Are Foreign Language Residences Acquisition- Rich Environments ?
-
Upload
paloma-steele -
Category
Documents
-
view
16 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Are Foreign Language Residences Acquisition- Rich Environments ?
Are Foreign Language Residences Acquisition-Rich Environments?
Presented originally at American Association of Applied Linguistics, 2008
Cary Johnson, Jennifer Bown, Wendy Baker, Laura Catharine Smith, and Rob Martinsen
Brigham Young University
Thank youCenter for Language Studies, BYU
College of Humanities, BYU
Our Research Assistants: Soren Farmer Carrie Gold Jasmin Hammer Alexander Ivanov Taka Yanagita
What is Acquisition Rich? Not the typical initiation, response, evaluation seen in classrooms
(Donato & Brooks, 2004)
Natural conversation and natural feedback, practical language use; conscious grammar learning is de-emphasized (Horwitz, 1986)
Students have topic control (Ellis, 1992)
Negotiation of meaning (clarification requests, confirmation checks, and self- and other- repetitions) (Ellis, 1992)
Regular and intensive language use, informal environments that involve the learner directly (Krashen, 1981)
Encouragement to communicate and support for students to formulate utterances in L2;supportive non-threatening atmosphere (Horwitz, 1986)
BackgroundForeign Language
Housing
9 languages
This studyFrenchGermanRussian Japanese
25 apartments
1 NS and 5 learners per apartment
ParticipantsPaired with class-only
learners,
matched by languagebackground, age, and gender
All college students ages18-26
Total N=77 39 women 38 men
Participants – Starting level
N Sup. Adv. Int. Novice
French 27 0 17 10 0 19 f8 m
German 27 0 12 14 1 12 f16 m
Russian 6 1 5 0 0 6m
Japanese 17 0 3 5 9 8f9m
Data Sources
1. Language measuresi.e. OPI, Pre & Post
2. Language Logs
3. Language Task/Conidence Survey
4. Video & Interviews
Example language log of non-FLH student
1. Intensive Language use
Three analyses:
• Number of minutes per day spoken in target language
• Percent of language use that is productive (vs. receptive)
• Percent of language use not devoted to class work
Number of minutes per day in target language
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FLH non-FLH
242 (4 hrs)
91 (1 ½ hrs)
2 ½ hours more per day!!!
Number of minutes per day in target language by lang.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
French German Russian Japanese
•FLH
•Non-FLH
Percent of productive language useShaded portions represent tasks considered high in productive language use
Percent of productive language use
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
FLH non-FLH
41%
31%
Percent of productive language use by language
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
French German Russian Japanese
•FLH
•Non-FLH
Percent of language use not devoted to class work
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
FLH non-FLH
.78
.46
Percent of language use not devoted to class work
•FLH
•Non-FLH
Language Task Survey
Frequency of Tasks by level
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
FLH NonFLH
NoviceIntermediateAdvancedSuperior
Very often
Sometimes
Never
Comfort with functions at various proficiency levels
Very Comfortable
Neutral
Very Uncomfortable
French FLH
French Class
German FLH
German Class
JapaneseFLH
Japanese Class
Ave. Pre- OPI 6 5.7 6 6.2 4.2 5
Ave.Post- OPI
6.5 6.2 6.4 6.13 4.8 5.33
Ave. Gains .75 .5 .4 .13 .6 .33
OPI Pre-Post, Gains4 = Int. Low, 6 = Int. High
Statistically Speaking,Who improved more, classroom or FLH?
FLH students in German, Japanese and French made greater gains on the OPI than Class only students.
significant effect of group (FLH vs. CO) (F(1,43) = 4.69, p < .05) and L2 (F(3,43) = 4.97, p < .05) L2 by group interaction (F (3,1) = 7.439, p <. 05)
For Russian, FLH and CO students were the same.(Small sample, hard to analyze)
Do certain tasks/traitshelp more?
Factor r squared
F statistic P value
Going to church in L2
.42 8.71 .01
Explaining a concept
.18 8.36 .005
Confidence in performing tasks
.14 11.65 .001
Eating Lunch in L2
.09 14.80 .0001
Total .86
Summary of Results Students in FLH…….
Spoke significantly more
Improved more in Speaking skills
Felt more confident with a variety of language tasks.
Living in FLH and taking classes provides advantage over just taking classes.
Further research:
Benefits can vary by Language. Certain tasks help more Why????
FLH vs. Study abroadShort-term study abroad is growing rapidly
(Open Doors, 2007)
Comparison of three programs
Guadalajara (Spring), Service Learning Madrid (Spring), “Traditional”
FLH i.e. Span house (Spring), On-campus
Compared language use,
Used language logs
Compared language gains
Used native speaker ratings
Preliminary results……..
Language Use Overall speaking: The FLH group had significantly less overall
time speaking than Mexico and Spain study abroad.
No significant difference between Spain study abroad and Mexico.
Productive: No significant difference between three groups used “productive” use i.e., outside of class time, talking to people
Receptive: Spain group = most receptive language use. (i.e., in class and listening to native speakers), then Mexico, then FLH. Significant difference between the FLH and Spanish groups only.
Ratio: Spain group = largest ratio of time spent using the language related to class time.Mexico and FLH = same amount of time in class.
Class: Controlling for time in class, no difference between amount of Spanish used by the three groups!
Students in Spanish house use language as much as in study abroad—Amazing!!!
Qualitative Data:Intensive language useInterviewer: What has helped you
improve your language the most?
Participant: Constant usage of language. Because I use it every day, 5-6 hours, it really helps.
1. Intensive language useDinner conversations reveal few
advanced or superior level functions
Advanced and superior level topics were addressed but stayed at sentence (intermediate) level (e.g., like the classroom discussions reseached in Donato & Brooks, 2004).
3. OwnershipRecorded dinner conversations
Nomination of topics Wide range of topics,
selected by all residents Investment in topic
Dropped topics
Interviews Motivation, goals “Being there” Investment in topic
Sample Topics
• Politics
Tests
Plans for weekend
Daily happenings
Food
Dating
Jazz
Religion
Comparison among cultures Healthcare Justice
3. OwnershipMotivation and goals
To become fluentTo build vocabularyTo build confidence
3. Ownership“Being there”
“It’s harder when the most advanced speakers go to the library. It’s hard because it leaves us beginners at home and sometimes we switch into English because we don’t know how to say it in Japanese.”
“It’s pretty much just eat and go.” (Russian house)
“We get ready for dinner and then have dinner. Then a bunch of the boys play foosball and some of the girls too.” (French House)
“Dinner is thirty minutes to an hour, usually closer to an hour.” (French House)
3. OwnershipInvestment in topic
It’s better for me to talk about something that I’m interested in because I have more to say. It’s hard if I don’t know very much about the topic, but it’s good for me to do it.
A lot of people like to talk about politics, but I’m not very political.
4. CommunitySupportive environment
“[The French House]” is probably my favorite place. Everyone is really open. I can be myself. I don’t have any inhibitions. It’s great because I don’t have to worry.”
“Everyone is very accepting. It’s nice to know that I can make a mistake and learn from it, and we all help each other.” (French House)
“It’s a comfortable environment, you can speak without being judged. I don’t mind being corrected by friends in FLH, in class I don’t like to get corrected because I don’t know them.” (French House)
“In the FLH I don’t feel the need to be perfect and my confidence has improved.”
4. CommunityNon-supportive environment
Russian house: “I’ve been having fun correcting Calvin’s errors. He’s pretty good at taking it, too. New person, new errors to correct, yeah.” (Nigel)
Russian house: “We don’t not get along, but we don’t get along.”
4. Community
Common goals“We’re all here to learn the language.
We have to keep in mind that we are here to learn French. We have more motivation [than students on study abroad].”
“I spoke more English in study abroad than I wanted to because of the group. In FLH everyone is committed to speaking the language.” (French House)
Conclusion: Acquisition Rich
Our perspective
1. Intensive language use
2. Negotiation of meaning/Scaffolding
3. Ownership and Investment
4. Community
Students’ Perspective
1. Similar goals for learners
2. Supportive environment
3. Vocabulary help
4. Lots of chances to talk
5. Lots of activities together