The Relationship Among Motivation, Interaction, and the Development of Second Language Oral

Proficiency in a Study-Abroad Context

Author(s): TODD A. HERNÁNDEZ
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter 2010), pp. 600-617
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40959582
Accessed: 10-11-2015 16:42 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The RelationshipAmongMotivation,
and theDevelopment
Interaction,
ofSecond LanguageOral Proficiency
in a Study-Abroad
Context
TODD A. HERNÁNDEZ
Marquette University
ForeignLanguagesand Literatures
PO Box 1881
Milwaukee,WI53201
Email: todd.hernandez@marquette.
edu

The purposeof thisinvestigation wasto examinetheroleof integrative instru-

motivation,
mentalmotivation, and interactionwitha secondlanguage(L2) culturein shapingstudents'
speakingperformance beforeand afterparticipationin a 1-semesterstudy-abroadprogram
in Spain.A 2-partquestionnaire (StudentBackground Information and MotivationIndex),
a languagecontactprofile, and a pretestand posttest interview
simulatedoral proficiency
wereadministered to20 study-abroad The results
participants. highlight3 majorpoints.First,
studentscan indeedimprove theirL2 speakingproficiencyduring a 1-semester
study-abroad
program. Second,thereisa positive between
relationship students' motivation
integrative and
theirinteractionwiththeL2 culture.Third,student contactwiththeSpanishlanguagehasa
effect
significant on theirspeaking improvement. Thedataconfirm theimportance offocusing
thatenhancestudents'
on learningactivities motivation
integrative and withthe
interaction
L2 culturein boththeformal classroom("athome")andin thestudy-abroad program.

THE STUDY-ABROAD EXPERIENCEFORLAN- wellas studentperceptions of the study-abroad

guagelearning subjectof increasing
is a impor- experience(Brecht 8cRobinson, 1995;Douglass,
tancein foreign languageeducation.A number 2006;Kinginger, 2008;Miller8cGinsberg, 1995;
of recentstudieshaveinvestigated thedevelop- Wilkinson, 1998,2002). Together, thesestudies
mentof oral proficiency (Brecht,Davidson,& haveprovided thesecondlanguage(L2) teaching
Ginsberg, 1993,1995;Freed,1995;Magnan,1986; profession criticalinformation
with on howspe-
Magnan& Back,2007;Segalowitz & Freed,2004), cificlanguagefeatures developin a study-abroad
the use of communication (Lafford,
strategies contextand whichexternaland internalfactors
1995,2004), and the acquisitionof grammati- seem to promotelanguagedevelopment. They
cal (Collentine,2004;Duperron,2006; Isabelli, alsosuggestoptimaltimeperiodsforstudy-abroad
2004,2007),pragmatic (Barron,2003;Cohen8c program participation.
2007;Magnan8cBack,2006;Rodriguez,
Shively, The presentinvestigation soughtto expand
2001),and sociolinguistic competence(Barron, thisresearchagenda.It examinedhowmotiva-
2006;Regan,1995,2003). Researchhas also ex- tionand contactwiththe L2 interactto shape
aminedthedevelopment ofnarrative(Collentine, students'speaking performance beforeand after
2004) and phonologicalabilitiesduringstudy- in a one-semester
participation study-abroad pro-
abroadprograms (Diaz-Campos, 2004,2006),as gram.This is one of thefewstudiesto address
theconnections amongstudent motivation, inter-
TheModernLanguageJournal,94, 4, (2010) actionwiththe L2, and speakingimprovement
DOI: 10.HH/j.1540-4781.2010.01053.x on a performance-based speakingtestsuchas a
0026-7902/10/600-617$1.50/0 simulated oralproficiencyinterview (SOPÌ; Cen-
©2010 TheModernLanguageJournal terforAppliedLinguistics, 1995). As such,the

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 601

resultsofthisstudycontributeto thedevelopment vironment,it is oftenassumed thatstudyabroad

of explicitteachingstrategiesand recommenda- is superior to instructionat home because the
tionsforlearningactivitiesin both study-abroad study-abroadexperience offersstudentsgreater
programs and formal college, or "at-home," access to NSs and more varied opportunitiesto
instruction. use the targetlanguage as a tool for exchang-
ing informationand participatingin social and
BACKGROUND interpersonalfunctions(Batstone,2002; Collen-
tine 8c Freed, 2004; Lafford8c Collentine,2006;
Motivation Segalowitz8cFreed, 2004) . As a result,recentre-
search on the effectof studyabroad has focused
Much of the researchaddressingthe effectof on the role of studentinteractionwithNSs in fos-
motivationon L2 learninghas focusedon integra- teringL2 acquisition (Ginsburg8c Miller,2000;
tiveand instrumentalmotivation.1Gardner and Lapkin, Hart, 8c Swain, 1995; Magnan 8c Back,
Lambert (1959) identifiedintegrative motivation 2007; Regan, 1995; Segalowitz8c Freed, 2004).
as (a) an interestin learningthe L2 in order to Numerousresearchershave argued thatfrequent
interactwith the L2 group as well as (b) posi- and sustainedinteractionis an importantpredic-
tiveattitudestowardthe nativespeakers (NSs) of tor of language improvementin a study-abroad
this group and their culture. Instrumental moti- context (Collentine 8c Freed, 2004; Freed, 1995;
vation,in contrast,was defined as an interestin Meara, 1994; Segalowitz 8c Freed, 2004). Both
learningthe L2 in orderto attaina pragmaticob- Lapkin et al. (1995) and Regan (1995) foundthat
jective,such as to enhance futurecareer oppor- studentcontactwithNSs contributedto language
tunities.Withinthisframework, researchershave gain. Ginsburgand Miller (2000), however,in ex-
foundintegrative motivationan importantfactor amininghow students'use of Russianshaped the
in predictingstudentsuccessin the L2 classroom developmentof their speaking proficiency, did
(Dörnyei & Clément,2000; Dörnyei 8c Schmitt, not finda relationshipbetweenRussian-mediated
2001; Ely, 1986; Gardner, 1985, 2000; Gardner language activitiesand speaking improvement.
8c Lambert,1972; Hernández, 2006; Masgoret8c Segalowitzand Freed (2004) comparedthespeak-
Gardner,2003). Gardner and Lambert (1972) ing proficiencyof study-abroadparticipantsin
discovereda positiverelationshipbetween inte- Spain withthatof studentsin an at-homelearn-
grativemotivationand thelanguage achievement ing environmentin the United States.The results
of studentsof French as an L2. Ely (1986) fur- did not reveal a significantrelationshipbetween
ther investigatedthe use of the integrativeand studentcontact with the Spanish language and
instrumentalmotivationparadigm for students gains on an oral proficiency interview(OPI) that
of Spanish as an L2. His factoranalysisof stu- was administeredas a pretestand posttest.Sim-
dent responsesto a questionnaireconfirmedthe ilarly,Magnan and Back (2007) discoveredthat
existence of three motivationfactors:(a) inte- although speakingimprovementis possible dur-
grativemotivation,(b) instrumentalmotivation, ing a one-semesterstudy-abroadprogram,social
and (c) motivationprovidedby the need to ful- interactionwithFrench speakersdid not predict
fill the foreignlanguage requirement.Ramage studentgains in speaking proficiency.Based on
(1990) examined the relationshipbetween mo- theresultsofa postprogramquestionnaire,theau-
tivationand the desire to continue to enroll in thorsargued thatsome study-abroad participants
French or Spanish courses aftercompletingthe might not have investedsufficienttime in the
second yearof highschool. She discovereda pos- kindsof social relationshipswithFrenchspeakers
itiverelationshipbetweeninterestin the L2 cul- thatwere needed to supportsustainedspeaking
ture and intentto continue studyingFrench or improvement.
Spanish. Dörnyeiand Clément (2000) identified Severalrecentstudieson theeffectofthestudy-
integrative motivationas themostimportantcom- abroad contexthavebegun to supplementquanti-
ponent in determininga student'slevel of effort tativemethodsofinvestigation withqualitativeap-
and investment in the language learningprocess.
proaches. Isabelli-Garcia(2006) assessed the role
Research has also found a positiverelationship of attitudes,motivation,and social interactionon
betweenintegrative motivationand L2 oral profi- the speaking performanceof four
study-abroad
ciency(Hernández, 2006). participantsin Buenos Aires,Argentina.The stu-
dents took pretestand posttestSOPIs to mea-
StudentInteraction WiththeL2 sure theirspeaking improvement.Diaries, ques-
tionnaires,and social networklogs also provided
In comparing language learning in a formal data on the students'attitudes,theirmotivation,
college classroom(at home) to a study-abroad en- and the amount of theirsocial interactionwith

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
602 TheModernLanguageJournal

