The Effect of Study AbroadHomestay Placements: ParticipantPerspectives and Oral ProficiencyGainsFrancesca Di SilvioCenter for Applied Linguistics

Anne DonovanCenter for Applied Linguistics

Margaret E. MaloneCenter for Applied Linguistics

Abstract: Although the study abroad homestay context is commonly considered theideal environment for language learning, host‐student interactions may be limited. Thepresent study explored how language development of students of Spanish, Mandarin, andRussian related to student and host family perspectives on the homestay experience. Thestudy used pretest and posttest Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews to investigatestudent oral proficiency gains and surveys to examine beliefs of these students (n¼ 152)and their hosts (n¼ 87). Students and families were generally positive about thehomestay, with significant variation based on language. A significant relationship wasfound between students’ oral proficiency gains and their being glad to have lived with ahost family. Significant correlations were also found between students’ language learningsatisfaction and their satisfaction with the homestay.

Key words: homestay, host families, oral proficiency, participant perspectives, studyabroad

Francesca Di Silvio (MA, Georgetown University) is a Research Associate in theWorld Languages and International Programs area at the Center for AppliedLinguistics, Washington, DC.Anne Donovan (MS, Georgetown University) is a Research Assistant in the WorldLanguages and International Programs area at the Center for Applied Linguistics,Washington, DC.Margaret E. Malone (PhD, Georgetown University) is Associate Vice President,World Languages and International Programs at the Center for Applied Linguistics,Washington, DC.Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 47, Iss. 1, pp. 168–188. © 2014 by American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages.DOI: 10.1111/flan.12064

168 SPRING 2014

Study abroad is often viewed as the idealenvironment for language learners to de-velop their abilities because it is assumed toprovide a depth of immersion into the tar-get language that is rife with interactionswith native speakers. Living with a localhost family is further seen as the optimalcontext to foster language gains due to theopportunities for target language input itaffords.

The conventional wisdom aboutthe guaranteed benefits of the homestayhas been challenged, however, by studiesquestioning the richness of student‐host family interactions (Diao, Freed, &Smith, 2011; Iino, 2006; O’Donnell, 2004;Segalowitz & Freed, 2004; Wilkinson,1998) and finding that homestay studentsdo not make greater language gains thanlearners in other living arrangements(Magnan&Back, 2007; Rivers, 1998; VandeBerg, Connor‐Linton, & Paige, 2009). Al-though two parties constitute the homestaydynamic, few studies have considered thehost family perspective in investigatingstudy abroad language contact and gains(Engel, 2011; Kinginger, 2013b; Knight &Schmidt‐Rinehart, 2002).

With increasing numbers of U.S. uni-versity students participating in studyabroad (Institute for InternationalEducation, 2013), it is critical to examinethe language gains students make after aperiod abroad and steps programs can taketo further promote language learning. Thepresent study explored student and hostfamily attitudes at the beginning and endof semester‐long study abroad programsfor Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian inorder to gain a deeper understanding ofthe connections between the homestayexperience and oral proficiency gains. Byinvestigating the perceptions of bothstudy abroad learners and their hostsabout the homestay relationship, thestudy aimed to provide additionalinsight into how this type of studyabroad placement can foster languagedevelopment.

Background

Research on Language LearningDuring Study AbroadAccording to Freed (1998), early researchon language learning in study abroad con-texts primarily used criterion‐referencedtests to measure language growth. Whilethese studies suggested a positive relation-ship between time spent abroad and secondlanguage acquisition, many lacked controlgroups and used measures that were unableto draw fine distinctions in language gains orconclusions about individual variation inresults. Freed noted that later studies movedbeyond exclusively test‐based data to inves-tigate the relationships between languagedevelopment, student characteristics, andspecific experiences abroad.

Kinginger (2011) enumerated three re-search trends that grew from the results ofearly outcomes studies that showed greatdifferences in individual achievement afterperiods abroad. First, studies attempted tocorrelate language gains with quantitativeaccounting of student activities and targetlanguage use; second, ethnographies andcase studies examined student perceptionsof the study abroad sojourn; and most re-cently, researchers have pursued mixed‐methods studies incorporating qualitativeanalysis of student behaviors and perspec-tives with assessment of language learningoutcomes. Still, little of this in‐depth analy-sis of the study abroad experience has in-cluded concurrent investigation of the hostperspective (Kinginger, 2013b). Most previ-ous study abroad research has also focusedon learners of one language, most commonlyFrench or Spanish (Llanes, 2011).

DuFon and Churchill’s (2006) review ofresearch findings indicated that learner en-gagement with the host community is a keyfactor in language acquisition during studyabroad because the opportunities for andquality of interaction vary greatly and aremediated by both learner approaches andhost culture practices. Recent studies exam-ining study abroad outcomes have identified

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 169

the need for interventions to support languagedevelopment by encouraging students to in-crease their engagement with native speakers(Back, 2013; Cadd, 2012; Du, 2013;Goldoni, 2013; Kinginger, 2011), includinghomestay hosts (Knight & Schmidt‐Rinehart, 2010; Martinsen, 2010; Vande Berget al., 2009).

Oral Proficiency Gains From StudyAbroadThe following studies cited involve U.S. uni-versity students unless otherwise noted. Re-searchers investigating oral proficiencydevelopment as a result of study abroadhave frequently used such measures as theACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI)and the SimulatedOral Proficiency Interview(SOPI). These assessments are rated accord-ing to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking, a scale used to evaluate functionallanguage ability that consists of five majorlevels, the lower three of which are dividedinto Low, Mid, and High sublevels(ACTFL, 1999). Gains in ACTFL proficiencyratings have been documented for groups oflearners of French (Magnan & Back, 2007),German (Lindseth, 2010), and Spanish(Isabelli‐García, 2006; Mendelson, 2004)after one semester abroad, learners of Portu-guese after a six‐week summer program(Milleret, 1991), learners of Japanese afteran eight‐week summer program (Hardison& Okuno, 2013), and high school and gap‐year learners of Swedish over a year abroad(Spenader, 2011). Davidson (2010) foundthat OPI gains of more than 5,000 under-graduate and graduate students of Russianwho participated in study abroad programsof various durations between 1994 and 2009were strongly correlated with longer lengthsof stay and showed awide range of individualvariation. Watson, Siska, and Wolfel (2013)found that 295 of 369 learners of seventarget languages made gains on the OPI aftersemester programs in various countries.

