of 14
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
1/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 1 | P a g e
Wesson Honors Idea Fund
Language Study Research: Cultural Immersion vs. Technology-Driven Classroom
Learning
Submitted by: Anurup Upadhyay
Project Results
9/15/13
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
2/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction3B. Project Changes.3C. Pre and Post Rosetta Stone4 D. Pre and Post Cultural Immersion5 E. Discussion.....10F. Conclusions/Limitations/Future Directions..13G. Appendices14
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
3/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 3 | P a g e
A. IntroductionOver the course of my first semester and fourth semester at Colby-Sawyer College, I was
introduced to numerous facets of talent through my first year and second year pathway seminars
Torrents of Talent. The class discussions mostly focused on the process of talent development
and the roles that time, effort, interest, innate qualities, and the surrounding environment play
throughout the talent development process. Hugely influenced by these ideas, I have conducted
an independent study on one specific facet of talent developmentthe environmentwhich has
been made possible by the Wesson Honors Idea Fund granted to me in Spring, 2013.
I am passionate about the French language and speak, read, and write French on a basic level.
Hence, my project is centered on the idea of how the development of a talent, in this case,
written and oral communication in French, is affected under two different environments, cultural
exposure in a place where French is the mother tongue of the people, and technology-driven
classroom learning. In this report, I will attempt to subjectively as well as objectively compare
the levels of improvement that I have achieved under these two environments.
B. Project ChangesThe project saw two minor changes during the cultural immersion portion of the study. They
have been outlined below:
Change 1: Change of venue
Although I attempted to get in touch with Professor Delphine Hills contacts at lAuberge
Internationale de Rivire-du-Loup in the province of Quebec (PQ), I was unable to receive any
confirmation from the hostel. Therefore, taking into consideration the suggestions from Kate
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
4/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 4 | P a g e
Seamans, Assistant Director of College Communications and a Wesson Honors Idea Fund
Committee member, I successfully arranged a homestay with a family in Quebec City, PQ,
through www.airbnb.com, a website that provides a platform for individuals referred to as
hosts, generally private parties, to rent unoccupied living space and other short-term lodging to
guests. My hosts, Dan Rodrigue and Maryse Gaudet-Lebrun, referred to as Dan and Maryse from
hereon, assisted me with the cultural immersion portion of the study.
Change 2: Cultural Immersion Assessments
Unlike what was outlined in my project proposal, Dan and Maryse conducted the pre and
post cultural immersion assessments of my French speaking and listening skills instead of
Professor Hill. Similarly, I used an online French assessment tool to evaluate my writing and
grammar skills before and after the immersion. Therefore, the proposed exams before and after
cultural immersion were not taken. Details on these changes will follow in this report.
C. Pre and Post Rosetta StoneOn Friday, March 29
th, I took a pre-test before starting the second level of Rosetta Stone
.
Under the supervision of Professor Delphine Hill, I evaluated my skills with French reading,
writing, listening, and speaking. The scores are listed below:
Criteria Full Marks Obtained Marks
Oral Comprehension (Reading + Listening) 25 18
Speaking 25 19.4
Writing + Grammar 50 36
Total 100 73.4
http://www.airbnb.com/http://www.airbnb.com/http://www.airbnb.com/7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
5/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 5 | P a g e
After the completion of the second level of Rosetta Stone, I took a post-test under the
supervision of Professor Hill in June. Most of the components of the test were the same;
however, the questions themselves were somewhat different. The scores are listed below:
Criteria Full Marks Obtained Marks
Oral Comprehension (Reading + Listening) 25 17.5
Speaking 25 19.8
Writing + Grammar 50 46.5
Total 100 83.8
D. Pre and Post Cultural ImmersionI reached the venue of my cultural immersion at Quebec City on August 24
th, 2013, at around
9 PM. I rented a room at Dan and Maryses apartment starting that night up until August 28th
,
2013. Although the stay began that night, my immersion into the French language had started
that afternoon in Montreal, as I traveled to Quebec City via Montreal. That night, after talking to
my hosts for about an hour, they performed the pre-immersion assessment of my French
listening and speaking skills. The assessment criteria were defined by the Assessment and
Qualifications Alliance (AQA), a UK-based organization, and used for French tests given for the
General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) in England. My pre-immersion scores and
additional comments are as follows:
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
6/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 6 | P a g e
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
7/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 7 | P a g e
For the pre-immersion assessment of my French writing and grammar skills, I took an online
test provided by D.B. Linguistics Inc., a Government of Canada-registered supplier of language
learning tools. I took the Level 3 (A) - Intermediate I & II assessment in their website and
attained a score of 30 percent.
Moving on to the ways I immersed into the French language in Quebec City, I actively
conducted the following:
Whenever in the apartment, I conversed with Dan and Maryse only in French (Danmade sure of it). Apart from normal conversations, I spent at least an hour each
evening talking to them in French about topics ranging from how they met and got
married to Nepali weddings to things to do in New Hampshire. Both of them were
responsive as well as serious toward my research and made sure that neither I nor
they switched to English due to discomfort.
Navigation around Quebec City is impossible in English. Everything ranging fromasking for directions to ordering food at restaurants to ensuring that I was on the right
bus had to be done in French. Additionally, all road signs were in French, which
required one to abandon ones English speaking mindset and concentrate en franais.