NSs of Spanish.The resultsindicateda positive however, counterto expectations, foundno evi-

relationship between student interaction withNSs dence of a significant relationshipbetweenstu-
and thedevelopment ofspeakingproficiency af- dentmotivation and interaction withNSs. Her
terparticipation intheone-semester study-abroad resultsalso indicatedthattherewasno connec-
program. Isabelli-Garcia also foundthatmotiva- tionbetweenstudentinteraction withNSs and
tionhad a significant effect on studentinterac- speakingscores.She suggested thattheeffect of
tionwiththeL2 culture. One maleparticipant in interaction withNSs on the students'speaking
herstudy, whoexperienced a pretestto posttest performance mighthavebeen moreevidentin
SOPÌ gainof+1, demonstrated a highintegrative a one-semester or longerstudy-abroad program
motivation to studySpanishand understand the thanin theshorter6-weekprogramusedin her
newculture. Hislearnerprofile suggested thathis research.
positiveattitudes andhighmotivation wereimpor- With the exceptionof Freed's (1990) and
tantfactors inhisdevelopment ofsocialnetworks Isabelli-Garcia's
(2006)work, fewstudieshaveex-
withArgentines and his concurrent progressin aminedhowstudent motivationand contactwith
L2 acquisition. thetargetlanguageinteract to foster
L2 acquisi-
Kinginger (2008) examinedthecase histories tionin a study-abroad context.Atthesametime,
ofstudy-abroad participants inFranceseekingin- researchhas suggestedthatintegrative motiva-
sightintothesourcesof thesignificant individ- tion is an important predictorof L2 learning
ual differences in L2 achievement oftenfound (Dornyei& Clément,2000;Dörnyei8cSchmitt,
in study-abroad research.Combiningthe stu- 2001;Gardner, 1985,2000;Masgoret & Gardner,
dents'personalaccountsoftheirstudy-abroad ex- 2003). Researchershave also argued thatthe
periences with documentation of their learning study-abroad contextmightenhancethe effect
outcomes, Kinginger soughtto understand "the of integrative motivation on L2 achievement
relationship amongtheparticipants' histories as (Oxford& Shearin,1994). The presentstudy,
American foreign languagelearners, the nature of therefore,addresses therelationshipbetween mo-
theirinvestment in languagelearning, thequal- tivationand interaction withtheL2 on thedevel-
itiesof theirexperience, and documentedout- opmentofL2 speakingperformance in a study-
comes"(p. 13). She collecteddatathrough inter- abroadenvironment.
views,journalentries,on-siteobservations, and
and
pretest posttest language assessments. As in RESEARCHQUESTIONS
previous studies, her results indicated that the
study-abroad environment was bothproductive The fiveresearchquestionsaddressedin the
and imperfect forthedevelopment of L2 com- wereas follows:
presentstudy
municative competence(p. 107). She foundthat
student in L2 learning thestudy-
in 1. Do study-abroad studentsdemonstrate in-
engagement
abroadcontextwasshapedbycomplexinterac- tegrativeand instrumental motivationto study
tionsamongtheiridentities, actions, perceptions, Spanishas an L2?
and theresources ofhostcommunities (p. 13). 2. To whatextentdo study-abroad studentsuse
Priorto Isabelli-Garcia's (2006) work,Freed theirL2 outsideofclass?
(1990) authoredone ofthefewstudiesto inves- 3. Do study-abroad studentsimprovetheirL2
and interaction oral proficiencyafterparticipating in a one-
tigatetheimpactof motivation
withtheL2 cultureon thespeakingproficiency semester study-abroadprogram?
ofstudents ina study-abroad context. Freed'spar- 4. Does motivation predicttheamountofstu-
ticipantswere40 undergraduate students in a 6- dentinteractionwiththeL2 culture?
5. Does theamountofstudent interactionwith
weekstudy-abroad programin France.The stu-
dentscompleteda questionnaire to assesstheir theL2 culturerelatetogainsinL2 oralproficiency
attitudesandmotivation toward Frenchlanguage after ina one-semester
participation study-abroad
studies.Theyalso tooktheCollegeExamination program?
BoardLanguageAchievement Testandan Amer-
ican Councilon the Teachingof ForeignLan- METHODOLOGY
guages(ACTFL)OPI as pretests and posttests to
measurethegainsin theirgrammar and reading The presentstudyused a pretestand posttest
comprehension skills.Languagecontactprofiles designto examinetherelationships amongmo-
(LCPs),diaries,interviews, and observations pro- interaction
tivation, withtheL2, and L2 speak-
videdestimates ofthestudents' contactwiththe ingproficiencyin a groupofstudy-abroadpartic-
Frenchlanguageoutsideoftheclassroom. Freed, ipantsin Spain.

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 603

Participants jors, gradepointaverages,and priorlanguage

experience.The secondpart,adaptedfromEly
The participants in thepresentstudy consisted (1986) and Gardner(1985), containedtwosub-
of20students fromMarquette University whopar- scales:(a) an Motivation scaleand (b)
Integrative
ticipated in a one-semester study-abroad program an Instrumental Motivation scale.Usinga 4-point
in Madrid,Spain,in thespringsemester of2008. scale,theparticipants indicated theex-
Likert-type
The fourcriteria fora student's participation in tenttowhichdifferent reasonsforstudying Span-
theprogram werethathe orshe(a) spokeEnglish ishwere to them.
important
as a nativelanguage,(b) had a minimum offour
semesters offormalinstruction in Spanishas an Simulated OralProficiency Interview. To assess
L2, (c) did notspeakSpanishat home,and (d) gainsin L2 speaking a
abilities, 45-minute SOPÌ
wasobligatedtocompleteall pretest and posttest wasadministered to all participantsas a pretest
questionnaires andinterviews. in thesecondweekofDecemberof2007priorto
Oftheparticipants, 4 weremale(20%) and 16 theirdeparture forSpain.The students tookthe
werefemale(80%). Theirages rangedfrom18 posttestSOPÌ in Spain at the end of the spring
to 21 years(M = 19.80,SD = 0.83). Theirprior semester (in thesecondweekofMay2008).The
languageexperience variedfrom2.5 to 7.5years SpanishSOPÌ,2availablefromtheCenterforAp-
offormal instruction in Spanishat thesecondary plied Linguistics, is a performance-based, tape-
andpostsecondary levels.Theircumulative grade mediatedtestofspeakingproficiency. Aswiththe
pointaveragesrangedfrom2.60 to 3.80 (M = ACTFLOPI, thepurposeoftheSOPÌ is to elicit
3.47,SD = 0.32). Outofthe20students, 16 (80%) speechsamplesthatare ratedaccordingto the
reportedlivingwithhostfamilies and 4 students ACTFLProficiency Guidelines (ACTFL,1999).The
(20%) livedin apartments withroommates from SOPÌ usesan audiotapeand printedtestbooklet
the UnitedStates(see AppendixA forfurther to obtaina speechsamplefromtheexamineein-
participant information). steadoftheface-to-face interview procedurethat
Alloftheparticipants completeda 3-week ori- is usedfortheOPI. Duringan SOPÌ, theexami-
entation coursein Spainatthebeginning oftheir neelistens toa seriesofspeaking taskson a master
study-abroad program.The purposeof thisori- tapeand recordshisor herresponses on a blank
entation wasto providethemwithopportunities cassette. A globalratingis assignedbycomparing
to practicetheirL2 skillspriorto participating theexaminee'sresponses withthecriteria in the
in regularclassroom instruction. The coursecon- Guidelines. The SOPÌ forthepresentstudycon-
sistedof24 classroom hoursoflanguageinstruc- sistedofa warm-up sectionand 15speaking tasks.
tionwithan emphasis on developing L2 speaking In thewarm-up, thestudents answered questions
and listening abilities.
The students alsoreceived in a simulated conversation witha nativeSpanish
lectureson Spanishart,politics, and culturaldif- speakerand thenrespondedto 15 performance-
ferences betweentheUnitedStatesand Spain,as basedspeakingtasks.The speechfunctions and
wellas a generalintroduction tolifeinMadrid.Af- ACTFLOPI levelsofthesetasksarepresented in
tertheorientation program, thestudy-abroad pro- Table1.
gramparticipants enrolledin fourorfivecourses The SOPÌ wasscoredbytheresearcher and a
through Reunidas (a consortium of coursesde- secondraterwiththeassistanceof theMultime-
signedforU.S. students and offered bySpanish dia RaterTraining Program (MRTP):SpanishVer-
professors fromtheUniversidad de Complutense sion(CenterforAppliedLinguistics, 2006). The
de Madrid). Students also had theoptionoftak- researcher ratedthe pretestand posttestSOPÌ
ingat leastone coursefromtheregularcurricu- tapesofall 20 participants. The secondraterthen
lumoftheComplutense in whichtheywouldbe scoreda totalof 10 ofthesetapesin orderto es-
integrated withSpanishstudents. tablishinterrater The ratersagreedon
reliability.
7 outofthe10 SOPÌ tapes.Thereweredisagree-
Instrumentation mentson threeofthetapes.The ratersreviewed
thesetapesandthenassignednewscores.Theper-
Student Questionnaire. All students completed centageof absoluteagreement washigh(70%),
a questionnaire (seeAppendix B) inthefirst week and the correlation betweenthe tworaterswas
of December2007,priorto participating in the alsohigh(0.91).
study-abroad programin Spain. The question-
naireconsistedof twoparts:(a) StudentBack- LanguageContactProfile.A modifiedLCP
groundInformation and (b) theMotivation In- (Freed,Dewey,Segalowitz, & Halter,2004) con-
dex. The firstpartof the questionnaire asked sistingof 10 itemswas administered to the
aboutthestudents' genders,ages, academic ma- participants at the end of their semester abroad

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
604 TheModernLanguageJournal

TABLE 1 regressionanalysis.For all analyses,alpha was set

Interview
FormatofSimulatedOral Proficiency at .05.
SpeechFunction ACTFL Level
RESULTS
Warm-Up Novice-
Intermediate Students
ResearchQuestion1: Do Study-Abroad
AskingQuestions Intermediate Demonstrate and Instrumental
Integrative
DescribingActivities Intermediate MotivationtoStudySpanishas an L2 ?
GivingDirections Intermediate
Narratingin thePresentTime Advanced The second partofthepreteststudentquestion-
Narratingin thePastTime Advanced naire consistedof twosubscales:IntegrativeMoti-
DiscussingPersonalActivities Intermediate vation (nine items) and InstrumentalMotivation
Explaininga Process Advanced (fouritems). When the scores on thesesubscales
StatingAdvantages and Advanced were calculated, the students'scores on the In-
Disadvantages tegrativeMotivationsubscale (maximumscore =
Supporting an Opinion Superior
on an Impersonal Superior 27) rangedfrom21 to 27 (M = 24.25, SD = 2.05)
Hypothesizing and scores on the InstrumentalMotivationsub-
Topic
Advanced scale (maximumscore = 12) ranged from4 to
SpeakingwithTact
Speakingto PersuadeSomeone Superior 12 (M = 10.70, SD = 1.92). The means and stan-
Proposingand Defendinga Course Superior dard deviationsof the individualitems3on these
ofAction subscales are presentedin Table 2. As indicated
Givinga Talk Superior in Table 2, the twohighestrankeditemswerethe
GivingAdvice Advanced desire to conversewithSpanish speakersin the
United States(Item 18; M = 2.95, SD = 0.22) and
the desire to use Spanish forfuturetravel(Item
(see AppendixC) . The LCP asked thestudentsto
17; M = 2.90, SD = 0.31). In contrast,the two
reportthe number of hours per week that they lowestrankeditemswere learningSpanish in or-
spentin speaking,reading,writing, and listening
der to enhance one's résumé (Item 29; M = 2.45,
activitiesin Spanish outside of class. The sum of
SD = 0.76) and an interestin Hispanic literature
these responsesprovidedthe researcherwithan
and culture(Item 19; M = 2.25, SD = 0.72).
estimateof each student'stotalamount of inter-
actionwiththe L2 culture.
ResearchQuestion2: To WhatExtentDo Study-
Data Analysis AbroadStudentsUseTheirL 2 OutsideofClass?

were
Both descriptiveand inferentialstatistics
used to address the fiveresearchquestions.The
statisticalproceduresincluded the following:de-
scriptiveanalysis,a paired samples i-test,and
The LCP consisted of 10 items. The sum of
these items representedthe number of hours
each weekthatthestudentsparticipatedin speak-
ing, listening,reading, and writingactivitiesin

TABLE2
Index
Meansand StandardDeviationson theMotivation
ItemNo. Subscale DescriptionofItem M SD

18 Integrative To speakwithSpanishspeakersin theUnitedStates 2.95 0.22

17 Integrative To use Spanishforfuturetravel 2.90 0.31
20 Instrumental Need itforfuturecareer 2.90 0.31
28 Integrative To speak withNSs in Spanish 2.90 0.31
22 Integrative To speakanotherlanguage 2.80 0.41
24 Instrumental To increaseemployment opportunities 2.80 0.52
26 Integrative Spanishis an important language 2.70 0.47
23 Integrative To learnabout another culture 2.65 0.59
25 Integrative As partofa well-rounded education 2.60 0.68
27 Instrumental To increaseemployment opportunities 2.55 0.83
21 Integrative To use itwithSpanish-speaking friends 2.50 0.51
29 Instrumental To enhancerésuméor CV 2.45 0.76
19 Integrative Interestin Hispanicliteratureand culture 2.25 0.72
Note.Itemsratedon a 4-pointscale: 0 = notimportant; 1 = slightly 2 = moderately
important; important;
CV = curriculum
3 = veryimportant; vitae;NS = nativespeaker.

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 605
TABLE 3 TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviations on the Language Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies, and
Contact Profile Percentages on the PretestSOPÌ (N = 20)
Item ACTFL Oral
No. Description of Item M SD Proficiency Assigned
Level OPI Value Frequency Percentage
1 Speaking Spanish withNSs 16.80 11.56
9 Writinghomework assignments 9.09 5.58 Superior 10
in Spanish Advanced High 9
8 Listening to Spanish music 7.53 4.40 Advanced Mid 8
6 Listening to Spanish TV and 6.99 4.65 Advanced Low 7
radio Intermediate 6 3 15%
5 Reading email or Internetin 4.38 2.98 High
Spanish Intermediate 5 15 75%
2 Reading Spanish newspapers 3.85 1.99 Mid
3 Reading novels in Spanish 3.65 2.93 Intermediate 4 2 10%
7 Listening to Spanish movies or 3.53 2.85 Low
videos Novice High 3
10 Writingemail in Spanish 3.30 2.66 Novice Mid 2
4 Reading Spanish language 1.58 2.40 Novice Low 1
magazines Total 20 100%
Note.Language contact profilesshowed the number Note.M = 5.05,SD = 0.51;OPI = oralproficiency
in-
of hours per week studentsspent on these activities; terview;SOPÌ = simulated oral proficiencyinterview.
NS = native speaker.
TABLE 5
Means, Standard Deviations, Frequencies, and
Spanish outside of class. The student responses Percentages on the PosttestSOPÌ (N - 20)
on the LCP yielded scores ranging from 31.50 to
1 15.50 hours each week (M = 60.68, SD = 24.98) . ACTFL Oral
As illustrated in Table 3, the three highest ranked Proficiency Assigned
Level OPI Value Frequency Percentage
items on the LCP were speaking Spanish to NSs
or fluent Spanish speakers (Item 1; M = 16.80, Superior 10
SD = 11.56), writing homework assignments in Advanced High 9
Spanish (Item 9; M = 9.09, SD = 5.58), and lis- Advanced Mid 8
Advanced Low 7 8 40%
tening to Spanish music (Item 8; M = 7.53, SD =
Intermediate 6 6 30%
4.40) . The lowest three ranked items were listen-
High
ing to Spanish movies or videos (Item 7; M = 3.53, Intermediate 5 6 30%
SD = 2.85), writing email in Spanish (Item 10;
Mid
M = 3.30, SD = 2.66), and reading Spanish lan-
Intermediate 4
guage magazines (Item 4; M = 1.58, SD = 2.40). Low
Novice High 3
ResearchQuestion3: Do Study-Abroad
Students Novice Mid 2
TheirL2 OralProficiency Novice Low 1
Improve After
Participating
in a One-Semester ? Total 20 100%
Study-AbroadProgram
Note.M = 6.10, SD = 0.85; OPI = oral proficiencyin-
Student pretest and posttest SOPÌ perfor-
terview;SOPÌ = simulated oral proficiencyinterview.
mances were assigned a rating on the ACTFL
Proficiency Scale. These ratings were then con- Posttest SOPÌ scores ranged from intermediate
verted into numerical values for the purpose of mid to advanced low. Table 5 reveals that after
data analysis: from novice low = 1 to superior=10. the study-abroad experience, 6 students (30%)
The students' pretest and posttest SOPÌ scores are received a rating of intermediate mid, 6 students
presented in Tables 4 and 5. (30%) received a rating of intermediate high, and
Table 4 shows that prior to participating in the 8 students (40%) received a rating of advanced
one-semester study-abroad program, 2 students low. Further comparisons of pretest and posttest
(10%) out of the 20 participants received a rating SOPÌ scores revealed that all 20 students main-
of intermediate low, 15 students (75%) received a tained or improved their L2 oral proficiency after
rating of intermediate mid, and 3 students (15%) the one-semester study-abroad program. As seen
were rated intermediate high. in Table 6, 5 (25%) of the 20 students made a gain

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
606 TheModernLanguageJournal
TABLE6 TABLE7
SummaryofParticipant
Pretestand Posttest
SOPÌ SimultaneousMultipleRegressionModel
Scores StudentInteraction
Predicting withtheSecond
LanguageCulture
ACTFL Oral ACTFL Oral
Proficiency Proficiency Variable r ß t p
Student LevelPretest LevelPosttest Gain
Motivation .675 .667 3.660 .002
Integrative
1 Intermediate Mid
Low Intermediate +1 InstrumentalMotivation-.168 -.039 -0.213 .834
2 Intermediate
Low Intermediate
Mid +1
3 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
Mid - dardized regressioncoefficient(t), and (d) the
4 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
Mid - jfr-value The multipleregression
of the ¿-statistic.
5 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
Mid - model was significant R2 = .46, F (2, 17) = 7.14,
Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
Mid -
6 p = .006.
7 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
High +1 The resultsof the regressionanalysisindicated
8 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
High +1 that studentswithhigherintegrativemotivation
9 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
High +1 interactedmore withthe L2 culturethandid the
10 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
High +1
studentswithlowerintegrativemotivation.As in-
11 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate
High +1
12 Intermediate
Mid Intermediate +1 dicated in Table 7, integrativemotivation(ß =
High
13 Mid AdvancedLow
Intermediate +2 .667, t = 3.660, p = .002) was the single signifi-
14 Mid AdvancedLow
Intermediate +2 cant predictorof studentinteractionwiththe L2,
15 Mid AdvancedLow
Intermediate +2 accountingfor45.56% of thevarianceof the stu-
16 Mid AdvancedLow
Intermediate +2 dents' LCP scores.Instrumentalmotivation(ß =
17 Mid AdvancedLow
Intermediate +2 -.039, t = -0.213, p = .834) was not identified
18 HighAdvancedLow
Intermediate +1 as a significantpredictorof studentinteraction.
19 HighAdvancedLow
Intermediate +1
20 HighAdvancedLow
Intermediate +1
ResearchQuestion5: Does theAmountofStudent
Note.SOPÌ = simulatedoralproficiency
interview. WiththeL2 CultureRelatetoGains in
Interaction
L2 OralProficiency
After in a
Participation
One-SemesterStudy-Abroad ?
Program
of +2 on theirpretestto posttestSOPÌ scores.A
total of 11 students(55%) made a gain of +1,
Regression analysiswas conducted to deter-
whereas4 students(20%) did not experience a mine if there was a significantrelationshipbe-
gain. A paired-samples¿-test was thenperformed tween student interactionwith the targetlan-
to determineif the differencebetween the stu-
guage culture and gains in L2 speaking profi-
dents' pretestand posttestSOPÌ scores was sig-
ciency.The students'rawLCP scoreswereentered
nificant.The resultsof the ¿-testrevealed that as the independent, predictor variable. Their
the difference was indeed significant(t = -6.842, SOPÌ gains were entered as the dependent vari-
df = 19,p = .000). The study-abroad participants able. The predictionforSOPÌ gains is indicated
thereforeimprovedin theirL2 speakingabilities in Table 8.
afterone semesterofstudyin Madrid. The regressionmodel was significant R2 = .48,
F (1, 18) = 16.64,p = .001. LCP scores (ß = .693,
Predictthe
ResearchQuestion4: DoesMotivation t = 4.080, p = .001) were identifiedas a signifi-
AmountofStudentInteractionWiththeL2 Culture? cantpredictor.The amountofstudentinteraction
withtheL2 culture(LCP scores) was a significant
Simultaneousmultipleregressionanalysiswas factorin language improvement,accountingfor
performedtodeterminethesignificant predictors 48% of the variance of pretestto posttestSOPÌ
of studentinteractionwiththe L2 culture.The
gains.
students'raw scores on the IntegrativeMotiva-
tion and InstrumentalMotivationsubscaleswere
enteredas the independent,predictorvariables, TABLE8
Pretestto Posttest
RegressionModel Predicting
and LCP scores were entered as the dependent
SOPÌ Gains
variable.The predictionfor studentinteraction
is presented in Table 7. Shown in Table 7 are Variable r ß t p__
the following:(a) the Pearson correlationof the
LanguageContact .693 .693 4.080 .001
predictorwiththe outcome measure (r), (b) the ProfileScore
standardizedregressioncoefficient(ß), (c) the
indicatingthe significanceof the stan-
¿-statistic Note.SOPÌ = simulatedoralproficiency
interview.

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 607
DISCUSSION hadindeedinvested a substantialamountoftime
communicating with NSs in Spanish.However, the
To answerthefirst researchquestion,descrip- highstandarddeviationon thisitemrevealeda
tivestatisticsconfirmed thatthestudy-abroad par- significant variation in thenumberofhoursper
ticipantswerestudying Spanishas an L2 forboth weekthatthestudents wereengagedin speaking
integrative and instrumental reasons.The stu- activities in Spanish.The students'responses on
dentsreportedan interest in speakingwithNSs Item1 of theLCP yieldedscoresrangingfrom
bothin theUnitedStatesand in otherSpanish- 3.5 to 42 hoursper week.This resultsuggests
speakingregions(integrative motivation) as two thatalthoughsomeparticipants spenta consid-
ofthemostimportant reasonsfortakingSpanish erableamountoftimeinteracting withNSs,there
courses.Mostofthestudents werealsointerested werenumerousotherswhodid not takeadvan-
in usingtheirSpanishforfuturetravel(integra- tageofthestudy-abroad contexttoparticipate in
tivemotivation). In addition,almostall partici- the kindsof speechacts thatfosterL2 acquisi-
pantsexpressed an interest in thepragmatic ben- tion(Batstone, 2002;Collentine& Freed,2004;
efitsof Spanishlanguagestudies(instrumental Segalowitz8c Freed,2004; Swain,1985, 1995,
motivation), reporting thatit wasimportant for 2000). Student comments on theLCPfurther con-
themtoknowSpanishinordertoenhancefuture firmed thissituation. Outofthe20participants, 10
careeropportunities. The students' responsesto mentioned thatitwasdifficult to meetand inter-
an open-ended itemon thepretest questionnaire actwithNSs.Aswithstudy-abroad participantsin
(see Item 30 in AppendixB) further confirmed otherrecent studies 8c
(Allen Herron,2003;Ife,
theirinterest in bothintegrative and instrumen- 2000; Kinginger, 2008; Magnan& Back,2007),
talaspectsofstudying Spanish.Forinstance, 5 stu- thesestudents expressedregretovernothaving
dentsmentioned theimportance ofhaving knowl- established a stronger socialnetwork ofNSswith
edge of Spanishin orderto gain a competitive whomtointeract.
edgeina globaljob market (instrumental motiva- The third research question investigated
tion). Thesestudy-abroad participants reiterated whether theparticipants improved theirL2 oral
theirinterest in becomingfluentin Spanishin proficiency afterthe one-semester study-abroad
orderto be able to communicate withNSs,and, program.A paired-samples ¿-testrevealedthat
at thesame time,expressedtheirdesireto use thestudy-abroad participants madesignificant im-
thelanguageforfuture traveltoSpanish-speaking provement on thepretestto posttest SOPÌ, with
countries (integrative motivation). 16 outofthe20 students experiencing a gainof
The secondresearchquestionexaminedthe at least+1 on theACTFLProficiency Scale and
amountofstudentcontactwiththeSpanishlan- 4 students showing no improvement in theirspo-
guage outside of class throughparticipation in ken Spanish. The results of this third research
speaking,writing, reading,and listeningactivi- questionconfirm recentstudiessuggesting that
ties.The resultsof the LCP indicatedthatthe students can indeedimprovetheirL2 oral pro-
students participated in theseactivities foran av- ficiency duringa one-semester study-abroad pro-
erage of60.68 hours per week (M = 60.68,SD = gram(Magnan8cBack,2007;Segalowitz 8cFreed,
24.98).Thisresultdemonstrates thatmostofthe 2004).Segalowitz andFreed(2004) reported that
students tookadvantage ofthestudy-abroad con- theirstudy-abroad groupmade significant gains
texttousetheirSpanishoutsideofclasstointeract on an OPI. A totalof 12 out of 22 study-abroad
withtheL2 culture. Theyreported speaking Span- students experienceda gainof +1 on theirpre-
ishwiththeirhostfamilies, withSpanishfriends, programto postprogram OPI, whereas5 out of
andwiththeirlanguageexchangepartners. They the18at-home students madea gainof+ 1.There
also reportedusingSpanishin barsand restau- wasalso evidenceofsignificant L2 development
rantsandwhileshoppingor makingtravelplans. amongparticipants inMagnanandBack's(2007)
The participants further described,althoughto studyin which12 out of 20 study-abroad par-
a lesserextent,havingengagedin otherSpan- ticipantsshowedimprovement on a pretestto
ishlanguageactivities as well.Theyreported, for posttest OPI.
example,listening to music, watching television, As did severalof the participants in the
readingemailandInternet Websites,andreading Kinginger (2008) and Magnanand Back (2007)
printmediain Spanish. studies,a numberof studentsin the present
At firstglance,it wasencouraging forthere- investigation attributed theirspeakingimprove-
searcherto notethatspeakingSpanishwithNSs mentto timespentwiththeirhostfamilies. A
or fluentspeakerswas the highestrankeditem fewstudents saidthatspeaking withtheirfamilies
on the LCP,whichsuggestedthatthe students gavethemopportunities topracticetheirSpanish

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
608 TheModernLanguageJournal

withoutthe fearof makingmistakes. Another L2 cultureand preprogram to postprogram lan-

student mentioned thatnumerous conversations guagegain.Regression analysisidentified a signif-
withherhostmothergavehertheconfidence to icantrelationship betweentheamountofstudent
speakwithotherNSs.In contrast, 2 students com- contactwiththeSpanishlanguageand improve-
mentedon negativeexperiences withtheirhost menton thepretest toposttest SOPÌ.AsKinginger
families.For 1 studentit was difficult to speak (2008) foundin herresearch, thestudents in the
Spanish at home, even with her host mother, who
presentstudy reported having the most con-
because she had roommates fromthe United tactwiththeL2 culturedevelopedtheirspeaking
States.Another student mentioned thatherhost abilitiesmorethandid thestudents whodid not
parentsdid not interactmuchwithher.These haveas muchcontact. Further examination ofthe
comments addresstheconcernsofRivers(1998), students' individual LCP scoresand theirpretest
Wilkinson (1998),Knightand Schmidt-Rinehartto posttest SOPÌ ratingsprovidesevenmorero-
(2002),Isabelli-Garcia (2006),Kinginger (2008), bustevidenceofthisrelationship. The 5 students
and Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight(2004).These whomade gainsof +2 on theirpreprogram to
investigators reportedon study-abroad students postprogram SOPÌ scoresreportedparticipating
whoexperienced fewmeaningful opportunities to in out-of-classlanguagecontactactivities foran
the
speak target language with their host families. average of 92.30 hours per week. The 11 students
In additiontotheparticipants' comments, data whohada gainof+1 reported an averageof52.36
fromtheLCP also suggestthattherewasa rela- hoursperweekforout-of classlanguageactivities,
tionship betweenthestudents' housingarrange- whereasthe4 students whodidnotexperience a
mentsand theirpreprogram topostprogram lan- gainon thepretest to posttest SOPÌ had an aver-
guagedevelopment. Out ofthe16 students who age of43.75hoursperweek.All together, these
improved on theSOPÌ,15students livedwithhost results confirm theassumption thatstudy-abroad
families.In contrast, 3 outofthe4 students who participants can havesignificant contactwiththe
did notimproveon thepretestto posttest SOPÌ L2 cultureandthatthiscontact, in turn,supports
livedin private apartments withroommates from thedevelopment oforalproficiency (Brechtetal.,
theUnitedStates.Despitesomeresearchers' con- 1995;Isabelli-Garcia, 2006;Magnan8cBack,2007;
cernsthatliving withNSsmightnotcontribute to Segalowitz 8cFreed,2004).
the kindof improvement in speakingthatone Segalowitz and Freed(2004) discovered, how-
wouldexpect(Allen8c Herron,2003; Magnan ever,thatdespitesignificant gainson a pretest
8cBack,2007;Rivers,1998;Segalowitz 8cFreed, to posttest OPI, the amountof out-of-class lan-
2004;Wilkinson, 1998),theresults ofthepresent guage contactdid not have a significant effect
studysuggestthatlivingwithhostfamilies is an on theirstudy-abroad participants' speakingim-
important component of the study-abroad expe- provement. The authors argued that the one-
rience. semester study-abroad experience might nothave
Theresults ofthefourth research questionem- providedthestudents withenoughtimeto make
phasizetheimportance ofintegrative motivation significant languageprogress andthattheamount
intheL2 acquisition process(Dörnyei 8cClément, of language contact might have beeninsufficient
2000;Dörnyei8cSchmitt, 2001; Gardner,1985, to fosterlanguagedevelopment. It is important
2000;Masgoret8cGardner, 2003). Here,there- tonotethatthestudy-abroad participants inSega-
searcheraddressedtheroleofmotivation in pre- lowitzandFreed's study reported participating in
dicting student interaction with the L2 culture. out-of-classlanguage activitiesfor an averageof
Simultaneous multipleregression analysisiden- 18 hours per week. In contrast, the study-abroad
tifiedintegrative motivation as a significant pre- students inthepresent investigation reported par-
dictorof studentinteraction withthe L2. The ticipatinginsimilar out-of-class languageactivities
resultsdemonstrate thatstudy-abroad students foranaverageof60.68hoursperweek.Itmight be
withhigherintegrative motivation hadmorecon- thatthegreater amountofcontactwithNSsgave
tactwiththeSpanishlanguageoutsideofclass- theparticipants in thepresentstudytherequisite
through participation in speaking, reading,writ- time-on-task toimprove theirspokenSpanish.
and
ing, listening -
activities than did thestudents
withlowerintegrative motivation. The issueof RECOMMENDATIONS
whetherthisstudentinteraction had a positive
effect on thestudents' speakingproficiency was The presentinvestigation supportsthevalue
addressed inthefifth andfinalresearch question. of a one-semester study-abroad programand,at
The fifth researchquestionexaminedthere- the same time,highlights the complexities of
lationship betweenstudentinteraction withthe thisexperience. The results confirm thatstudent

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 609
motivation and interaction are important fac- The resultsof thepretestquestionnaire indi-
torsin predicting successin a study-abroad con- catedthatthestudents wereinterested in instru-
text.The following recommendations, presented mentalfactors forstudying Spanish(see Items20,
withinthecontextoftheStandards forForeign Lan- 24, 27, and 29 in AppendixC). The highmean
guageLearningin the21stCentury (NSFLEP, 1999), score(M = 10.70,SD = 1.92)on theInstrumental
seektoforgea strong connection betweentheat- Motivation subscalesuggests thatitisimportant to
homelanguagelearningexperienceand thatof attendto thisaspectofstudents'motivation. In-
study abroad. structors shouldinviteguestspeakerstotheclass-
Withregardto motivation, instructorsshould roomto addresssuchissuesas careeropportuni-
attemptto incorporateactivitiesinto the at- ties,thecurrent andfuture statusofthetarget lan-
home curriculum thatfosterstudents'integra- guagein theUnitedStatesand abroad,and cur-
tivemotivation. Study-abroad programdirectors rentevents(Standards 1.1,1.2,3.1,3.2,and 5.1).
and instructors can thencontinueto promote Withinthestudy-abroad environment, a greater
integrative motivation throughsimilaractivities numberofopportunities shouldalsobe provided
withinthe study-abroad environment. At-home forstudents to developadvanced-level language
andstudy-abroad students, forexample,might in- abilitiesthroughparticipation in structured in-
terview NSsor near-native speakersof the L2 and ternship and volunteer activities(Standards 1.1,
reporton theresultsof theirinterviews in class 1.2,1.3,3.1,3.2,5.1,and 5.2).
(Standardsaddressedare 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, The highstandard deviation on theLCP (M =
3.2,4.2, and 5.1). These activities
allowlearners 60.68, SD = 24.98) suggests somestudents
that
tousethetarget to the
language explore linguistic did not take advantageof thestudy-abroad con-
and cultural differences oftheL2 cultureand to textin ordertoparticipate in thekindsofspeech
reflecton thesimilarities anddifferences between acts thatcontribute to L2 acquisitiongrowth.
theirownculture andtheL2 culture(Hernández, This findingis consistent withthoseof recent
2006). At the same time, instructorscan provide studies (Kinginger, 2008; Magnan8cBack,2007;
students withfrequent and sustainedopportuni- Segalowitz 8cFreed,2004). Asdidtheparticipants
tiesto use theL2 outsideof classthroughpar- in Kinginger 's (2008) study, the participants in
ticipation in a languageexchangeprogram.A thepresentinvestigation expressed an interest in
commonpracticein the study-abroad context, usingthetarget language to connect with NSs out-
languageexchangeprogramsallowstudentsto sidetheclassroom. AsKinginger observed, study-
practicethetargetlanguagewitha languageex- abroadstudents areoftenunaware, however, that
changepartner in a semicontrolled environment thedevelopment of advancedlanguagecompe-
(Standards 1.1,1.2,2.1,2.2,3.2,and 5.1). tencerepresents a long-term effortrequiring a se-
The integration ofauthentic materials intoat- riousinvestment oftime.Study-abroad directors,
homeand study-abroad classrooms providesstu- therefore, shoulddiscusswithstudents theimpor-
dentswithmeaningful opportunities to interact tanceofsocialinteraction withNSsas a keyfactor
withthe L2 cultureand can further enhance in thedevelopment oftheirspeaking proficiency.
theirintegrative motivation. At the same time, Duringorientation, participants shouldbe pro-
theuse of the Internet, radio,L2 satellitetele- videdwithsocialeventsthatallowthemto meet
vision,anddifferent forms ofcomputer-mediated NSsandpractice theirspeaking andlistening abil-
communication - suchas thesocialsoftware pro- ities,as wellas todevelopimportant sociolinguis-
gramSkype(www.skype.com; Coffey 8cBanhidi, ticandpragmatic knowledge oftheL2 (Standards
2007), email,orchatrooms - allprovidean inter- 1.1,1.2,1.3,2.1,2.2,3.2,4.1,4.2,and 5.1). Study-
activeframework forincorporating CultureStan- abroadprogram staffshould,as Kinginger (2008)
dards2.1 and 2.2 intolanguageinstruction. Us- and Magnanand Back (2007) suggested, further
ingSkype,forexample,enablesstudents to use guide study-abroad studentsin developingap-
the targetlanguageas a tool to exchangein- propriate communicative and culturalstrategies
formation withNSs of different L2 communi- (Paige,Cohen,Kappler,Chi,8cLassegard, 2006)
ties (Standards1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 5.1). and providethemwithpredeparture, in-country,
The integration ofa service-learning component, and post-study-abroad sessionsfostering aware-
whether in an at-homeformalclassroomor in a ness of languagelearningand use (Kinginger,
study-abroad context,also allowsstudents to in- 2008). Administrators shouldalso assiststudents
teract withNSsoftheL2 culture(Caldwell, 2007; inestablishing realisticgoalsandexpectations for
Hellebrandt8c Varona,1999; Kiely8c Nielson, theirstudy-abroad experienceand discusswith
2003) and is consistent withthegoalsexpressed themthevalueof participating in extracurricu-
in the Standards. laractivities.To thisend,a questionnaire should

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
610
be administeredto ask about students'hobbies
and interests.Programstaffshould then attempt
to assiststudentsin establishingthe appropriate
contactsin order to pursue theseactivities(Stan-
dards 1.1, 1.2, 5.1, and 5.2).
Student responseson the LCP also indicated
thatit was difficult for them to meet and inter-
act withNSs. Again, as part of study-abroadori-
entation,programstaffshould help studentsde-
velop a strongsocial networkofNSs. As Kinginger
(2008) noted, studentsoften require assistance
in developing,valuing,and nurturingcontacts
withNSs. In addition,the data fromthe LCP sug-
gest that the studentswho lived withhost fami-
lies made more significantpreprogramto post-
programspeakingimprovementthandid the stu-
dentswho livedin privateapartmentswithroom-
matesfromtheUnitedStates.The positiveimpact
of host familiesreported here is an important
findingbecause severalrecent studies (Magnan
& Back,2007; Segalowitz& Freed,2004) have not
foundevidenceofsignificant relationshipsamong
studentinteractionwiththe L2, livingwithhost
families,and the developmentof speakingprofi-
ciency.Study-abroad programs,therefore, should
continue to encourage studentsto live withhost
families,giventhatthislivingenvironmentseems
to be an importantfactorin predictingimprove-
mentin L2 speakingperformance.Furthermore,
the participants'commentson the LCP indicate
the need forstudy-abroadprogramsto examine
how to enhance students'contactwiththeirhost
families.In order to facilitatestudent interac-
tion withtheirhosts,Raschio (2001) suggested
that study-abroadprogramdirectorsencourage
the studentsto use the targetlanguage withtheir
host familiesin specificresearch activitiesthat,
in turn,forman importantcomponent of their
coursework(Standards1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2,
4.2, and 5.1).
CONCLUSION
The presentinvestigation is one of the mostre-
cent studiesto examine the connectionsamong
studentmotivation,interactionwiththe L2, and
speakingimprovementon an SOPÌ. The results
highlightthreemajor points.First,studentscan
improve their L2 speaking proficiencyduring
a one-semesterstudy-abroadprogram. Second,
thereis a positiverelationshipbetweenstudents'
integrativemotivationand theirinteractionwith
the L2 culture.Third, studentcontactwiththe
Spanishlanguage has a significant effecton their
speaking improvement. The data confirmthe
importanceof focusingon at-home and study-
This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal
abroad learningactivitiesthatfosterstudents'in-
tegrativemotivationand interactionwiththe L2
culture.
This studyhas also demonstratedthat future
research is needed to provide greater insight
into the natureof L2 learningin a study-abroad
context.One question may be whetherthe self-
reported measures in the second part of the
pretestquestionnaire(MotivationIndex) and the
posttestLCP are accurate representationsof stu-
dent motivationand subsequentcontactwiththe
Spanish language throughoutthe study-abroad
experience. Future research should therefore
supplementthese quantitativestudieswithqual-
itativeapproaches, such as introspectivepartic-
ipant diaries and interviews, which would allow
the studentsto reflecton theirinteractionswith
NSs duringthe study-abroad experience.In addi-
tion,researchersshouldalso considerusingSkype
as a tool to elicit spontaneous student reflec-
tionsabout theirL2 learningexperiences.Obtain-
ing these kinds of unrehearsedstudentobserva-
tionsmightprovideimportantinformation about
the challengesthatstudy-abroad participantsen-
counterwhen communicatingwithNSs. Future
researchshould also seek to assess the impactof
interventionsdesigned to enhance study-abroad
students'use of language and culturestrategies
(Cohen 8cShively, 2007). In addition,futurestud-
ies should compare the roles of motivationand
interactionwith the L2 in study-abroadand at-
home contextsin order to enhance L2 learning
in both environments.These studiesshould ex-
amine the relationshipsbetweenmotivationand
other areas of language learningsuch as the ac-
quisition of sociolinguisticand pragmaticcom-
petence. Because fewstudieshave addressed the
role of formalclassroomlearningwithina study-
abroad environment,researchersmightbegin to
investigatehow formalclassroominstructionin-
teractswithand shapesL2 acquisitionin thestudy-
abroad context.It is clear thattheseavenuesofre-
searchwillfostergreaterachievementforall lan-
guage learnersin both study-abroad and at-home
learning contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wishtothanktheCollegeofArtsandSciences,De-
ofForeign andthe
andLiteratures,
partment Languages
OfficeofInternational EducationatMarquetteUniver-
sityfortheirfinancial I
support. wouldliketothankPaul
Garciaforhisgenerous supportandguidanceinprepar-
ingthismanuscript. MythankstoKatharine Burnsforre-
I alsothanktheanonymous
searchassistance. reviewers
ToddA. Hernández
commentsand suggestions.A special
fortheirinsightful
studentswho participatedin
thanksto the study-abroad
thisproject.
NOTES
1 in context.In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Secondlanguage
Although not the focus of thisstudy, alternative ap-
proaches to conceptualizingmotivationalso offerin-
sight into the L2 acquisitionprocess (Deci, 1975; Deci
8cRyan,1985; Ushioda, 1998, 2001; Williams8cBurden,
1997). Deci (1975) and Deci and Ryan (1985) distin-
guishedbetweenintrinsicand extrinsicmotivation.The
process-orientedperspective of Williams and Burden
(1997) describeda motivationmodel consistingof initi-
motivation and motivation. In contrast
ating sustaining
to quantitativeresearchon language learningmotiva-
tion,the qualitativeapproach of Ushioda (1998, 2001)
presentedmotivationas an "ongoingprocessofhow the
learnerthinksabout and interprets eventsin relevantL2
learningand L2 relatedexperienceand how such cog-
nitionsand beliefsthenshape subsequentinvolvement
in learning"(2001, p. 122).
1See Kuo and for further discussion of
Jiang (1997)
the SOPÌ and OPI.
à quests and apologies in Spanish and French:Im-
Paired-samples¿-tests were performedto determine
ifthe differences betweenthe highestrankeditem (18)
and the lowestranked items (29, 19) were significant.
The resultsof the ¿-tests revealedthatthese differences Collentine,J. (2004).
= = = =
were significant(t 2.703, df 19, p .014; and t
4.273, df = 19,p = .000, respectively).
REFERENCES
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages). (1999). ACTFL proficiency Deci, E. L., 8c Ryan,R. M. (1985). Intrinsicmotivation
guidelines - Speaking. Hastings-on-Hudson,NY:
Author.
Allen,H., & Herron,C. (2003). A mixed-methodology Díaz-Campos,M. (2004). Contextof learningin the ac-
investigation ofthelinguisticoutcomesofsummer
studyabroad. ForeignLanguageAnnals,36, 370-
385.
Barron,A. (2003). Acquisitionin interlanguage pragmat- Díaz-Campos,M. (2006). The effectof stylein second
ics:Learninghowto do thingswithwordsin a study
abroadcontext. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Barron,A. (2006). Learning to say "you" in German:
The acquisition of sociolinguisticcompetence
in a studyabroad context. In M. DuFon & E.
Churchill(Eds.), Languagelearners in studyabroad
contexts (pp. 59-88). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Batstone,R. (2002). Contexts of engagement:A dis-
course perspectiveon "intake"and "pushed out-
put." System, 30, 1-14.
Brecht,R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg,R. (1993). Pre-
dictorsofforeignlanguagegain duringstudyabroad.
Washington,DC: NationalForeignLanguage Cen-
ter.
This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
611
Brecht,R., Davidson,D., 8cGinsberg,R. (1995). Predic-
torsofforeignlanguage gain duringstudyabroad.
In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisition
in a studyabroadcontext(pp. 37-66). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Brecht,R., 8c Robinson,J. (1995). On the value of for-
mal instruction in studyabroad: Studentreactions
acquisitionin a studyabroadcontext (pp. 317-334).
Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Caldwell,W. (2007). TakingSpanish outsidethe box: A
model forintegrating servicelearningintoforeign
language study.Foreign LanguageAnnals,40, 463-
471.
CenterforAppliedLinguistics(1995). TheSpanishspeak-
ingtest.Washington,DC: Author.
CenterforApplied Linguistics(2006). Multimediarater
trainingprogram(MRTP)- Spanishversion.Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Coffey, C, 8cBanhidiJ. (2007, November).Conversation
goesglobal: Social software takeslanguagelearning
to a new level.Paper presented at the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
Conference,San Antonio,TX.
A. D., 8cShively,R. L. (2007). Acquisitionof re-
Cohen,
pact studyabroad and strategy-building
of inter-
vention.ModernLanguageJournal,91, 189-212.
The effectsof learningcontexts
on morphosyntacticand lexical development.
Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition,26, 227-
248.
Collentine,J., 8c Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context
and itseffectson second language acquisition:In-
troduction.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition,
26, 153-171.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsicmotivation.New York:
Plenum.
and self-determination in humanbehavior. NewYork:
Plenum.
quisitionof Spanish second language phonology.
Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition,26, 249-
273.
language phonology:An analysisof segmentalac-
quisition in studyabroad and regular-classroom
students.In C. A. Klee 8cT. L. Face (Eds.), Selected
proceedings ofthe7thconference on theacquisitionof
Spanishand Portuguese asfirstand secondlanguages
(pp. 26-39). Somerville,MA: Cascadilla Proceed-
ingsProject.
Dörnyei,Z., 8c Clément,R. (2000, April). Motivational
characteristicsoflearningdifferent targetlanguages:
Resultsofa nationwidesurvey.Paper presentedat
the AmericanAssociationforApplied Linguistics
Conference,Vancouver,Canada.
Dornyei,Z., & Schmitt,R. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation and