Several studies comparing oral profi-ciency results for study abroad learnersand control groups of similar learners at a

home institution over one semester haveobserved differences between the groups.Freed (1995) found that greater numbersof study abroad than at‐home learners ofFrench moved more than one sublevel andcrossed level boundaries in the ACTFLGuidelines. Segalowitz and Freed (2004)found significant gains in OPI ratings for agroup of study abroad Spanish learners incontrast to a group at the home institutionthat did not show significant improvement.Hernández (2010a) also found that studyabroad learners of Spanishmade significantlygreater gains in SOPI ratings than on‐campuslearners. In Vande Berg et al.’s (2009) studyof more than 800 learners of seven targetlanguages in programs of varied length,SOPI gains were significantly greater forthe study abroad group; on average, theselearners improved one ACTFL sublevel,while control students improved half asmuch.

Although the OPI and similar instru-ments have been widely used to investigatestudy abroad outcomes, critics have ques-tioned the application of the ACTFL Guide-lines to measure language learning duringstudy abroad. Researchers noted that theGuidelines may not be sensitive enough tomeasure the incremental progress made bylearners during their time abroad, especiallyfor thosewith higher proficiency levels and inshorter‐term programs (Freed, 1998;Llanes, 2011). Many studies have demon-strated that proficiency gains as measuredby the Guidelines are more common for stu-dents who enter study abroad programs withlower proficiency levels (Davidson, 2010;Lindseth, 2010; Magnan & Back, 2007;Mendelson, 2004; Milleret, 1991), whichmay be due to the construction of the scalein which the amount of language controlincreases exponentially, rather than in a lin-ear fashion, at each subsequent proficiencylevel.

The Homestay ExperienceResearch examining the relationshipbetween the type of housing students

170 SPRING 2014

experience during study abroad and theiroral proficiency outcomes has producedmixed results. Rivers’s (1998) analysis ofproficiency scores from more than 1,000undergraduate and graduate learners of Rus-sian over 20 years found that homestay par-ticipants were less likely than those wholived in dormitories to gain in oral pro-ficiency. Magnan and Back (2007) did notfind a difference inOPI gains between Frenchlearners livingwith native speakers and thoselivingwith nonnatives in a semester program.While Vande Berg et al. (2009) did not find acorrelation between type of housing and SOPIgains in their large‐scale study, they reportedan association approaching significancebetween homestays and greater oral profi-ciency gains for students of less commonlytaught languages. Hernández (2010b) notedthat 15 of 16 Spanish learners who madegains on the SOPI after one semester abroadlived in a homestay, while three of four whodid not improve lived in apartments withnonnative speakers.

Studies investigating contact in the hosthome and language growth have shown sur-prising results that, like the mixed findingsregarding housing type and oral proficiencyoutcomes, do not support assumptions thata homestay provides a linguistic advantage.Segalowitz and Freed (2004) found a nega-tive correlation between time speaking withthe host family and gains in length of longestturn for learners of Spanish in a semesterprogram and suggested that interactionswith members of the host family duringthe homestay may have been mostly shortand formulaic. Working with learners in thesame program, Lafford (2004) found a sig-nificant negative correlation between timespeaking with the host family and use ofstrategies to fill communication gaps, point-ing to a focus on meaning rather than onform. Martinsen (2010) found no relation-ship between Spanish learners’ evaluationsof relationships with their host families andgains on an oral skills test after a six‐weeksummer program. Evidence that the home-stay does not always provide a source of richand pragmatically appropriate target lan-

guage input can be seen in Iino’s (2006)recordings of interactions at home, whichdemonstrated that family members usedsimplified language and provided limitedcorrective feedback to learners of Japanesein an eight‐week summer program.Schmidt‐Rinehart and Knight (2004) found,however, that for learners of Spanish insummer and semester programs, time spentwith the host family was significantly corre-lated with students’ belief that they hadlearned as much language as they had antic-ipated learning during the time abroad.Vande Berg et al. (2009) also reported asignificant relationship between time spentwith host families and SOPI gains for learn-ers of French, German, and Spanish.

In addition to measures relating lan-guage growth to target language contact inthe homestay, student perspectives on thehomestay experience have been extensivelyreported, with a trend toward positive affec-tive outcomes. Large‐scale studies have re-ported that, at the conclusion of theirprograms, 85% of students felt comfortablewith their host families and more than 90%would recommend a homestay to others(Schmidt‐Rinehart & Knight, 2004, pp.257, 260), 80% of learners thought that livingwith a host family was “very important” or“essential” to the improvement of their lan-guage skills (Gutel, 2007–2008, p. 177), and64% held unequivocally positive views of thecontributions of the homestay setting to theirlanguage learning (Diao et al., 2011, p. 122).Evaluations of homestay relationships andlearning outcomes were not, of course, uni-formly positive across study abroad partici-pants and additionally fluctuated over time asstudents navigated the study abroad experi-ence (Diao et al., 2011). Ethnographic andcase studies have documented individuals’negative attitudes toward the homestayplacement, including feelings of discomfort,isolation, and disappointment with limitedinteraction (Allen, 2010; Kinginger, 2008;O’Donnell, 2004; Pellegrino Aveni, 2005;Wilkinson, 1998) as well as positive feelingsof integration and comfort (Spenader, 2011)and appreciation of the host family as a key

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 171

point of access to language practice and socialnetworks (Castañeda & Zirger, 2011).

The host family perspective on thehomestay experience has been much lessdiscussed in the literature. Knight andSchmidt‐Rinehart (2002) interviewed 24host families in Spain and Mexico and foundthat, while all considered the family to be avaluable linguistic resource for students,many mentioned individual student charac-teristics as factors that limited interactionand reported that they would not push stu-dents who were reluctant to participate infamily activities. Comparing student andhost family perspectives from the same sites,Schmidt‐Rinehart andKnight (2004) discov-ered a marked discrepancy in assumptionsabout who was responsible for encouragingparticipation in family activities—studentsthought that hosts should issue invitations,and families felt that students needed to takeinitiative. Stephenson (1999) surveyed andinterviewed 56 Chilean host families andfound that they most commonly cited cul-tural exchange as a reason for hosting Amer-ican students, followed by social reasonssuch as companionship, and believed thathosting changed their own appreciation ofChilean culture and their views of peoplefrom the United States, but not specific po-litical beliefs and social values. Engel (2011)conducted interviews with members of 15host families in Spain and found that they (1)viewed themselves as local guides, teachers,and cultural mediators for students, as wellas surrogate family figures; (2) identifiedcultural transmissions from American stu-dents in the areas of lifestyle, food practices,values, religion, politics, and language; and(3) reported that hosting students benefitedthem economically and socially by augment-ing income and providing companionshipand a sense of purpose.

From the wealth of research on studyabroad, it is clear that learner experiencesand language development vary greatlyand at times fail to meet expectations ofthe assumed homestay advantage. AsKnight and Schmidt‐Rinehart (2010)found in implementing assignments to in-

crease student‐family interactions in pro-grams for Spanish, there can be adiscrepancy between what students saythey want to accomplish during a studyabroad homestay experience and whatthey actually do while abroad. The currentstudy was designed to further explore stu-dent and host family perspectives and theirrelationship to students’ oral proficiencygains during study abroad across threetarget languages (Spanish, Mandarin, andRussian). The study addressed the follow-ing research questions:

1. How did students perceive their relation-ship with their host family?

2. To what extent were students’ percep-tions related to both their satisfactionwith their language learning experiencesand their actual language gains?

3. How did host families perceive the dis-position of the student they hosted?

4. To what extent were host families’ percep-tions related to student language gains?

Methods

ParticipantsThe total number of participants by lan-guage is shown in Table 1. Although pro-gram staff assisted in recruiting participantsfor this study, participation by both studentsand host families was voluntary. Upon com-pletion of all study requirements, participatingstudents and families received compensationfor their time.

Student ParticipantsBetween the spring 2011 and fall 2012 se-mesters, data were collected from 152 stu-dents enrolled in semester‐long studyabroad programs and living in homestaysin Lima, Peru, and Valparaíso, Chile; Nanj-ing, Beijing, and Shanghai, China; and St.Petersburg, Russia. The programs were op-erated by the Council on International Edu-cational Exchange (CIEE), a U.S.‐basedorganization that accepts students from avariety of American universities. Some

172 SPRING 2014

students were directly enrolled in local uni-versities, while others took courses designedfor international students or the programgroup. Although coursework varied by pro-gram, all courses were taught exclusively inthe target language.

The student population was composed of92 females and 60 males between ages 18 and45, with an average age of 20.9 years (SD¼ 2.30). The majority of participants werein their junior year of university study, with1 gap‐year student, 6 sophomores, 33 seniors,and 2 recent graduates. Participants reported awide variety of majors, with 64% majoring inthe target language or related area studies. Theaverage length of prior formal study of thetarget language was 4.3 years, with a rangefrom 0 to 15 years. English was the solelanguage used in the childhood home by116 students; 15 home languages were listedby the other students. While some learnerswere studying their home language (fourRussian, three Mandarin, and two Spanish),their number was insufficient to constitute aseparate group for statistical analysis.

Host Family ParticipantsA subset of 87 representatives of familieswho hosted these study abroad students

also participated in the study. Familieswere asked to designate one adult memberof the household to participate in data col-lection. Table 2 shows the composition ofthe 87 informant host families by language.

Of the 14 single‐member households, 2were composed of host fathers. A total of 43households included two parents, and 10included host grandparents. There were 24households with no children, 41 with onechild, and 22 with multiple children living athome. Of the households with children, 30included children ages 17 to 25who could beconsidered peers of the hosted student, while16 had younger children and 17 had adultchildren living at home. Three families werehosting foreign students for the first time, 10had hosted a single student before, 22 hadhosted two to five students, and 52 hadhosted more than five students previously.

InstrumentsSOPIThe SOPI, a 45‐minute tape‐mediated testdeveloped by the Center for Applied Lin-guistics (CAL; Stansfield, 1996), was admin-istered as a pretest and posttest in order tomeasure students’ oral proficiency gains.

TABLE 1

Participant Population

Participants Spanish Mandarin Russian Total

Students 53 49 50 152Hosts 31 26 30 87

TABLE 2

Host Family Composition

Number of Members Spanish Mandarin Russian Total

Single 3 2 9 14Multiple 28 24 21 73

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 173

The SOPI requires test takers to follow instruc-tions in a printed booklet while listening to anaudio file that delivers 15 speaking tasks (13for Russian). The test is designed to elicitspeech samples rated according to the ACTFLProficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 1999), withan algorithm used to calculate a global ratingfrom the ratings on the individual tasks. Pos-sible SOPI ratings range from Below NoviceHigh to Superior.

SurveysSurveys were completed in English by stu-dents and in the local language by hostfamily representatives at the beginning andend of the semester. The pre‐survey askedstudents about their language and travelbackground and host family composition;the pre‐survey for families asked about theirprevious hosting experiences and motiva-tions for hosting. The post‐survey askedstudents and families about language activi-ties conducted at home and student dispo-sitions toward the host family. Studentswere also asked to evaluate statements aboutthe homestay experience.

ProceduresSurvey data were collected during Weeks 2and 3 of the study abroad program oncestudents had begun their homestays andagain near the end of the semester, at aboutWeek 15. The majority of participants com-pleted the surveys online, and printed ver-sions were made available to those for whomInternet access was problematic.

SOPIswere administeredduringWeeks2or 3 and again during Week 15 in a languagelab or in classrooms using digital recorders atsites without access to lab facilities. SOPIratings were assigned by trained raters famil-iar with the test format and the ACTFL Profi-ciency Guidelines. More than one third ofSpanish SOPIs and all Mandarin and RussianSOPIs were double‐rated to establish inter-rater reliability. Moderate agreement betweenraters was found, with a linear weighted kap-pa of 0.55. Ratings that did not agree wereadjudicated based upon close examination ofindividual task ratings and rater comments.

Data AnalysisBecause the majority of participants gainedjust one sublevel or did not change frompretest to posttest SOPI ratings, studentswere divided into groups of “gainers” and“nongainers” to analyze how their languagegains related to participant perceptions ofthe homestay. Kendall’s Tau correlationwas selected to measure for significance inthese relationships, using Statistical Packagefor the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., version19.0). To compare participant perceptionsacross language groups, the nonparametricKruskal‐Wallis test was used.