Luckily, I was accompanied by Sukriti Raut, who had to accomplish 30 surveys onthe public perceptions of the Canadian healthcare system in Quebec City. This
required me to translate her survey questions into French, approach people (samples),
explain to them who we were, what the study was about, and request them to
participate in the same. This was really helpful for my study because I came out much
more confident and competent in terms of proper language etiquette.
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
8/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 8 | P a g e
After five days of successful cultural immersion, Dan and Maryse performed the same
assessment of my French speaking and listening skills, and commented on my improvements, if I
had any. The evaluation is as follows:
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
9/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 9 | P a g e
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
10/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 10 | P a g e
Similarly, for the post-immersion assessment of my French writing and grammar skills, I
took the same online test Level 3 (A) - Intermediate I & II and obtained a score of 30 percent.
My scores saw no change.
E. DiscussionThe results my pre and post Rosetta Stone
assessments are summarized below:
The chart above suggests that while my total score saw a moderate change of 14%, most
of the same is attributable to writing and grammar (29%). While my speaking skills saw a very
small change of 2%, my reading and listening skills actually declined by 3%.
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Oral
Comprehension
Speaking Writing and
Grammar
Total
18 19.4
36
73.4
17.519.8
46.5
83.8
-3%2% 29% 14%
Technology-Driven Classroom Learning
Pre-Rosetta Stone
Post-Rosetta Stone
Percentage Change
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
11/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 11 | P a g e
The results of my pre and post cultural immersion assessments for speaking are
summarized below:
The results of my pre and post cultural immersion assessments for listening are
summarized below:
Pre-Immersion He understands words but not full sentences. We have to talk slowly and
make sure he really understands what we say. He says that when we talk
together, me and my husband, its like we talk in another language. Our accent
is really hard to understand.
Post-
Immersion
He got to see if he was understanding well because he translated a couple of
times for someone who didnt speak French. He understands almost everything
when we speak slow, but cant really understand when we speak to each other
with our expressions and Quebecois accent. And we do speak really fast.
0
5
10
15
20
25
7 6
3 4
20
8 7.5
35
23.5
14% 25% 0% 25% 18%
Cultural Immersion
Pre-Immersion
Post-Immersion
Percentage Change
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
12/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 12 | P a g e
The results of my pre and post cultural immersion assessments for writingand grammar are
summarized below:
Pre-Immersion A 30 percent score.
Post-Immersion A 30 percent score.
Based on the charts and tables above summarizing my language performance before and
after the immersion, what can be underlined is that my speaking skills saw a considerable
improvement of 18% after the cultural immersion of mere five days. Although some facets of
speech improved more than others, the improvement percentage is still significantly higher than
what was seen in the same (3%) after the technology-driven classroom learning conducted for
roughly the same amount of time hour wise.
On the other hand, when it came to writing and grammar, my scores remained static before
and after the cultural immersion (0% change) while the same improved significantly (29%) after
technology-driven classroom learning conducted for roughly the same amount of time hour wise.
When it comes to reading and listening, the evaluations pre and post cultural immersion and
technology-based learning shed some light but only subjectively. Dan and Maryses comments
as well as the decline of 3% that was seen in the scores after the completion of Rosetta Stone
can be explained by the fact that there are vast differences between how native speakers (Dan,
Maryse, Professor Hill) speak and how a language student learns to read and listen to French and
perceives words, phrases, and sentence structures.
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
13/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 13 | P a g e
F. Conclusions/Limitations/Future DirectionsTaking into consideration the changes seen in my French language skills pre and post
technology-based classroom learning and cultural immersion, it can be concluded that cultural
immersion gives quicker results when it comes to speaking a foreign language (18% vs. 3%).
On the other hand, if ones goal is to perfect grammar and writing skills, one might want to stick
to the more conventional methods of language learning, one of them being technology-driven
classroom learning tools such as the Rosetta Stone
(0% vs. 29%). When talking about oral
comprehension, I am not able to provide confident recommendations as to what might be better
purely based on this research project.
Moving on to the limitations of my research project, time and sample size are definitely the
major ones. Because of the fact that the sample [only one in numberI] was exposed to both of
these methods of language learning for a very short period of time, it was rather challenging to
identify minute differences in the effectiveness of each learning technique. Additionally, due to
unforeseen developments, I was unable to keep the method of evaluation of my language skills
for the two learning methods the same. This might have skewed the results to some level
[although, I would like to add that I have tried to remain as objective and honest as possible].
Moving forward, the research can be redesigned in a way that eliminates the limitations
discussed above: sample size, timeframe, and evaluation method. This would allow the
researcher to identify even the smallest differences seen in his/her samples language growth.
Implementation of these recommendations would require a larger investment of time and money.
However, I certainly believe that this is a research area that needs more attention and offers
boundless opportunities.
7/27/2019 Cultural Immersion vs. Technology Driven Language Learning
14/14
W e s s o n H o n o r s I d e a F u n d R e s e a r c h R e s u l t s 14 | P a g e
G. APPENDICES
Photo 1: Dan and Maryse work on the pre cultural immersion assessment.
Photo 2: Maryse works on the post cultural immersion assessment.