secondlanguageacquisition.Honolulu: University
of Hawai'i Press.
612
Douglass, K. (2006). From the learner's perspective:
A case studyon motivesand studyabroad. In S.
Wilkinson(Ed.), Insights fromstudyabroadforlan-
guageprograms (pp. 116-133). Boston:Heinle.
Duperron,L. (2006). Studyabroad and the second lan-
guage acquisitionof tense and aspect in French:
Is longer better?In S. Wilkinson(Ed.), Insights
fromstudyabroadfor languageprograms(pp. 45-
71). Boston:Heinle.
Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation:A
descriptiveand causal analysis.ModernLanguage
Journal,70, 28-35.
Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study
abroad context: The effectsof interactiveand
non-interactive contact on grammat-
out-of-class
ical achievement and oral proficiency.In J.
Atlatis (Ed.), Linguistics,language teachingand
languageacquisition:The interdependence oftheory,
practiceand research(pp. 459-477). Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Lin-
guistics.Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Press.
Freed, B. F. (1995). What makesus thinkthatstudents
who studyabroad become fluent?In B. F. Freed
(Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisitionin a studyabroad
context (pp. 123-148). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Freed, B. E, Dewey,D. P., Segalowitz,N., & Halter,R.
(2004). The language contact profile.Studiesin
SecondLanguageAcquisition, 26, 349-356.
Gardner,R. C. (1985). Socialpsychology and secondlan-
guagelearning:Theroleofattitudes and motivation.
London: EdwardArnold.
Gardner,R. C. (2000). Correlation,causation,motiva-
tion,and second language acquisition.Canadian
Psychology, 41, 10-24.
Gardner,R. C, & Lambert,W. E. (1959). Motivational
variablesin second language acquisition. Cana-
dianJournalofPsychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner,R. C, & Lambert,W. E. (1972). Attitudes and
motivation in secondlanguagelearning.Rowley,MA:
Newbury.
Ginsburg,R. B., 8c Miller, L. (2000). What do they
do? Activities of studentsduringstudyabroad. In
R. D. Lambert& E. Shohamy(Eds.), Languagepol-
icyandpedagogy: Essaysin honorofA. RonaldWalton
(pp. 237-261). Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Hellebrandt,J.,8cVarona,L. 1. (Vol. Eds.), Zlotkowski,
E. (SeriesEd.). (1999). Construyendopuentes(build-
ingbridges):Concepts and modelsforservice-learning
inSpanish.Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation
forHigherEducation.
Hernández, T. (2006). Integrativemotivationas a pre-
dictorof success in the intermediateforeignlan-
guage classroom. ForeignLanguage Annals, 39,
605-617.
Ife,A. (2000) . Language learningand residenceabroad:
How self-directed are students?LanguageLearning
Journal,22, 30-37.
Isabelli,C. (2004). Studyabroad foradvanced foreign
language majors: Optimal duration developing
complex structures.In H. Byrnes8c H. Maxim
This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal
(Eds.), Advancedforeignlanguagelearning:A chal-
lengeto collegeprograms(pp. 114-130). Boston:
Heinle.
Isabelli,C. A. (2007). Developmentof the Spanish sub-
junctive by advanced learners:Studyabroad fol-
lowed by at-home instruction.ForeignLanguage
Annals,40, 330-341.
Isabelli-Garcia,C. (2006). Studyabroad social networks,
motivations and attitudes:Implicationsforsecond
language acquisition.In M. DuFon 8cE. Churchill
(Eds.), Language learnersin studyabroadcontexts
(pp. 231-258). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMat-
ters.
Kiely,R., & Nielson, D. (2003). Internationalservice
learning:The importanceof partnerships.Com-
munityy
CollereJournal.73. 39-41.
ou '
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study
abroad: Case studiesofAmericansin France.Mod-
ernLanguageJournal,92, 1-131.
Knight,S. M., 8c Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (2002). En-
hancingthehomestay:Studyabroad fromthehost
family'sperspective.ForeignLanguageAnnals,35,
190-201.
Kuo, J., & Jiang,X. (1997). Assessingthe assessments:
The OPI and the SOPÌ. ForeignLanguageAnnals,
30, 503-512.
Lafford,B. A. (1995). Gettinginto,throughand out of
a survivalsituation:A comparisonof communica-
tivestrategiesused bystudentsstudyingSpanish-
Abroadand "athome." In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second
languageacquisitionin a studyabroadcontext(pp.
97-121). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Lafford,B. A. (2004). The effectof the context of
learning on the use of communicationstrate-
gies by learnersof Spanish as a second language.
Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition,26, 201-
225.
Lafford,B. A., & Collentine,J. (2006). The effectsof
studyabroad and classroomcontextson the ac-
quisitionof Spanish as a second language. In R.
Salaberry8cB. A. Lafford(Eds.) , Theartofteaching
Spanish:Secondlanguageacquisition to
fromresearch
praxis (pp. 103-126). Washington,DC: George-
townUniversity Press.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., 8c Swain,M. (1995). A Canadian
interprovincial exchange: Evaluatingthe linguis-
tic impact of a three-monthstayin Quebec. In
B. F. Freed (Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisitionin a
studyabroadcontext (pp. 67-94) . Amsterdam:Ben-
jamins.
Magnan,S. S. (1986). Assessingspeakingprohciencym
theundergraduatecurriculum:Data fromFrench.
ForeignLanguageAnnals,19, 429-437.
Magnan, S. S., 8c Back, M. (2006). Requesting help
in French:Developingpragmaticfeaturesduring
studyabroad. In S. Wilkinson(Ed.), Insights from
studyabroadfor languageprograms(pp. 22-44) .
Boston:Heinle.
Magnan, S. S., 8c Back, M. (2007). Social interaction
and linguisticgain during studyabroad. Foreign
LanguageAnnals,40, 43-61.
ToddA. Hernández
Masgoret,A. M., & Gardner,R. C. (2003) . Attitudes,mo-
tivation,and second language learning:A meta-
analysisof studiesconducted by Gardnerand as-
sociates.LanguageLearning,53, 123-163.
Meara, P. (1994). The yearabroad and itseffects.Lan-
guageLearningJournal,10, 32-38.
Miller,L., & Ginsberg,R. B. (1995). Folklinguisticthe-
ories of language learning.In B. F. Freed (Ed.),
Secondlanguageacquisitionin a studyabroadcontext
(pp. 293-315). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
NSFLEP (National Standardsin ForeignLanguage Ed-
ucation Project). (1999). Standardsforforeignlan-
guagelearningin the21stcentury. Yonkers,NY: Au-
thor.
Oxford,R. L., & Shearing. (1994). Language learning
motivation:Expandingthetheoreticalframework.
ModernLanguageJournal,78, 12-28.
Paige,R. M., Cohen,A., Kappler,B., Chi,J.,8cLassegard,
J. (2006). Maximizingstudyabroad(2nd ed.). Min-
neapolis: CenterforAdvanced Research on Lan-
guage Acquisition,University of Minnesota.
Ramage,K. (1990). Motivationalfactorsand persistence
in foreignlanguage study.LanguageLearning,40,
182-219.
Raschio,R. A. (2001) . Integrative
activities
forthestudy-
abroad settiner. Hisùania. 84. 534-541.
Regan,V. (1995). The acquisitionof sociolinguisticna-
tivespeech norms:Effectsofa yearabroad on sec-
ond language learnersof French. In B. F. Freed
(Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisitionin a studyabroad
context (pp. 245-268). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Regan,V. (2003) . Sociolinguistics
and languagelearning
in a studyabroad context.Frontiers: TheInterdisci-
plinaryJournalofStudyAbroad,4, 61-90.
Rivers,W. (1998). Is being there enough? The effects
of homestayplacementon language gain during
studyabroad. ForeignLanguage Annals, 31, 492-
500.
Rodriguez,S. (2001). Theperception ofrequestsin Span-
ish byinstructed learnersofSpanish in second-and
foreign-language contexts:
A longitudinal studyofac-
quisitionpatterns.Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion,Indiana University, Bloomington.
Segalowitz,N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context,contact,
and cognitionin oral fluencyacquisition:Learn-
This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
613
ingSpanishin at home and studyabroad contexts.
Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition,26, 173-
199.
Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C, & Knight,S. M. (2004). The
homestay component of study abroad: Three
perspectives.ForeignLanguage Annals, 37, 254-
262.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicativecompetence: Some
roles of comprehensibleinput and comprehen-
sible output in its development.In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguageacquisi-
tion.Cambridge,MA: Newbury.
Swain,M. (1995). Three functionsof outputin second
language learning. In G. Cook 8c B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principleand practicein appliedlinguistics:
Studiesin honourof H. G. Widdowson(pp. 124-
144). Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Swain,M. (2000). The output hypothesisand beyond:
Mediatingacquisition throughcollaborativedia-
logue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
secondlanguagelearning(pp. 97-1 14) . Oxford:Ox-
fordUniversity Press.
Ushioda, E. (1998). Effectivemotivationalthinking:A
cognitivetheoreticalapproach to the study of
language learning motivation.In E. A. Soler 8c
V. C. Espurz (Eds.), Currentissuesin Englishlan-
guagemethodology (pp. 77-89) . Castellòde la Plana,
Spain: Universitate JaumeI.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university:
Exploring the role of motivationalthinking.In
Z. Dörnyei 8c R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivationand
secondlanguage acquisition(Tech. Rep. No. 23,
pp. 93-125). Honolulu: Universityof Hawai'i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
Wilkinson,S. (1998). Study abroad from the partici-
pants'perspective:A challengetocommonbeliefs.
ForeignLanguageAnnals,31, 23-39.
Wilkinson,S. (2002). The omnipresentclassroomdur-
ing summerstudyabroad: Americanstudentsin
conversationwiththeirFrenchhosts.ModernLan-
guageJournal,86, 157-173.
Williams,M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for lan-
guage teachers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
614 TheModernLanguageJournal