Results

Students’ Perceptions of the HomestayExperienceThe 151 students who completed the post‐survey provided mostly positive responsesabout the homestay experience, as Table 3shows (one student did not complete thepost‐survey). Different patterns emergedwithin each language, with students of Span-ish overall more positive than students ofMandarin and Russian. A Kruskal‐Wallistest showed that there was significant varia-tion based on language for each evaluativestatement (see Appendix A for full resultsdisaggregated by language with test statis-tics). More than one quarter of Russian stu-dents disagreed or only somewhat agreedthat they were glad to have lived with ahost family, compared with 6% of Spanishand 10% of Mandarin students. About onefifth of students of Mandarin and Russiandisagreed or strongly disagreed that theyfelt like a member of the family, in contrastto the 11% of Spanish students who merelydisagreed. Only a single learner of Spanishdisagreed that the host family helped im-prove his or her language skills, while 12%of learners of Mandarin and 8% of learners ofRussian disagreed or strongly disagreed withthis statement. Approximately 18% of Man-darin students and 24% of Russian studentsalso disagreed or strongly disagreed that theywould keep in touch with their host families,in contrast to 8% of students of Spanish who

174 SPRING 2014

disagreed. However, despite varying feelingtoward their host families, nearly all studentswould recommend living with a host familyto other students studying abroad.

Correspondence of Students’ Perceptionsto Their Language Learning Satisfactionand Language Gains

Students were also asked in the post‐survey toindicate their agreement with a statementabout the extent towhich their language learn-

ing compared with their expectations. Table 4shows responses by language. Across lan-guages, more than one third of students dis-agreed or strongly disagreed that they hadlearned as much as anticipated. There was,however, considerable variation based on lan-guage, with 25% of students of Spanish and27% of students of Mandarin in disagreementcompared with 50% of students of Russian. AKruskal‐Wallis test found that the differencebetween language groups was significant, H(2)¼ 7.22, p¼ 0.027.

TABLE 3

Student Evaluation of the Homestay (n¼151)

Statement StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

I am glad that I lived with ahost family.

98 (65%) 32 (21%) 16 (11%) 5 (3%) 0 (0%)

I felt like a member of thefamily.

54 (36%) 37 (25%) 34 (23%) 21 (14%) 5 (3%)

My host family helped meimprove my [language]skills.

76 (50%) 39 (26%) 25 (17%) 8 (5%) 3 (2%)

I will keep in touch withmy host family afterreturning to the UnitedStates.

63 (42%) 37 (25%) 26 (17%) 18 (12%) 7 (5%)

I would recommend livingwith a host family toother students.

93 (62%) 34 (23%) 20 (13%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%)

TABLE 4

Student Response to “I Learned As Much [Language] As I Thought I Would”

(n¼151)

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 11 (21%) 17 (32%) 12 (23%) 10 (19%) 3 (6%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 13 (27%) 12 (25%) 10 (21%) 9 (19%) 4 (8%)Russian (n¼ 50) 5 (10%) 14 (28%) 6 (12%) 18 (36%) 7 (14%)

Total 29 (19%) 43 (28%) 28 (19%) 37 (25%) 14 (9%)

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 175

Table 5 compares students’ languagelearning satisfaction with their perceptionsof the homestay, with survey responses col-lapsed into three categories: strongly agreeplus agree, somewhat agree, and disagreeplus strongly disagree. The table demon-strates that students who were disappointedwith their language learningweremore likelyto have negative feelings about the homestay.Significant but moderate correlations werefound between satisfaction with languagelearning and satisfaction with the homestay,with the largest effect seen between perceivedlanguage learning and the feeling that thehost family helped participants improve lan-guage skills.

In terms ofmeasured language gains, pre-test and posttest SOPI ratings were availablefor a total of 149 students. Table 6 shows thedistribution of pre‐ and post‐SOPI ratings,and Table 7 shows SOPI gains by language.All participants maintained or improvedtheir oral proficiency ratings over the courseof their programs, and a paired samples t testshowed that participant gains were significant,t(148)¼ ‐13.23, p< 0.001, r¼ 0.74.

Table 8 shows how student SOPI gainsrelated to their perceptions of the homestayfor the 148 students for whom both pre‐ andpost‐SOPI ratings and surveys were available.There were not large differences in percep-tions of the homestay between students whomade gains on the SOPI and those who didnot, although greater proportions of gainersthan nongainers expressed agreement ineach area. Only the relationship betweenSOPI gain and being glad to have lived witha host family was significant, t¼ 0.158,p (two‐tailed)¼ 0.044. Therefore, in responseto the second research question, student per-ceptions of the homestay experience weremore closely related to their language learningsatisfaction than to their actual oral pro-ficiency gains as measured by the SOPI.

Host Families’ Perceptions of theHosted StudentFamilies were asked in the pre‐survey toindicate how important four different factors

were in their decision to host foreign stu-dents. Across languages, more than half ofhost families rated spending time with astudent from another culture, spendingtime with a student who speaks anotherlanguage, and helping the student to learnthe target language as very important moti-vations for hosting a foreign student, whilehaving additional company at home wasconsidered only somewhat important by42% of families and not important by 17%.There was divergence by language in themotivation most commonly rated as veryimportant. The desire to help students learnthe target language was selected most oftenby Spanish‐speaking (97%) and Russian(73%) families, while the desire to spendtime with a student from another culturewas selected most often by Chinese families(69%). For both of these motivations, therewas significant variation based on languagegroup (see Appendix B for full responses).

When asked to indicate their agree-ment with a series of statements about theirhosted student at the end of the semester,the 87 host family representatives whocompleted the post‐survey were quite pos-itive, as Table 9 shows. Across languages,nearly all families either agreed or stronglyagreed (98%) that their students were com-fortable in the family’s home. The majorityof families also agreed or strongly agreedthat the students they hosted were talkative(85%), interested in spending time withthe family (84%), eager to learn (95%),and open to new cultures and customs(97%). Host families had more varied feel-ings about whether their students werehomesick, as did the individual studentsthemselves.

