Table Of ContentMaximizing Study Abroad Through Language and Culture Strategies: Research on
Students, Study Abroad Program Professionals, and Language Instructors
by
Andrew D. Cohen, R. Michael Paige,
Rachel L. Shively, Holly A. Emert, & Joseph G. Hoff
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition
University of Minnesota
September 2005
2
3
Table of Contents
I. Credits and Acknowledgments 7
II. Background on the Research Team 8-9
III. Abstract 10-14
IV. Introduction to the Research Project and to the Maximizing 15-20
Study Abroad Guides
V. Review of the Literature 21-34
VI. Students’ Guide Study 35-214
(Lead Author: Rachel L. Shively)
– Aims of the Study and Research Questions 35-37
– Research Design 38-58
– Sample 38-42
– Treatment 42-43
– Instrumentation 43-53
– Data Collection Procedures 53-55
– Data Analysis Procedures 55-58
– Findings and Interpretations for Research Questions #1-#8 59-182
– Research Question #1 59-70
– Research Question #2 71-75
– Research Question #3 76-104
– Research Question #4 105-114
– Research Question #5 115-157
– Research Question #6 158-163
– Research Question #7a 164-173
– Research Question #7b 174
– Research Question #8 175-182
– Findings for Revising the Students’ Guide (RQ #9) 183-189
– Mini Case Study of One E Group Student: “Erica” 190-199
– Summary of the Findings 200-202
– Limitations of the Study 202-205
– Discussion and Conclusions 205-211
– Direction for Future Research 211-212
4
– Suggestions for Teaching a Course for Study Abroad 213-214
Students Using the Students’ Guide
VII. Program Professionals’ Guide Study 215-240
(Lead Author: Joseph G. Hoff)
– Aims of the Study and Research Questions 215-216
– Research Design 216-220
– Participants 216-217
– What the Program Professionals Were Asked to Do 217-219
– Instrumentation 219-220
– Data Collection Procedures 220
– Data Analysis Procedures 220
– Findings and Interpretations 221-232
– Findings for Revising the Program Professionals’ Guide 232-235
– Summary of the Findings 236-237
– Limitations of the Study 237-238
– Discussion 238-239
– Conclusions 239
– Directions for Future Research 239-240
VIII. Language Instructors’ Guide Study 241-310
(Lead Author: Holly A. Emert)
– Aims of the Study and Research Questions 241-242
– Research Design 242-250
– Participants 242-244
– What the Language Instructors Were Asked to Do 244-245
– Instrumentation 245-248
– Data Collection Procedures 248-250
– Data Analysis Procedures 250
– Findings and Interpretations 251-293
– Findings for Revising the Language Instructors’ Guide 294-298
– Summary of the Findings 299-302
– Limitations of the Study 302-303
– Discussion 303-308
– Conclusions 308
5
– Directions for Future Research 309
IX. References for the Students’ Guide, Program Professionals’ 311-320
Guide, and Language Instructors’ Guide Studies
X. Appendices 321-416
a. Assignment Schedule of Reading in the Students’ Guide 321-322
for E Group Students While Studying Abroad
b. Background Questionnaire 323-326
c. Exit Language Contact Profile 327-334
d. Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture 335-338
e. Language Strategy Survey 339-345
f. Speech Act Measure 346-385
g. Follow-up Interview Protocol 386
h. Categories for Semantic Formula and Supportive Move 387-389
Coding of Speech Act Measure
i. Speech Act Measure French and Spanish Native Speaker 390-394
Rating Criteria
j. Exit Questionnaire for Study Abroad Advisors 395-399
k. Exit Questionnaire for On-Site Directors 400-404
l. Monthly Questions for Language Instructor Study 405-406
Participants
m. Exit Questionnaire for Language Instructors 407-409
n. Gillian’s Adaptation of ACT 19-21 Reading Strategy Use 410-411
(Español 231: Exploración de temas culturales y
estrategias de lectura)
o. Gillian’s Adaptation of DM 35 Exploring U.S. Culture 412
(Español 231: Exploración de la cultura de EE.UU)
p. Elizabeth’s Activity: “Tell me who your friends are and I'll 413-414
tell you who you are”
6
7
Credits and Acknowledgements
First, a word about authorship. Graduate assistants on this three-year project, Rachel
Shively, Joe Hoff, and Holly Emert each took the lead in writing a section of the report, and for
that fine work, they are to be greatly acknowledged. Andrew Cohen and Michael Paige
supervised the writing of the report, and contributed sections to it. In addition, Cohen did
extensive editing of it.
The authors would like to express their thanks to a number of people who helped make
this study possible at various points during the three years (2002-2005) in which it was carried
out. First of all, the researchers would like to thank all of the research participants – the students,
the study abroad professionals, and the language instructors – who, because of their dedication of
time and energy, made this study possible.
The study benefited from the input of our IRSP research advisors – Barbara Freed
(Carnegie Mellon University), Mitch Hammer (American University), and Bruce LaBrack
(University of the Pacific). We thank them for their time and effort in helping us design the
study and for holding us to high standards of excellence. In addition to the research advisors, we
would like to recognize and thank Margaret Meagher for her well-informed and helpful advice
and aide in designing and carrying out the language instructors’ study and for her consulting
work with the participating instructors.
A number of individuals assisted us with the participant recruitment, the data collection,
and the data analysis phases of the research. We would like to thank the following study abroad
advisors and the staff in their offices who assisted us in recruiting students for the research study:
staff at the Learning Abroad Center at the University of Minnesota, especially Al Balkcum, Ann
Hubbard at the University of St. Thomas, Katherine Yngve at Macalester College, Helena
Kaufmann at Carleton College, Elaine Carter and Phyllis Van Buren at St. Cloud State
University, Jo Beld and Patrick Quade at St. Olaf, and Vera Wenzel at the College of St.
Catherine. Susan McMillan-Villar (University of Minnesota) and Patricia Mougel’s (University
of Minnesota) help with recruiting students for the validation of the strategies inventories and
with finding Spanish and French native speakers for the pilot testing and rating of the Speech Act
Measure was greatly appreciated. We also extend our thanks to Takuya Yoshida at Nagoya
University for his work on the factor analysis of the two strategies inventories, and to the four
native speakers of Spanish and two native speakers of French who did the taxing work of rating
the pragmatic appropriateness of the hundreds of Speech Act Measure vignettes.
In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to all of the staff at CARLA for
their assistance in many aspects of this project. In particular, we would like to thank Marlene
Johnshoy for her work creating the research website and making online data collection possible,
and Karin Larson, for her assistance with many aspects of the project, including the
administration and organization of the study, and the recruitment of participants.
Finally, in addition to all of the people who contributed to this research, we would like to
acknowledge the granting agency, the International Research and Studies Program (IRSP) at the
U.S. Department of Education, for providing financial support for this study.
8
Background on the Research Team
Co-Principle Investigators
Andrew D. Cohen
Andrew D. Cohen is currently professor of applied linguistics in the English as a Second
Language Department at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, where he received the
Scholar of the College award for 2002-2005. With regard to his own experiences abroad, Cohen
was an Experimenter in International Living to Bordeaux, France (summer of 1961), then a
Peace Corps Volunteer in rural community development with the Aymara Indians on the High
Plains of Bolivia (1965-67), and after teaching in the ESL Section of the English Department at
the University of California, Los Angeles (1972-1975), he spent 17 years as a professor at the
School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. He has studied eleven foreign
languages and keeps up seven. He has published articles on the learning, teaching, and
assessment of a second language, on research methods, and on speech acts in pragmatics. His
books include authored and edited volumes on bilingual education, language learning strategies,
language assessment, and research methods. His latest book is a co-edited volume with Diana
Boxer, Studying speaking to inform second language learning (Multilingual Matters, 2004).
During the 2004-2005 academic year he was Visiting Professor at the Department of Applied
Language Studies & Linguistics, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
R. Michael Paige
Dr. R. Michael Paige is Professor of International and Intercultural Education and Chair of the
Department of Educational Policy and Administration (EdPA) at the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Michael has worked as a professional international/intercultural educator for over
35 years in the private and public sectors, beginning with his service as a U.S. Peace Corps
Volunteer English Teacher in Turkey (1965-1967). He has extensive experience as an
intercultural trainer and training consultant having worked with Fortune 500 companies,
universities in the U.S. and abroad, non-profit/community organizations, ministries of education,
and public school districts. Over the course of his career, he has lived and worked in Turkey,
Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Kenya, Hong Kong, Japan, and Australia. He was a Senior
Fulbright Scholar at Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya (1993-94), Visiting Professor at
Nagoya University (2003-04), and Visiting Research Professor at the University of South
Australia (2004). He is a certified IDI trainer/administrator and has also been on the faculty of
the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication since 1979. For the previous six years, he
directed the Culture and Language Project under the auspices of the Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), which focused on how culture can be taught and
how intercultural competence can be facilitated in second language courses at home and abroad.
Michael has also edited Education for the Intercultural Experience (1993) and is the co-editor
with Dale Lange of the newly released volume, Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in
second language learning (2003).
9
Research Assistants
Holly A. Emert
Holly has extensive experience as a foreign language educator (French, Spanish, English as a
Foreign Language) and as an intercultural trainer both within the U.S. and abroad. Her teaching
experience spans a period of over ten years at all levels K-16 (focusing on high school) and
includes experience teaching English as a Foreign Language for one year each in the People’s
Republic of China and in France via the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program. Her intercultural
training work includes trainings in education, government, and other contexts, with particular
emphasis on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and the Intercultural
Development Inventory (Hammer & Bennett, 2001). Holly is a certified IDI consultant. In
addition to her work as an intercultural consultant, she is currently at the dissertation stage of her
doctoral work in Comparative and International Development Education (CIDE) at the
University of Minnesota, specializing in International and Intercultural Education. She holds a
B.A. in French and International Relations as well as a MA in CIDE with a Human Resource
Development Certificate.
Joseph G. Hoff
Joseph Hoff has over 18 years of experience in the international education field that includes the
Assistant Directorship of Brown University’s Office of International Programs. A study abroad
student in Spain during his junior year in college, he has also taught English in Japan, interned at
a small college in Switzerland and volunteered in Tanzania with extensive travel in Asia, Europe
and Latin America. Joe is a certified IDI consultant. He recently received his Ph.D. from the
Comparative and International Development Education (CIDE) program in the Educational
Policy and Administration Department at the University of Minnesota. He holds an M.A. in
International Administration from the School for International Training and a B.A. and a M.A. in
Spanish from Saint Louis University.
Rachel L. Shively
Rachel’s interest in study and travel abroad began with her own experience as a student in a
year-long study abroad program in The Netherlands (1997-98). Then in 2001, she spent eight
months living, working, and learning language and culture in Guatemala and Nicaragua. Since
that time, she has also had the opportunity to travel and volunteer for shorter periods of time in
several other countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Rachel has taught English as a
Second Language and Spanish as a Foreign Language courses in the U.S., and is currently
pursuing a Ph.D. in Hispanic Linguistics at the University of Minnesota, with a focus on
pragmatics and second language acquisition. She has a B.A. in Anthropology from the
University of Arizona, Master’s degrees in Adult Education and Hispanic Linguistics, and in
addition to Spanish, she has studied Dutch, French, and Portuguese.
10
Abstract
This report describes three research studies conducted at the University of Minnesota
focusing on students, study abroad program professionals, and language instructors. The
overarching goal of the three studies combined was to field test the Maximizing Study Abroad
series of three guidebooks for students, program professionals, and language instructors.
Students’ Guide Study
The Students’ Guide study was designed to field test the Students’ Guide and to explore
the impact of a curricular intervention on study abroad students’ second language acquisition,
intercultural development, language learning strategies, and culture learning strategies. The
study utilized an experimental design in which the sample of undergraduate university students
(N=86) was randomly assigned to the treatment/experimental (E) group (N=42) or the control
(C) group (N=44). The students who participated in the study were all studying for one semester
in French- or Spanish-speaking countries and had studied the target language (TL) (i.e., French
or Spanish) for a minimum of 3 semesters prior to going abroad. The sample was made up of
two cohorts of students, the first of which studied abroad during spring semester 2003 and the
second during fall semester 2003.
A set of research instruments was administered to the students prior to and at the
conclusion of their semester studying abroad. Two instruments were utilized to generate
information about background variables: the pre-departure Background Questionnaire and the
Exit Language Contact Profile, which was administered at the conclusion of their sojourn. Four
instruments were employed to examine various aspects of language and culture learning: Speech
Act Measure, Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), Language Strategy Survey (LSS), and
Strategies Inventory for Learning Culture (SILC). The data set also included bi-weekly
electronic journal entries from the E group and a Follow-Up Interview Protocol, which was used
to interview a subsample of the E group several months after the students returned from study
abroad.
The curricular invention – administered only to the E group students – consisted of a two-
hour orientation to the curriculum and to learning speech acts, a copy of the Maximizing Study
Abroad Students’ Guide, and bi-weekly electronic journal assignments in which students
reported on their use of the Guide, on their language and culture strategy use, and on their
reactions to the Guide. C group students also participated in a semester-long study abroad
program, but were not given the orientation or the Guide and did not complete the e-journal
assignments.
While the findings suggest that the intervention did have a positive impact on the E
group’s language and culture, the quantitative evidence was not definitive enough to warrant
making strong claims about the impact of the Students’ Guide. The qualitative results, on the
other hand, indicate that the Guide did have a very positive effect on students’ study abroad
experience, both language- and culture-wise. With regard to language acquisition, significant
differences were found between the E and C groups’ performance on the apologies and requests
on the Speech Act Measure, with the E group gaining significantly more in rated pragmatic
ability than the C group. One reason the E group may have received higher ratings is that the E
Description:8-9. III. Abstract. 10-14. IV. Introduction to the Research Project and to the Maximizing. Study Abroad Guide, and Language Instructors' Guide Studies. 311-320.