APPENDIXA
Information
Participant
Pretest Posttest Housing Integrative Instrumental
Student SOPÌ SOPÌ Arrangement Motivation Motivation LCP

1 Int.Low Int.Mid Family 26 11 94.50

2 Int.Low Int.Mid Family 21 12 45.50
3 Int.Mid Int.Mid Apartment with 23 11 66.50
non-Spanish
4 Int.Mid Int.Mid Apartment with 21 12 42.00
non-Spanish
5 Int.Mid Int.Mid Family 23 12 35.00
6 Int.Mid Int.Mid Apartment with 24 9 31.50
non-Spanish
7 Int.Mid Int.High Family 22 12 49.00
8 Int.Mid Int.High Family 25 11 56.00
9 Int.Mid Int.High Family 27 10 59.00
10 Int.Mid Int.High Family 26 12 52.50
11 Int.Mid Int.High Family 21 11 35.00
12 Int.Mid Int.High Family 24 12 45.50
13 Int.Mid Adv.Low Family 25 4 77.00
14 Int.Mid Adv.Low Family 27 12 115.50
15 Int.Mid Adv.Low Family 26 9 108.50
16 Int.Mid Adv.Low Family 25 10 70.00
17 Int.Mid Adv.Low Family 27 11 90.50
18 Int.High Adv.Low Family 23 12 56.00
19 Int.High Adv.Low Family 23 9 31.50
20 Int.High Adv.Low Apartment with 26 12 52.50
non-Spanish
Note.LCP = LanguageContactProfile;SOPÌ = simulatedoralproficiency
interview.

APPENDIXB
StudentQuestionnaire
PartI. Student Information
Background

1. Gender: a. Male b. Female

2. Age:
3. Whatisyournativelanguage?
a. English b. Spanish c. Other
4. Whatlanguagedo youspeakat home?
a. English b. Spanish c. Other
5. Academicstatus:
a. Freshman b. Sophomore c.Junior d. Senior
e. Other
6. Academicmajor:
7. Cumulativegradepointaveragein all undergraduate courses:
8. Numberoftotalsemesters studyingSpanishat thecollegelevel
(includingthissemester) :
9. Namesofall Spanishcoursestakenat MU priorto Fall 2007:

10. NameofFall 2007 Spanishcourses:

11. NameofSpring2008 Spanishcourses:

12. Numberofsemesters Spanishat thehighschoollevel:

studying

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Todd A. Hernández 615

13. Have you participated in a studyabroad program?

a. Yes b. No
14. Do you plan to participate in a studyabroad program in the future?
a. Yes b. No
15. Do you plan to studytowarda major in Spanish?
a. Yes b. No
16. Do you plan to studytowarda minor in Spanish?
a. Yes b. No

Part II. Language LearningSurvey

Use the followingscale to indicate the degree to which the followingreasons forstudying
Spanish are importantto you.
Rating Scale:
0 = not important
1 = slightlyimportant
2 = moderatelyimportant
3 = veryimportant

/ am takingSpanish because
17. 1 want to use Spanish when I travelto a Spanish-speakingregion.
0 12 3
18. 1 want to be able to converse withSpanish speakers in the United States.
0 12 3
19. I am interestedin Hispanic culture,history,or literature.
0 12 3
20. 1 feel that Spanish may be helpful in myfuturecareer.
0 12 3
21.1 want to be able to use it withSpanish-speakingfriends/acquaintances.
0 12 3
22. 1 want to be able to speak more languages thanjust English.
0 12 3
23. I want to learn about another culture to understand the world better.
0 12 3
24. Spanish may make me a more qualifiedjob candidate.
0 12 3
25. 1 thinkforeignlanguage studyis part of a well-rounded education.
0 12 3
26. 1 feel that Spanish is an importantlanguage in the world.
0 12 3
27. 1 feel that knowledge of Spanish will give me an edge in competing withothers.
0 12 3
28. 1 want to be able to communicate withnative speakers of Spanish.
0 12 3
29. I feel that Spanish will enhance myrésumé or C.V.
0 12 3
30. List additionalreasonsfor takingSpanish courses:

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
616 TheModernLanguageJournal

APPENDIXC
LanguageContactProfile
Pleaseindicatethecoursesthatyouare takingin thespring2008 semester:

COURSE NAME COURSE NUMBER

in Spain:
Indicatethesituationthatbestdescribesyourlivingarrangement

a. I livedwitha Spanish-speaking
hostfamily.
b. withnativeor fluentSpanishspeaker(s) .
I livedin an apartment
c. withotherswhowereNOT nativeor fluentSpanishspeakers.
I livedin an apartment
d. Other:

1. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweekyouspentspeakingin Spanishoutsideofclasswithnativeor

fluentSpanishspeakersduringthissemester.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

2. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek outsideofclassduring

youspentreadingSpanishnewspapers
thissemester.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

youspentreadingnovelsin Spanishoutsideofclass.
3. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

youspentreadingSpanishlanguagemagazinesoutsideof
4. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek
class.
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:
Webpagesin Spanish
youspentreadingemailor Internet
5. Circletheaveragenumberofhourseachweek
outsideofclass.
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ToddA. Hernández 617

6. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek and radiooutsideof

youspentlisteningto Spanishtelevision
class.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

7. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek
youspentlisteningto Spanishmoviesor videosoutsideof
class.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

8. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek
youspentlisteningto Spanishmusicoutsideofclass.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

9. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek homework

youspentwriting in Spanishoutside
assignments
ofclass.

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

10. Circletheaveragenumberof hourseachweek emailin Spanishoutsideofclass.

youspentwriting

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5
24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5
30 30+ Other:

11. Thinkbackto thefirst

weekofyourstudyabroadexperience.Describetheobjectivesthatyouhad at that
timeforyourstudyabroadexperience.
12. Do youthinkthatyouwereable to achievetheseobjectives?
Explain.
13.Whatwasitaboutthestudyabroadexperiencethatmostcontributed toyourlanguagedevelopment?

This content downloaded from 128.119.148.190 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:42:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions