific experiences during
their stays abroad that they felt had contributed to their linguistic gain. Generally,
participants in the control group and experimental group responded differently to this
question in that both groups highlighted specific skills they felt they had improved, but the
control group provided considerably more detail about the reasons why. In terms of
specific skills, neither group emphasized improvement in their discrete listening
competences. Interestingly, as the reported Spanish proficiency improvement data shows
(Table 8), the skill of listening was, on average, rated the highest for both the control group
and the experimental group, so, in this regard, the quantitative and qualitative data differ.
Some participants alluded to improved conversational practices, which naturally connotes a
capacity for listening, so one can infer that the participants recognized a certain amount of
gain in this respect. However, for both groups, most of the emphasis in their responses was
on improved productive skills, namely speaking skills. The majority of participants in the
control group explicitly noted their improved ability to speak in Spanish, with only one
participant suggesting that they felt they had not improved their speaking skills
significantly. Most of the participants in the control group also referenced writing as a key
area of improvement, and vocabulary was mentioned twice. Within the experimental group,
a majority of the participants noted an improvement in speaking, and half cited significant
vocabulary gain, while only three participants noted an improvement in writing. It is also
worth noting that two participants within the experimental group explicitly stated that they
had not improved their Spanish language skills as much as expected. Overall, between the
two groups, there was a sense of greater perceived Spanish language improvement from the
control group participants in their qualitative responses, which was also reflected in their
scaled ratings.
The responses from the control group participants regarding the reasons why they
felt their Spanish language skills had improved were much more robust than those of the
experimental group. The control group participants cited their academic studies at the
university as being the most important factor in improving their language skills. They
repeatedly referenced coursework, readings, essays, and other assignments as having had a

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
204
positive impact on their language learning experiences. To a slightly lesser degree, the
control group participants cited relationships and socializing outside of school as a key
factor in their improvement. Additionally, three control group participants referenced
activities of daily living (going to the store, casual interactions, etc.) as having had an
impact on their language abilities. In contrast, only half of the experimental group
participants provided details about why they felt they had improved. Within their
responses, university studies and relationships with Spanish-speaking friends were cited as
having influenced their progress in developing their Spanish language skills. The other half
of the experimental participants only commented on the skills they felt they had improved,
providing no further insights into experiences or behaviours they felt had contributed to
their language gain.
Discussion
The data analysis comparing the participants’ pre/post-sojourn proficiency test
scores revealed some contrasting findings, with the experimental group outperforming the
control group in key areas. The experimental group produced higher average scores in both
parts of the test and in the overall test totals. Further, the experimental group demonstrated
statistical significance in its test scores from the beginning to the end of the semester in
Part II of the test, as well as the overall scores, compared to the control group. While there
was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in their performance on
Part I of the test, it is important to remember that this was the less challenging portion of
the test. It stands to reason that the participants in this study would not demonstrate
differential performance on Part I of the test, given their initial levels of Spanish and the
potential for a learning plateau to take place (Brecht, Davidson & Ginsberg, 1995; Juan-
Garau, 2014). Faced with subjunctive forms and prepositional phrases within the more
advanced portion of the proficiency test, however, the experimental group seemed to
outperform the control group. In comparing the control group’s pre-test and post-test scores
for Part II of the test, no statistically significant findings emerged, suggesting that their
competence in the areas of Part II did not significantly change, which stands in contrast to
the experimental group. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to suggest that
intervention during language study abroad to promote metalinguistic awareness can have a
significant impact on language gain. Ginsberg and Miller (2000) point out that a
“nongainer effect” can present itself, even in immersive contexts such as language study
abroad sojourns, and that this can be partially attributed to fewer opportunities for
integrating theory and practice. Another study that looked specifically at the acquisition of
the Spanish subjunctive found that formal instruction had a positive effect, in particular for
learners who had previously participated in study abroad (Isabelli, 2007). These findings
might help to explain some of the results in the current study. The experimental
participants, who had the opportunity to reflect on their language learning and pose
questions to an expert mentor over the course of the semester, may have better positioned
to achieve greater gains in the more challenging parts of the proficiency test due to the
support they received, combined with their experiences living and studying abroad. As the
theoretical framework of this study suggests, a more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky,
1978), or a “mediator of meaning” (Daniels, 2016, p. 18) can assist the learner in
assimilating new information and/or assigning meaning to their experiences, and perhaps

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
205
this can, in part, explain the differing testing performance between the two groups and their
ability to demonstrate competency in specific language forms.
Although not statistically significant, the experimental participants reported lower
perceived improvement in their language skills at the end of the semester as compared to
the control group, their test scores proved otherwise. When prompted to expand on how
they had improved their language learning skills, however, the experimental group
provided only minimal details, while participants in the control group were able to explain
how they felt their Spanish language skills had improved and what in situ experiences had
led to their perceived progress. Perhaps the control group participants, having not
participated in Part II of the study, felt compelled to provide a more nuanced depiction of
their language learning experiences compared to the experimental group participants given
their different roles within the study. Alternatively, these findings may also be explained
through a consideration of cognitive bias, specifically, the Dunning-Kruger Effect
(Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Kruger & Dunning, 1999), or the idea that
people who know less are more likely to make inflated judgements about their actual
performance abilities. It is possible that the control group participants, having not received
the treatment in this study, had accrued less expertise about their language skills and were,
therefore, overconfident in their self-assessments and in isolating specific actions that led
to their improvement. This is by no means conclusive, given the fact that the analyses on
the self-reported improvement scores produced no statistically significant results. However,
similar trends have been identified in studies comparing self-assessments to other, less
subjective measures, including studies on a range of language skills (Summers, Cox,
McMurry, & Dewey, 2019; Trofimovich, Isaacs, Kennedy, Saito, & Crowther, 2016,
among others), so this is an area that may be worth exploring further in future research
examining the efficacy of metalinguistic awareness and its impact on language learning.
Conclusion
The study described here was designed to build upon the empirical body of
knowledge available on intervention in language study abroad and its impact on language
proficiency while also deploying the use of digital technologies for the purpose of
facilitating the main treatments of the study. There are a number of limitations to this
study, probably the most obvious one being the fact that it features only a small group of
participants. As an extension of that, this study examines the experiences of these
individuals in one place, studying one language, during one semester abroad. The scenario
is patently narrow, without the advantage of more voices over a longer duration of time.
Further to that, given this study’s requirement of voluntary participation, it is entirely
possible that the self-selecting group of experimental participants was more amenable to
the somewhat more onerous task of documenting and discussing their observations and
learning experiences, therefore, positioning themselves as inherently more willing, active
agents. Without a randomized sample, whether or not one group proved significantly
different than the other based purely on the experimental treatment alone cannot be known.
Another limitation to this study, as it pertains to the sample groups, has to do with
the inherent position of the privilege these participants enjoy. As university students, these
individuals possess a level of education that most people in the world do not have access
to. Additionally, given their status as international students and world travelers hailing

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
206
from Western nations, they represent a cohort of people who carry passports that give them
ready access to crossing international borders. In addition, as far as the researcher has been
made aware, none of these individuals were studying abroad on scholarship funds, so given
the fact that they had the means to travel and spend time abroad, naturally places them in
the upper socioeconomic echelons of society. For these reasons and other factors associated
with privilege and power, this study does, unfortunately, not deviate from the vast majority
of study abroad research that has come before it in that the participants do not represent
diverse populations of individuals of varying backgrounds. Study abroad in and of itself
has historically been and continues to be an elitist endeavour, and this is reflected in the
research to date. How individuals coming from differing social classes interpret study
abroad experiences (Kinginger, 2008), for example, is one avenue that has not been
explored in any great measure. In addition to that, Kinginger (2013) also notes that both
race and sexuality are missing from the literature to date on SLA in study abroad (p.354).
This is echoed by earlier work by Talburt & Stewart (1999), who emphasize the need for
more research into race relations and gender in study abroad participants. Therefore, there
are many interesting and important areas to which research efforts have not devoted
significant time or attention. Granted, more opportunities for individuals who represent
minority groups and varied racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds to participate in study
abroad sojourns are needed so that empirical research may be conducted. Fortunately, the
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2017) has reported an increased percentage of
study abroad participation among African Americans in the 2015-2016 academic year
compared to years passed. However, more emphasis should be placed on researching these
variables and how they affect SLA as a strategy for promoting and enhancing study abroad
programming for broader populations of people.
To conclude, there is utility to be derived from investing in sojourners during
language study abroad. The results in this study demonstrate significant gains in the
experimental group as compared to their control group counterparts, making a reasonably
strong argument for a language study abroad model that is more holistic in its delivery.