Differing patterns were seen when ana-lyzing by language, with Spanish‐speakinghost families more positive as a whole thanChinese and Russian families. For all ques-tions except being talkative with the family,there were significant differences based onlanguage group (see Appendix B for fullresults disaggregated by language with teststatistics). The majority of Spanish‐speakingfamilies (87%) strongly agreed that their

176 SPRING 2014

TABLE 5

Student Language Learning Satisfaction and Perceptions of the Homestay

Language LearningSatisfaction

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree

I Am Glad That I Lived With a Host Family

Learned as much as expected(n¼ 72)

69 (96%) 3 (4%) 0 (0%)

Learned somewhat as muchas expected (n¼ 28)

26 (93%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%)

Did not learn as muchas expected (n¼ 51)

35 (69%) 12 (24%) 4 (8%)

t¼ 0.366, p (two‐tailed)< 0.01

I Felt Like a Member of the Family

Learned as much asexpected (n¼ 72)

59 (82%) 9 (13%) 4 (6%)

Learned somewhat as much asexpected (n¼ 28)

20 (71%) 3 (11%) 5 (18%)

Did not learn as much asexpected (n¼ 51)

12 (24%) 22 (43%) 17 (33%)

t¼ 0.468, p (two‐tailed)< 0.01

My Host Family Helped Me Improve My [Language] Skills

Learned as much as expected(n¼ 72)

70 (97%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%)

Learned somewhat as much asexpected (n¼ 28)

24 (86%) 3 (11%) 1 (4%)

Did not learn as much asexpected (n¼ 51)

21 (41%) 20 (39%) 10 (20%)

t¼ 0.573, p (two‐tailed)< 0.01

I Will Keep in Touch With My Host Family After Returning to the United States

Learned as much asexpected (n¼ 72)

60 (83%) 7 (10%) 5 (7%)

Learned somewhat as muchas expected (n¼ 28)

22 (79%) 2 (7%) 4 (14%)

Did not learn as muchas expected (n¼ 51)

18 (35%) 17 (33%) 16 (31%)

t¼ 0.436, p (two‐tailed)< 0.01

I Would Recommend Living With a Host Family to Other Students Studying Abroad

Learned as much asexpected (n¼ 72)

67 (93%) 5 (7%) 0 (0%)

Learned somewhat as much asexpected (n¼ 28)

25 (89%) 2 (7%) 1 (4%)

Did not learn as much asexpected (n¼ 51)

35 (69%) 13 (25%) 3 (6%)

t¼ 0.379, p (two‐tailed)< 0.01

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 177

students were comfortable in the home,compared with 50% of Chinese familiesand 43% of Russian families. In terms ofinterest in spending time with the family,71% of Spanish families strongly agreed,compared to 35% of Chinese and only10% of Russian families. More than 80% ofSpanish‐speaking families also stronglyagreed that their students were eager to learnand open to new customs and cultures com-pared to about 60% of Russian families andless than half of Chinese families. FewerChinese families reported that their studentswere homesick (12% agreed or stronglyagreed) than families hosting students ofSpanish (42%) or Russian (40%).

Correspondence Between HostFamilies’ Perceptions and Students’Language GainsThere were no significant relationshipsfound between any of the measured hostfamily perceptions and student SOPI gains.

DiscussionAlthough students as a group viewed thehomestay in a positive light, a finding thatis consistent with previous research (see,e.g., Schmidt‐Rinehart & Knight, 2004),the data indicate that significant differencesexisted in both student and host family per-ceptions of the homestay relationship based

TABLE 6

Student Pre‐ and Post‐SOPI Ratings by Language (n¼ 149)

Rating Chinese Russian Spanish

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Below Novice High 8 0 0 0 0 0Novice High 1 1 5 1 0 0Intermediate Low 16 8 16 5 11 4Intermediate Mid 14 13 23 30 4 5Intermediate High 6 11 6 10 17 12Advanced Low 4 9 0 4 14 18Advanced Mid 0 7 0 0 1 8Advanced High 0 0 0 0 3 3

Total 49 50 50

TABLE 7

Student SOPI Gains by Language (n¼149)

Language NoChange

Gain of OneSublevel

Gain of TwoSublevels

Gain of ThreeSublevels

Spanish 21 22 7 0Mandarin 3 19 25 0Russian 19 23 8 2

Total 43 64 40 2

178 SPRING 2014

on language. This variation could suggestthat cultural proximity between students’native communities and the communitiesin which they studied shaped how students

perceived and responded to their homestayexperiences, with learners of Spanish andhost families in Chile and Peru more readilydeveloping an affinity than homestay

TABLE 8

Student SOPI Gains and Perceptions of the Homestay

SOPI Result Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree

I Am Glad That I Lived With a Host Family

Nongainer (n¼ 43) 35 (81%) 6 (14%) 2 (5%)Gainer (n¼ 105) 92 (88%) 10 (10%) 3 (3%)

I Felt Like a Member of the Family

Nongainer (n¼ 43) 23 (53%) 9 (21%) 11 (26%)Gainer (n¼ 105) 65 (62%) 25 (24%) 15 (14%)

My Host Family Helped Me Improve My [Language] Skills

Nongainer (n¼ 43) 32 (74%) 10 (23%) 1 (2%)Gainer (n¼ 105) 80 (76%) 15 (14%) 10 (10%)

I Will Keep in Touch With My Host Family After Returning to the United States

Nongainer (n¼ 43) 27 (63%) 9 (21%) 7 (16%)Gainer (n¼ 105) 70 (67%) 17 (16%) 18 (17%)

I Would Recommend Living With a Host Family to Other Students Studying Abroad

Nongainer (n¼ 43) 34 (79%) 7 (16%) 2 (5%)Gainer (n¼ 105) 90 (86%) 13 (12%) 2 (2%)

TABLE 9

Host Family Description of the Hosted Student (n¼87)

StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

The student is comfortablein my home.

53 (60%) 32 (37%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

The student is talkativewith my family.

41 (47%) 33 (38%) 11 (13%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%)

The student is interestedin spending time withmy family.

34 (39%) 40 (46%) 12 (14%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

The student is homesick. 5 (6%) 23 (26%) 34 (39%) 21 (24%) 4 (5%)The student is eager

to learn.55 (63%) 28 (32%) 4 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

The student is open tonew cultures andcustoms.

55 (63%) 29 (33%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 179

pairings in the other two countries. It is alsopossible that the findings point to a differ-ence in the types of U. S. students whochoose to learn and pursue study abroadfor particular less commonly taught lan-guages such as Mandarin and Russian. Ineither case, it is important to rememberthat study abroad learners’ engagementwith the host community is shaped by iden-tity negotiation as they respond to the chal-lenges to their beliefs and habits that ariseduring a stay abroad (Kinginger, 2013a).Previous research has suggested that stu-dents who are not received as expected, oras desired, in their study abroad destination,whether because of issues of gender in Rus-sia (Davidson, 2010), foreigner status inJapan (Iino, 2006), or ethnic identity inSpain (Goldoni, 2013), need to be equippedwith tools to encourage continued contactrather than withdrawal in the face of cultureclashes.

While attitudes toward the homestayprovide important evaluative feedback, thisstudy’s limited results regarding whethermore positive perceptions of the homestaylead to greater oral proficiency gains must beconsidered in order to help learners in studyabroad programs maximize language learn-ing. The finding that, among all of the stu-dent and host family perceptions that wereinvestigated, only one weak significant rela-tionshipwas foundwith language gain couldbe an artifact of the gross scale of the SOPI.As a measure of holistic oral proficiency, theSOPI may not be fine‐grained enough todiscern progress made during a semesterabroad, and it does not document growthin pragmatics, fluency, vocabulary, listen-ing, reading, writing, or such affective areasas anxiety or willingness to communicate;perhaps it is these areas in which half of thestudents who did not gain on the SOPI werenonetheless satisfied with their languagelearning experience. Still, this study demon-strated links between satisfaction with thehomestay experience and satisfaction withthe amount of language learned duringstudy abroad, and also that students whowere glad to have lived with a host family

were more likely to gain on the SOPI. Thus,even if there is not an inherent homestayadvantage, there is an advantage to be foundin a happy homestay.

Implications for Study Abroad

ProgramsWhat can programs do to facilitate a home-stay experience that is appreciated by bothstudents and their hosts, which can in turnpromote greater language gain? First, stu-dents should be prepared for the experiencesthat they will encounter in the host commu-nity, and specifically the host home, thatmay challenge their expectations and values.Discussion of potential areas of identity ne-gotiation should begin in predeparture ori-entation and continue throughout theprogram. As Vande Berg et al. (2009) foundin investigating the effect of study abroadprogram components on SOPI gains, stu-dents who learned about cultural differencesduring predeparture orientation sessionshad both greater gains and higher satisfac-tion with their study abroad experience thanthose who did not receive such support. Toenhance language learning, the authors alsosuggest employing in‐program culturalmentors to help students reflect and remainopen as they navigate the host culture.

Second, students should be encouragedto clearly demonstrate their interest in en-gaging with their host families and to beproactive in pursuing interactions and activ-ities. It is critical that students understandthat extensive interaction with native speak-ers does not happen automatically duringstudy abroad, but rather requires a personalcommitment to generating and taking ad-vantage of speaking opportunities, includ-ing with the most obvious source: the hostfamily. Programs can help students internal-ize this advice through explicit instructionor required assignments. Knight andSchmidt‐Rinehart (2010) found that stu-dents who were initially hesitant about aproject to complete conversation taskswith their host families reflected later thatthe assignment encouraged and deepened

180 SPRING 2014

conversations that otherwise would nothave occurred.

Third, host families should be givenmore ownership in the language learningprocess of the students they host. Programscan ask families for their interpretation ofhomestay practices and interactions, includ-ing misunderstandings that occur withhosted students (Kinginger, 2013b),maintaincontinuous communicationwith hosts to dis-cuss their role in student progress (Knight &Schmidt‐Rinehart, 2002), and provide fami-lies with training in strategies to draw theirstudents into meaningful conversational ex-change (Vande Berg et al., 2009). Such train-ingmust necessarily be culturally appropriateand can be tailored to the local audience. Forexample, if Chinese families see cultural ex-change as a more important element thanlanguage assistance in their decision to hostforeign students, as this study found, theymay benefit frommore discussion of the largerole that host families can play in helpingstudents to improve their speaking skills.

Implications for ResearchFurther research on the language develop-ment that occurs during study abroadshould consider additional means of assess-ing oral gains such as specific measures offluency, complexity, and accuracy (Serrano,Tragant, & Llanes, 2012), as well as gains inother skills. The study findings raise otherquestions worthy of investigation, such as:

1. What are students’ expectations for lan-guage learning during study abroad, andhowdo they gaugewhether these aremet?

2. What host family perceptions could helpshed light on the language gains studentsmake as a result of homestay interactions?

3. Which trait or traits associated with eachlanguage group contributed to their di-vergent perspectives about the homestayrelationship?

The differences that emerged based onlanguage could be elucidated with surveyquestions targeting intercultural under-standing in order to explore how intercul-

tural development informs languagedevelopment during study abroad. Moreopen‐ended questions would also enablestudents and host families to provide expla-nations for statements with which they dis-agreed and allow for qualitative analysis ofperspectives from both sides. Furthermore,interviews of host families, such as thoseused by Knight and Schmidt‐Rinehart(2002), would be invaluable in helping tounderstand the host family point of view onhomestay interactions. Finally, while thisstudy was designed to fill gaps in the re-search on language learning in study abroadby collecting data from a large number ofparticipants, including host families, in dif-ferent study abroad settings, the field wouldbenefit from studies examiningmore diversepopulations of study abroad participantswith regard to age, sending institution,country of origin, and program type in orderto determine which models succeed in nur-turing language learning and why.

Within the research design, the study hadsome necessary limitations. First, findingswere based on self‐reported survey data thatrepresent subjective perspectives that are notstatic over time and may show bias towardpositive responses. Second, the survey designinherently reflected researcher beliefs aboutwhat participants would find important toreport, and results were thus colored by thequestions asked. Interviews or observationscould provide more robust data, althoughthese qualitative methods carry their own po-tential researcher and respondent biases.

ConclusionThis study investigated students’ and hostfamilies’ perspectives on the study abroadhomestay experience and the relationshipof those perceptions to student languagegains. Results showed that groups of learnersof Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian living inhomestay placements made significant gainson the SOPI, a measure of holistic oral profi-ciency, after one semester abroad. Studentsand their host families had largely positiveviews of the relationship that developedduring the time abroad, although these

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 181

perceptions varied significantly by target lan-guage, with learners of Spanish and their hostsin South Americamost positive, participants inRussia least positive, and participants in Chinagenerally in the middle. Most student and hostperceptions of the homestay relationship didnot correlate with language gains, but studentswho indicated that theywere glad to have livedwith a host family were more likely to make again on the SOPI. Students’ satisfaction withtheir language learning during the time abroadwas significantly correlated to positive feelingsabout their relationships to the host family.

These study findings provide additionalevidence that, by placing study abroad learn-ers in a situation of close contact with nativespeakers, a homestay placement can facilitatelanguage development. Beyond gains madeon the SOPI, students who reported learningas much target language as they expectedoverwhelmingly agreed that their host fami-lies helped improve their language skills.Future studies should consider the specificareas in which students see progress duringstudy abroad in order to pinpoint what isbeing learned that is not captured by holisticmeasures of oral proficiency. From both aresearch and programmatic perspective, itwill be important to explore interventionsthat could magnify the benefits of a studyabroad homestay so that it truly becomes awellspring of language learning.

AcknowledgmentsThis study was made possible by a grantfrom the U.S. Department of Educationand the partnership of CIEE. We thankMichael Vande Berg for contributions toproject conception and design; R. MichaelPaige for assistance with methodology; andMarcia Vera, Marion Tizón, Justin O’Jack,John Urban, Jianling Liao, Ping Xie, YingWang, Yanfei Fu, Irina Makoveeva, JarlathMcGuckin, Katya Rubtsova, and all programstaff for invaluable help with implementa-tion. Additional thanks are extended toAileen Bach, Jacky de la Torre, Jenn Renn,and other CAL staff who assisted with thisproject, our SOPI raters, and the reviewers ofthis article. Finally, a special thanks to the

students and families who participated inthis study.

References

ACTFL. (1999).ACTFL ProficiencyGuidelines—Speaking. Revised 1999. Hastings‐on‐Hudson,NY: Author.

Allen, H. W. (2010). Interactive contact aslinguistic affordance during short‐term studyabroad: Myth or reality? Frontiers: The Inter-disciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 1–26.

Back, M. (2013). Using Facebook data to ana-lyze learner interaction during study abroad.Foreign Language Annals, 46, 377–401.

Cadd, M. (2012). Encouraging students toengage with native speakers during studyabroad. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 229–245.

Castañeda, M. E., & Zirger, M. L. (2011).Making the most of the “new” study abroad:Social capital and the short‐term sojourn. For-eign Language Annals, 44, 544–564.

Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When,how long and with what results? New datafrom the Russian front. Foreign Language An-nals, 43, 6–26.

Diao, W., Freed, B., & Smith, L. (2011). Con-firmed beliefs or false assumptions? A study ofhome stay experiences in the French studyabroad context. Frontiers: The InterdisciplinaryJournal of Study Abroad, 21, 109–142.

Du, H. (2013). The development of Chinesefluency during study abroad in China. ModernLanguage Journal, 97, 131–143.

DuFon, M., & Churchill, E. (2006). Evolvingthreads in study abroad research. In M. DuFon& E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners instudy abroad contexts (pp. 1–27). Toronto:Multilingual Matters.

Engel, J. L. (2011). Making meaning of theAmerican student‐Spanish host family experi-ence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-versity of South Carolina.

Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think thatstudents who study abroad become fluent? InB. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisitionin a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Am-sterdam: John Benjamins.

Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues andresearch in language learning in a study abroadsetting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journalof Study Abroad, 4, 31–60.

182 SPRING 2014

Goldoni, F. (2013). Students’ immersion ex-periences in study abroad. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 46, 359–376.

Gutel, H. (2007–2008). The home stay: A gen-dered perspective. Frontiers: The Interdisciplin-ary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 173–188.

Hardison, D. H., & Okuno, T. (2013, Novem-ber). Changes in second‐language learners’ oralskills and socio‐affective profile following short‐term study abroad to Japan. Paper presented atthe Second Language Research Forum, Provo,UT.

Hernández, T. (2010a). Promoting speakingproficiency through motivation and interaction:The study abroad and classroom learning con-texts. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 650–670.

Hernández, T. (2010b). The relationshipamong motivation, interaction, and the devel-opment of second language oral proficiency ina study‐abroad context.Modern Language Jour-nal, 94, 600–617.

Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in aJapanese homestay setting: Toward a two‐way flow of linguistic and cultural resources.In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Languagelearners in study abroad contexts (pp. 151–173). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Institute for International Education. (2013).Open Doors 2013 data [Report]. Retrieved De-cember 12, 2013, from http://www.iie.org/Re-search‐and‐Publications/Open‐Doors

Isabelli‐García, C. (2006). Study abroad socialnetworks, motivations and attitudes: Implica-tions for second language acquisition. In M.DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learn-ers in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–258).Toronto, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning instudy abroad: Case studies of Americansin France. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124.

Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing languagelearning in study abroad. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 31, 58–73.

Kinginger, C. (2013a). Identity and languagelearning in study abroad. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 46, 339–358.

Kinginger, C. (2013b). Language socializationin study abroad. The Encyclopedia of AppliedLinguistics. Retrieved December 13, 2013, fromhttp://onLinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1121/ abstract?denie-dAccessCustomisedMessage ¼&userIsAuthenticated¼false

Knight, S. M., & Schmidt‐Rinehart, B. C.(2002). Enhancing the homestay: Studyabroad from the host family’s perspective. For-eign Language Annals, 35, 190–201.

Knight, S. M., & Schmidt‐Rinehart, B. C.(2010). Exploring conditions to enhance stu-dent/host family interaction abroad. ForeignLanguage Annals, 43, 64–79.

Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect on the contextof learning on the use of communication strat-egies by learners of Spanish as a second lan-guage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,26, 200–225.

Lindseth, M. U. (2010). The development oforal proficiency during a semester in Germany.Foreign Language Annals, 43, 246–268.

Llanes, À. (2011). The many faces of studyabroad: An update on the research on L2 gainsemerged during a study abroad experience.International Journal of Multilingualism, 8,189–215.

Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social inter-action and linguistic gain during study abroad.Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43–61.

Martinsen, R. (2010). Short‐term studyabroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. For-eign Language Annals, 43, 504–530.

Mendelson, V. G. (2004). Spain or bust? As-sessment and student perceptions of out‐of‐classcontact and oral proficiency in a study abroadcontext (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Milleret, M. (1991). Assessing the gain in oralproficiency from summer foreign study. ADFLBulletin, 22, 39–43.

O’Donnell, K. (2004). Student perceptions oflanguage learning in two contexts: At homeand study abroad (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). University of Pittsburgh.

Pellegrino Aveni, V. (2005). Study abroad andsecond language use: Constructing the self. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is being there enough?The effects of homestay placements on lan-guage gain during study abroad. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 31, 492–500.

Schmidt‐Rinehart, B. C., & Knight, S. M.(2004). The homestay component of studyabroad: Three perspectives. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 37, 254–262.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context,contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisi-tion: Learning Spanish in at home and study

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 183

abroad contexts. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 26, 173–199.

Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, À. (2012). Alongitudinal analysis of the effects of one yearabroad. Canadian Modern Language Review/LaRevue canadienne des langues vivantes, 68, 138–163.

Spenader, A. J. (2011). Language learning andacculturation: Lessons from high school andgap‐year exchange students. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 44, 381–398.

Stansfield, C. (1996). Test development handbook:Simulated oral proficiency interview (SOPI).Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Stephenson, S. (1999). Study abroad as a trans-formational experience and its effect uponstudy abroad students and host nationals inSantiago, Chile. Frontiers: The InterdisciplinaryJournal of Study Abroad, 5, 1–38.

Vande Berg, M., Connor‐Linton, J., & Paige,R. M. (2009). The Georgetown ConsortiumProject: Interventions for student learningabroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journalof Study Abroad, 18, 1–75.

Watson, J. R., Siska, P., &Wolfel, R. L. (2013).Assessing gains in language proficiency, cross‐cultural competence, and regional awarenessduring study abroad: A preliminary study. For-eign Language Annals, 46, 62–79.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad fromthe participants’ perspective: A challenge tocommon beliefs. Foreign Language Annals,31, 23–39.

Submitted September 30, 2013

Accepted November 27, 2013

APPENDIX A

Student Survey Responses (n¼ 151)

TABLE A1

I Am Glad That I Lived With a Host Family

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 40 (75%) 10 (19%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 33 (69%) 10 (21%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼50) 25 (50%) 12 (24%) 11 (22%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%)

Total 98 (65%) 32 (21%) 16 (11%) 5 (3%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 9.359, p¼ 0.009

TABLE A2

I Felt Like a Member of the Family

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 28 (53%) 11 (12%) 8 (15%) 6 (11%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 14 (29%) 14 (29%) 11 (23%) 6 (13%) 3 (6%)Russian (n¼50) 12 (24%) 12 (24%) 15 (30%) 9 (18%) 2 (4%)

Total 54 (36%) 37 (25%) 34 (23%) 21 (14%) 5 (3%)

H(2)¼ 10.370, p¼ 0.006

184 SPRING 2014

TABLE A3

My Host Family Helped Me Improve My [Language] Skills

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 34 (64%) 13 (25%) 5 (9%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 22 (46%) 14 (29%) 6 (13%) 5 (10%) 1 (2%)Russian (n¼50) 20 (40%) 12 (24%) 14 (28%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%)

Total 76 (50%) 39 (26%) 25 (17%) 8 (5%) 3 (2%)

H(2)¼ 7.22, p¼ 0.011

TABLE A4

I Will Keep in Touch With My Host Family After Returning to the

United States

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 31 (58%) 12 (23%) 6 (11%) 4 (8%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 19 (40%) 10 (21%) 10 (21%) 6 (13%) 3 (6%)Russian (n¼50) 13 (26%) 15 (30%) 10 (20%) 8 (16%) 4 (8%)

Total 63 (42%) 37 (25%) 26 (17%) 18 (12%) 7 (5%)

H(2)¼ 12.823, p¼ 0.002

TABLE A5

I Would Recommend Living With a Host Family to Other Students

Studying Abroad

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 53) 39 (74%) 9 (17%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 48) 30 (63%) 11 (23%) 7 (15%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼50) 24 (48%) 14 (28%) 9 (18%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%)

Total 93 (62%) 34 (23%) 20 (13%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%)

H(2)¼ 7.743, p¼ 0.021

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 185

APPENDIX B

Family Survey Responses (n¼ 87)

TABLE B1

Host Family Motivation: To Spend Time With a Student From Another Culture

Language Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Spanish (n¼ 30) 27 (90%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 18 (69%) 8 (31%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 15 (50%) 14 (47%) 1 (3%)

Total 60 (70%) 25 (29%) 1 (1%)

H(2)¼ 11.498, p¼ 0.003

TABLE B2

Host Family Motivation: To Spend Time With a Student Who Speaks

Another Language

Language Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Spanish (n¼ 29) 19 (66%) 9 (31%) 1 (3%)Mandarin (n¼ 25) 14 (56%) 10 (40%) 1 (4%)Russian (n¼ 29) 14 (48%) 12 (41%) 3 (10%)

Total 47 (57%) 31 (37%) 5 (6%)

H(2)¼ 2.068, p¼ 0.356

TABLE B3

Host Family Motivation: To Help the Student Learn [Language]

Language Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Spanish (n¼ 31) 30 (97%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 14 (54%) 11 (42%) 1 (4%)Russian (n¼ 30) 22 (73%) 8 (27%) 0 (0%)

Total 66 (76%) 20 (23%) 1 (1%)

H(2)¼ 14.425, p¼ 0.001

186 SPRING 2014

TABLE B4

Host Family Motivation: To Have Additional Company at Home

Language Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Spanish (n¼ 29) 14 (48%) 12 (41%) 3 (10%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 11 (42%) 11 (42%) 4 (15%)Russian (n¼ 29) 9 (31%) 13 (45%) 7 (24%)

Total 34 (41%) 35 (42%) 14 (17%)

H(2)¼ 2.646, p¼ 0.266

TABLE B5

The Student Is Comfortable in My Home

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 27 (87%) 4 (13%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 13 (50%) 12 (46%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 13 (43%) 16 (53%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 53 (60%) 32 (37%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 14.050, p¼ 0.001

TABLE B6

The Student Is Talkative With My Family

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 20 (66%) 8 (26%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 10 (38%) 11 (42%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 11 (37%) 14 (47%) 5 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 41 (47%) 33 (38%) 11 (13%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 5.398, p¼ 0.067

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 47, NO. 1 187

TABLE B7

The Student Is Interested in Spending Time With My Family

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 22 (71%) 5 (16%) 4 (13%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 9 (35%) 15 (58%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 3 (10%) 20 (67%) 7 (23%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 34 (39%) 40 (46%) 12 (14%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 18.153, p< 0.001

TABLE B8

The Student Is Homesick

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 3 (10%) 10 (32%) 15 (48%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 10 (38%) 9 (35%) 4 (15%)Russian (n¼ 30) 1 (3%) 11 (37%) 9 (30%) 9 (30%) 0 (0%)

Total 5 (6%) 23 (26%) 34 (39%) 21 (24%) 4 (5%)

H(2)¼ 12.707, p¼ 0.002

TABLE B9

The Student Is Eager to Learn

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 25 (81%) 5 (16%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 12 (46%) 14 (54%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 18 (60%) 9 (30%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 55 (63%) 28 (32%) 4 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 6.396, p¼ 0.041

TABLE B10

The Student Is Open to New Cultures and Customs

Language StronglyAgree

Agree SomewhatAgree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

Spanish (n¼ 31) 25 (81%) 6 (19%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Mandarin (n¼ 26) 11 (42%) 13 (50%) 2 (8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Russian (n¼ 30) 19 (63%) 10 (33%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 55 (63%) 29 (33%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

H(2)¼ 9.374, p¼ 0.009

188 SPRING 2014