Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:35:02.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTEXT OF LEARNING AND SECOND LANGUAGE FLUENCY IN FRENCH: Comparing Regular Classroom, Study Abroad, and Intensive Domestic Immersion Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2004

Barbara F. Freed ,
Norman Segalowitz  and
Dan P. Dewey
Barbara F. Freed
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Norman Segalowitz
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Dan P. Dewey
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared the acquisition of various dimensions of fluency by 28 students of French studying in three different learning contexts: formal language classrooms in an at home (AH) institution, an intensive summer immersion (IM) program, and a study abroad (SA) setting. For the purpose of oral data collection, students participated in oral interviews (similar to the Oral Proficiency Interview) at the beginning and the end of the semester and provided information regarding language use and interactions. Analyses included comparisons of gain scores as a function of the learning context and as a function of the time reported using French outside of class. The main findings that reached statistical significance include: (a) The IM group made significant gains in oral performance in terms of the total number of words spoken, in length of the longest turn, in rate of speech, and in speech fluidity based on a composite of fluidity measures. When compared to the AH group, the SA group made statistically significant gains only in terms of speech fluidity but fewer gains than the IM group. The AH group made no significant gains. (b) The IM students reported that they spoke and wrote French significantly more hours per week than the other two groups. The SA group reported using English more than French (although the difference was not statistically significant) and reported using significantly more English in out-of-class activities than the IM group. (c) Multiple regression analyses revealed that reported hours per week spent writing outside of class was significantly associated with oral fluidity gains.Appreciation is expressed to a number of organizations and individuals without whom this project would not have been brought to completion. Contributions of funding, technical support and expertise, or both are acknowledged from: ACTFL (Elvira Spender and Robert Vicars); Carnegie Mellon University (The Office of the President and Bonnie Youngs in the Department of Modern Languages); The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Concordia University (International Initiatives Research Program, Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science); Concordia University (Randall Halter, Eric Buisson, Christine Brassard, Eowyn Crisfield, Nilmini de Silva, Sarah Frenkiel, and Heather Wilcox); Middlebury College (Clara Yu, Michael Katz, Beth Karnes, Kara Gennarelli, Paula Schwartz, Carol Rifelj, Jean-Claude Redonnet, Guy Spielmann, Beverly Keim, Anna Sun, and Alex Chapin). The authors also thank Nicole Lazar for her helpful statistical advice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 275 - 301
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (2000). On the adaptive control of the False Discovery Rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brecht, R., & Davidson, D. (1991, March). Language acquisition gains in study abroad: Program assessment and modification. Paper presented at the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) Conference on Language Testing, Washington, DC.
Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1991). The empirical study of proficiency gain in study abroad environments of American students of Russian. In D. Davidson (Ed.), American contributions to the 7th International Congress of MAPRIAL ( pp. 123–152). Washington, DC: American Council of Teachers of Russian.
Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1995). Predicting and measuring language gains in study abroad settings. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37–66). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Brecht, R., & Robinson, J. L. (1995). On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: Student reactions in context. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 317–334). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Breiner-Sanders, K., Richter, J., & Chi, T. R. (1999, November). Total language immersion programs: Outcomes and assessments—the Middlebury experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), Dallas, TX.
Breiner-Sanders, K., Lowe, P., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (2000) ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Speaking—revised 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler-Wall, B. (1986). The frequency and function of dysfluencies in native and nonnative conversational discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Chaudron, C. (1987). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1980). Some reasons for hesitating. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 169–180). The Hague: Mouton.
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. (1995). The current state of knowledge concerning student residence abroad. In G. Parker & A. Rouxeville (Eds.), The year abroad (pp. 17–42). London: AFLS/CILT.
Coleman, J. (1998). Language learning and study abroad: The European perspective. Frontiers, 4, 167–203.Google Scholar
Collins, L., Halter, R. H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2000). Quantitative assessment of second language learners' fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 989–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechert, H. W. (1980). Pauses and intonation as indicators of verbal planning in second-language speech productions: Two examples from a case study. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 271–285). The Hague: Mouton.
Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (1987). Psycholinguistic models of production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Deese, J. (1980). Pauses, prosody, and the demands of production in language. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 69–84). The Hague: Mouton.
DeKeyser, R. (1991). Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition and the classroom (pp. 104–118). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Individual differences in L2 fluency: The effect of neurobiological correlates. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 221–249). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dewey, D. (2002). The effects of study context and environment on the acquisition of reading by students of Japanese as a second language during study-abroad and intensive domestic immersion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ejzenberg, R. (1992) Understanding nonnative oral fluency: The role of task structure and discourse variability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Albany.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore (Ed.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing. Modern Language Journal, 82, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, V. (1997, March). Potential negative effects of homestay. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Albany, NY.
Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics: Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition—The interdependence of theory, practice, and research (pp. 459–477). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Freed, B. F. (Ed.). (1995a). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Freed, B. F. (1995b). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting. Frontiers, 4, 31–60.Google Scholar
Freed, B. F., So, S., & Lazar, N. (2003). Language learning abroad: How do gains in written fluency compare with oral fluency in French as a second language? Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin, 34, 34–40.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1961). The distribution of pause duration in speech. Language and Speech, 4, 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Griffiths, R. (1991). Pausological research in an L2 context: A rationale and review of selected studies. Applied Linguistics, 12, 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1980). Linguistic structures and performance structures: Studies in pause distribution. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 91–106). The Hague: Mouton.
Huebner, T. (1995). The effects of overseas language programs: Report on a case study of an intensive Japanese course. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 171–193). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (1979). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language and Society, 3, 181–199.Google Scholar
Kowal, S., & O'Connell, D. C. (1980). Pausological research at Saint Louis University. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 61–68). The Hague: Mouton.
Lafford, B. (1995). Getting into, through, and out of a situation: A comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and “at home.” In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97–121). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1995). A Canadian interprovincial exchange: Evaluating the linguistic impact of a three-month stay in Quebec. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 67–94). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1998). Linguistic development in an immersion context: How advanced learners of Spanish perceive SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, E. (1983). The effects of intensive language instruction on student performance in beginning college French. (Report no. FL013910). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED233601).
Miller, L., & Ginsberg, R. (1995). Folklinguistic theories of language learning. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 293–315). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Möhle, D. (1984). A comparison of the second language speech of different native speakers. In H. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach. (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 26–49). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 51–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Olynyk, M., d'Anglejan, A., & Sankoff, D. (1990). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of speech markers in the native and second language speech of bilinguals. In R. Scarcella, R. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 139–155). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pellegrino, V. (1998). Student perspectives on language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers, 4, 91–120.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 49–60). The Hague: Mouton.
Raupach, M. (1983). Analysis and evaluation of communicative strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 199–201). London: Longman.
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech production. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 114–137). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Raupach, M. (1987). Procedural knowledge in advanced learners of a foreign language. In J. Coleman & R. Towell (Eds.), The advanced language learner (pp. 123–155). London: CILT.
Riggenbach, H. (1989). Nonnative fluency in dialogue versus monologue speech: A microanalytic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1987). Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 45–65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schachter, J., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1996). Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schegloff, E. A. (1981). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Segalowitz, N., Freed, B. F., & Dewey, D. (in preparation). Cognitive factors underlying oral fluency gains.
Segalowitz, N., & Gatbonton, E. (1995). Automaticity and lexical skills in second language fluency: Implications for computer assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Temple, L. (1992). Dysfluencies in learner speech. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (2000). The role of intonation in second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 102–127). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar