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