Although “[t]here is no best or single way to intervene” (Hemming Lou, Vande Berg, &
Paige, 2012, p.415), it seems fair to suggest that intervention of any kind is worth
considering not only for the benefit of the individual language learner but also for the
integrity of study abroad programming as a whole. In the case of this project,
complementing the rich learning potential of living in an immersive environment with
active participation in a reflection process with the support of an expert mentor, seems to
offer the possibility of a linguistically formative experience, and can be done accessibly
and cost-effectively without hampering the overall objective of language gain. Reforming
and enhancing study abroad programming in this way can set the table for more engaged,
metalinguistically aware participants who may be able to achieve more as language
learners during their study abroad sojourns and beyond. Given the multitude of meaningful
yet invisible ways one may be affected by a study abroad experience, “more” achievement
is not necessarily the main objective of all sojourners or their home-based institutions;
however, acquired knowledge about language and language proficiency are certainly
among the expectations of spending time abroad, and because there exists a certain
mythology surrounding perceived versus actual acquired linguistic competencies, more
structured support is recommended.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
207
Correspondence should be addressed to Meredith McGregor.
Email: meredith.mcgregor@gmail.com
References
Anderson, S. L. (2014). Individual differences & study abroad: Four profiles of oral
proficiency gain. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 477-486.
doi:10.4304/jltr.5.3.477-486
Baker‐Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables
affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464-486.
doi:10.1111/flan.12093
Barrot, J. S. (2016). Using facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: Impact
and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 286-301.
doi:10.1080/07908318.2016.1143481
Bathurst, L. & La Brack B. (2012). Shifting the locus of intercultural learning: intervening
prior to and after student experiences abroad. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige &
Lou, K. H. (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning,
What They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It (pp. 261-283). Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing, LLC
Brandes, G. M., & Boskic, N. (2008). Eportfolios: From description to analysis. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2)
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.502
Brecht, R.D., Davidson, D.E. & Ginsberg, R.B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain
during study abroad. In Barbara F. Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a
Study Abroad Context. pp. 37-66. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins,
B.V.
Bruhn de Garavito, J., & Valenzuela, E. (2008). Eventive and stative passives in Spanish
L2 acquisition: a matter of aspect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(3),
323-336.
Bryant, L. H., & Chittum, J. R. (2013). Eportfolio effectiveness: A(n ill-fated) search for
empirical evidence. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3(2), 189-198. Retrieved
from http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP108.pdf
Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2009). Digital video for fostering self-reflection in an ePortfolio
environment. Learning, Media, and Technology, 34(4), 337-350.
doi:10.1080/17439880903338614
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish
and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x
Cummins, P. W., & Davesne, C. (2009). Using electronic portfolios for second language
assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 848-867. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00977.x
Cuza, A., & Frank, J. (2010). The acquisition of double que questions in Heritage and L2
Spanish. Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic
Association/Actes du congrès annuel de l'Association canadienne de linguistique
2010.
Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
208
study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80-92. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2010.01061.x
Desmet, C., Miller, D., Griffin, J., & Balthazor, R. (2008). Reflection, revision, and
assessment in first-year composition ePortfolios. Journal of General Education,
57(1), 15-30.
DuFon, M., & Churchill, E. (2006). Language learners in study abroad contexts / edited by
Margaret A. DuFon and Eton Churchill. Clevedon, England ;: Multilingual
Matters.
Doctor, M., & Montgomery, L. (2010). Using IDI Guided Development to maximize the
study abroad experience: A case study. Paper presented at the Second Intercultural
Development Inventory Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Duffield, N., & White, L. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement:
convergent methodologies. Second Language Research, 15(2), 133-160.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize
their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01235
Ehiyazaryan-White, E. (2012). The dialogic potential of ePortfolios: Formative feedback
and communities of learning within a personal learning environment. International
Journal of ePortfolio, 2(2), 173–185.
Engle, L. & Engle, J. (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.
George, A. (2014). Study abroad in central Spain: The development of regional
phonological features. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1),
97114.doi:10.1111/flan.12065
Ginsberg, R. & Miller, L. (2000). What do they do? Activities of students during study
abroad. In R. Lambert and E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy:
Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 237-260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grey, S., Cox, J. G., Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in
the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during
Short‐Term intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1),
137-157. doi:10.1111/modl.12190
Hemming Lou, K. & Bosley, G. W. (2008). Dynamics of cultural contexts: Meta-level
intervention in the study abroad experience. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing
intercultural competence and transformation (pp.276-296). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hemming Lou, K. & Bosley, G. W. (2012). Facilitating intercultural learning abroad: The
intentional, targeted intervention model. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige &
Hemming Lou, K. (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are
Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It (pp. 335-359).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC
Hemming Lou, K., Vande Berg, M., & Paige, R. M. (Eds). (2012). Student Learning
Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can
Do About It. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Henery, A. (2014). 'Interpreting 'real' French: The role of expert mediation in learners'
observations, understandings, and use of pragmatic practices while abroad. Ph.D.
diss., Carnegie Mellon University.

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
209
Isabelli, C. A. (2007). Development of the spanish subjunctive by advanced learners: Study
abroad followed by At‐Home instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 330-
341. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03205.x
Jackson, J. (2008). Language, Identity, and Study Abroad. Oakville, CT: DBBC
Johnsen, H. L. (2012). Making learning visible with ePortfolios: Coupling the right
pedagogy with the right technology. International Journal of ePortfolio, 2(2), 139–
148.
Juan-Garau, M. (2014). Oral accuracy growth after formal instruction and study abroad. In
C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction
contexts. (pp.87-109). Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (2017). African American presence among
study abroad students continues to rise. Retrieved from
www.jbhe.com/2017/12/african-american-presence-among-study-abroad-students-
continues-to-rise/.
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans
in France. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 1-123. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2008.00821.x
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 31(Mar), 58-73. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000031
Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language
Annals, 46 (3), 339-358. doi:10.1111/flan.12037
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled or unaware of it: Difficulties in recognizing
one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 93(1), 769-782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x
Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers’ learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios
online. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 194–200.
Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study
abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43-61. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2007.tb02853.x
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and
near-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351-398.
OKeeffe, M. (2012). Exploring supports provided for ePortfolio development in a
professional development context. Articles. Paper 9. Retrieved February 27, 2013,
from http://arrow.dit.ie/libart
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J.C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximiz-ing
study abroad: A students' guide to strategies for language and culture learning and
use, Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota.
Pedersen, P. J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year long study
abroad program. The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70-80.
Pellegrino Aveni, V. (2005). Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the
Self. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, p. 8-33.
Pérez Vidal, C. (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction

CJAL * RCLA McGregor
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 23, 1 (2020): 192-210
210
contexts. Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA;: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Sanford, K., Hopper, T., & Fisher, P. (2014). Changing paradigms: Embracing
contemporary learning theories through e-portfolios. In K. Sanford & T. Strong-
Wilson (Eds.). The emperor’s new clothes?: issues and alternatives in uses of the
portfolio in teacher education programs. New York: Peter Lang.
Seibert Hanson, A. E. & Dracos, M. J. (2016). Motivation and technology use during
second-language study abroad in the digital age. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19(2), 64-84.
Sharifi, M., Soleimani, H., & Jafarigohar, M. (2017). E‐portfolio evaluation and vocabulary
learning: Moving from pedagogy to andragogy. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48(6), 1441-1450. doi:10.1111/bjet.12479
Stewart, J. (2010). Using e-journals to assess students' language awareness and social
identity during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 138-159.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01064.x
Summers, M. M., Cox, T. L., McMurry, B. L., & Dewey, D. P. (2019). Investigating the
use of the ACTFL can-do statements in a self-assessment for student placement in
an intensive english program. System, 80, 269-287.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.12.012
Talburt, S., & Stewart, M. A. (1999). What's the subject of study abroad?: Race, gender,
and "living culture". The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 163-175.
doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00013
Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., Kennedy, S., Saito, K., & Crowther, D. (2016). Flawed
self-assessment: Investigating self- and other-perception of second language
speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 122-140.
doi:10.1017/S1366728914000832
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium
Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1-75.
Vande Berg, M., Quinn, M., & Menyhart, C. (2012). An experiment in developmental
teaching and learning: The Council on International Educational Exchange’s
seminar on living and learning abroad. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige & Lou, K.
H. (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What
They’re Not, and What We Can Do About It (pp. 383-407). Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing, LLC
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the
research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412.
Williams, F., Chan, V., & Cheung, H. (2009). The English language e-portfolio. In J.
Zubizarreta. The learning portfolio: reflective practice for improving student
learning, 2nd Ed. San Francisco: John WIley & Sons, Inc.