2.1 Quantitative research

Quantitative research, by definition, involves numbers: scores, statistics, and correlations. Broadly speaking, quantitative methods involve the ‘tallying, manipulation or systematic aggregation of quantities of data’ (Henning Reference Henning1986: 702). Its main purposes are to examine patterns in the data and to determine relationships among variables. Through quantitative analyses, researchers can determine what is typical and how much variation there is in the results, e.g., ‘What is the average change in listening test scores over SA?’ or ‘What is the range of performance on post-SA proficiency measures?’ Quantitative methods are particularly suited to exploring relationships between phenomena, e.g., ‘What is the relationship between preprogram proficiency and development of intercultural sensitivity?’ or to questions testing hypotheses, for example, ‘Does strategy training improve student outcomes on SA?’ Research exploring relationships is referred to as ‘associational,’ ‘correlational,’ or ‘survey’ (Creswell Reference Creswell2013). The goal of associational research is to determine whether a relationship exists among factors and, if so, to measure the strength of the relationship. Researchers undertaking associational studies are not interested in controlling every variable possible to determine causation, but instead they focus on correlation, or co-occurrence of variables.

In contrast to correlational studies, the goal of experimental studies is to establish causation as clearly as possible. In experimental studies, researchers deliberately manipulate variables in order to determine the effect of one variable on another. A true experiment must contain both a control group (receiving no treatment) and a treatment group (exposed to the intervention) to which participants must be randomly assigned (Creswell Reference Creswell2013). However, in SA research, true experiments can be very difficult to arrange. Random assignment of participants to one group or another is nearly impossible due to the expense involved in SA. Furthermore, student responses to being assigned without choosing SA or formal instruction at a home institution (AH) experiences can lead to motivational challenges. Huebner (Reference Huebner and Freed1995) is the only study in this report involving an experimental design, utilizing randomly assigned control (AH) and experimental (SA) groups participating in 9-week programs comparable in classroom hours, pedagogical approach, and so on. Five out of 23 of Huebner's participants dropped out during the study, with motivation being a key factor, leaving only ten abroad and eight AH. Small numbers like these make it difficult to draw conclusions that can be applied beyond the group of participants. While Huebner's SA learners out-gained AH controls on virtually every measure of language gain, these differences were not statistically significant. Huebner writes, ‘With small numbers of students, tests of statistical significance have very low power.’ Therefore, ‘how the results . . . can be generalized to the possible performance of future students is the central question, which sadly cannot adequately be answered by the inferential statistical methods employed’ (pp. 183–184). Due to the challenges of random assignment and creation of comparable control groups of adequate size to draw inferences, most attempts at experimental research in SA are, therefore, best categorized as either ‘pre-experimental’ or ‘quasi-experimental.’

Pre-experimental research is so named because the design involves a treatment given to one group as in an experimental study but does not include a control group (Creswell Reference Creswell2013). The one-group pretest and posttest design that is so common to SA research thus qualifies as ‘pre-experimental.’ Examples of this method include Martinsen's (Reference Martinsen2010) study of the development of learners’ spoken Spanish following a 6-week SA program or Dewaele, Comanaru & Faraco's (Reference Dewaele, Comanaru, Faraco, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015) study of the effect of SA on the anxiety levels and willingness to communicate of students. Pre-experimental designs are typically thought to be useful for generation of hypotheses that can be tested later with more rigorous methods, but they are often the only option SA researchers have and seldom lead to more carefully controlled follow-up studies.

Quasi-experimental design involves a treatment group and a control group, but the groups are not randomly assigned (Creswell Reference Creswell2013). SA research comparing the linguistic skills of self-selecting students on SA (the treatment) and control students enrolled in formal traditional instruction AH or in domestic IM programs thus represents ‘quasi-experimental’ work. Examples of such studies include Dewey's (Reference Dewey2004) comparison of gains in reading comprehension of learners of Japanese in SA and IM settings. Similarly, Cubillos, Chieffo & Fan (Reference Cubillos, Chieffo and Fan2008) compare listening comprehension results for American learners of Spanish in Spain and Costa Rica with students enrolled in a course of similar length at home, and Juan-Garau, Salazar-Noguera & Prieto-Arranz (Reference Juan-Garau, Salazar-Noguera, Prieto-Arranz and Pérez-Vidal2014) contrast the overall L2 English competence, motivation, and beliefs of comparable AH and SA learners. Taking a different quasi-experimental approach, other studies compare SA students receiving a specific treatment such as homestay placement (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton & Paige Reference Vande Berg, Connor-Linton and Paige2009), work placement (Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura & McManus Reference Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015), or pre-departure orientation (Vande Berg et al. Reference Vande Berg, Connor-Linton and Paige2009) to control students not receiving the treatments. These studies improve on pre-experimental designs in that they can give a stronger indication that the treatment (SA, homestay placement, etc.) is effective. As Larsen-Freeman & Long (Reference Larsen-Freeman and Long2014) note, ‘Quasi-experiments exist as compromises for those interested in studying human behavior in naturally occurring settings in which complete experimental control is difficult, if not impossible’ (p. 22).

There are considerations in quantitative research other than selection or assignment of participants. One such consideration is timing of testing. Mackey & Gass (Reference Mackey and Gass2005) describe the following common timing pattern: pretest/posttest, in which some aspect of a learner's language is tested both before and after SA to determine whether SA resulted in any changes. Much of the SA research employs this method, either within a single group or between SA and AH groups (comparing changes from pre to posttesting over time) for each. The Martinsen (Reference Martinsen2010) pre-experimental study referenced above follows a pretest/posttest approach.

Pretest/posttest is a form of a repeated measures testing design. Repeated measures (also referred to as within-subject) involves testing the same individuals more than once—either testing the same person on multiple occasions (time-series) or administering multiple measures to the same people. Repeated measures can be used in both pre-experimental and quasi-experimental designs. McManus, Mitchell & Tracy-Ventura's (Reference McManus, Mitchell and Tracy-Ventura2014) study, comparing the language gains of students in various placement types, involved both multiple measures of linguistic abilities and multiple occasions over a 23-month period. Similarly, Trenchs-Parera & Juan-Garau (Reference Trenchs-Parera, Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal2014) administered a questionnaire on learners’ motivations and beliefs related to language learning four times over the course of learners’ university experience: (1) upon entry to university, (2) after two terms of formal instruction at university and prior to SA, (3) immediately following SA, and (4) 15 months after SA, following 80 hours of additional hours of formal L2 instruction. This longitudinal/time-series study indicated that the initial formal instruction ‘triggered positive changes in self-confidence and intended effort, while SA heightened the development of positive motivational stands, including the reduction of anxiety and the attribution of importance to listening abilities’ (p. 259). These changes held constant following the 15-month post-SA period. The only additional significant change from entry to university to final administration was a drop in the perceived importance of autonomous learning through self-access materials. In short, this study indicates how motivation and beliefs can change in different ways following formal instruction and SA experiences.

Factorial design is a measurement approach in which more than one independent variable and any number of moderating variables (variables that can affect the relationship between independent and dependent variables) are considered. Dewey et al.’s (Reference Dewey, Bown, Baker, Martinsen, Gold and Eggett2014) exploration of factors that influence L2 use during SA employed a factorial design. The researchers examined a variety of variables, including preprogram proficiency, gender, age, and social networks (independent variables), to determine their potential effects on the students’ reported use of the L2 (dependent variable) during SA.

One finding that is apparent in nearly every quantitative study is large amounts of variation (numerically evident in high ranges and standard deviations). Because SA experiences are so varied and complex, quantitative research alone cannot adequately examine them. The research has also consistently shown that individual differences play a prominent role in language learning—or lack thereof—during SA. Quantitative literature has attempted to explicate variables that may affect the differential outcomes associated with SA, but this approach does not always succeed in isolating and explicating variables and can reduce learners’ identities and experiences to an array of variables such as proficiency, motivation, personality, and time on task—measured psychometrically and represented as numbers. Such quantitative studies can give only an incomplete picture of SA, providing rudimentary and at best numerical attention to learners’ motives or dispositions, or to the nature of their experience while abroad. As Kinginger (Reference Kinginger2009: 68) states, ‘In research attempting a maximum level of generalization to whole populations, a recurrent finding is of striking individual differences whose explanation offers only tantalizing glimpses into the nature of SA experiences.’ Coleman (Reference Coleman and Kinginger2013a: 25) agrees, adding, ‘individual trajectories are in fact the essence of recent SA research, in which the focus has shifted from quantitative to qualitative, from product to process, from a search for generalizability to a recognition of complexity and variation.’

Thus, while quantitative studies of SA can answer a number of questions about trends across learners and relationships among factors, qualitative accounts of the SA experience are uniquely positioned to describe the ‘nature of the SA experience.’ In the next section, we provide an overview of qualitative research, its goals, and its methods.

2.2 Qualitative research

A broad definition of qualitative research is ‘any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal values’ (Nkwi, Nyamongo & Ryan Reference Nkwi, Nyamongo and Ryan2001). Qualitative research is the ‘method of choice when researchers seek to understand processes, events, and relationships in the context of the cultural and social situation’ (Sullivan & Ebrahim Reference Sullivan, Ebrahim, Ebrahim and Sullivan1995: 196).

The advantage of qualitative approaches is that they allow scholars to examine SA in all its complexity, exploring multifarious recursive interactions between students’ motivations, identities (Kinginger Reference Kinginger2004; Isabelli-García Reference Isabelli-García, DuFon and Churchill2006; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2008; Allen Reference Allen2010b), their reception by members of the host culture (Pellegrino Reference Pellegrino2005; Isabelli-García Reference Isabelli-García, DuFon and Churchill2006), their attitudes toward the host culture (Isabelli-García Reference Isabelli-García, DuFon and Churchill2006; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2010), and their evaluations of the SA experience (Menard-Warwick & Palmer Reference Menard-Warwick and Palmer2012). Certain methods of qualitative research also allow researchers to examine the place of SA within the greater ‘ideological environment’ (Kinginger Reference Kinginger2004: 222) of FL learning (Gore Reference Gore2005; Trentman & Diao Reference Trentman and Diao2015).

Qualitative research can be conducted in dozens of ways, some methods with long histories behind them. Among the most prominent in SA research are case study, grounded theory, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and conversation analysis. Each tradition differs in terms of research purposes, types of data collected, and, to some extent, methods of data collection and analysis. Van Lier (Reference van Lier and Hinkel2005) offers a useful paradigm for understanding differences in qualitative data analysis. He suggests that qualitative methods differ in the amount of ‘intervention’ specified in the research design, as well as in the degree to which the method is concerned with the individual or with groups. By intervention, we will understand the extent to which researchers work with existing data (including observation of naturally occurring interactions) or elicit data via interviews or journals collected specifically for the purposes of research. Ethnography, some forms of conversation analysis, and discourse analysis involve little intervention, focusing instead on collecting or analyzing existing data. Methods like grounded theory, case study, and biography usually elicit data. In terms of the second dimension, ethnography tends to be more concerned with groups, while biography and narrative analysis are frequently, though not exclusively, focused on individuals; and methods like grounded theory and case study can focus either on groups or on individuals.

To van Lier's (Reference van Lier and Hinkel2005) two dimensions, we add a third—the extent to which data are analyzed linguistically or analyzed for content. In the former, researchers use the data obtained from learners to examine evidence of linguistic or pragmatic development, as in discourse and conversation analysis. In the latter, researchers are concerned not with how the message is encoded, but rather with what the individuals are saying, as in much case study research. In fact, when researchers are primarily interested in the message rather than the medium, the language of interviews and journals is frequently, though not always, in the native language (L1), so as to allow learners to adequately express their thoughts and emotions.

When texts are analyzed linguistically, rather than for content, researchers use methods such as discourse analysis or conversation analysis to analyze samples of natural language. Such studies seek to document language socialization, the nature of learner interactions, and linguistic development over time.

Documenting language socialization and learner interactions involves analysis of conversations between learners and their native-speaking interlocutors, examining how relationships between learners and their hosts are constructed in conversation. Some focus on the discourse patterns that learners and their hosts use in their interactions. Wilkinson's (Reference Wilkinson2002) study, for example, showed how learners and their hosts alike rely heavily on classroom roles and discourse structures to manage their interactions. Other studies document the ways in which the hosts’ perception of foreigners, and their beliefs about foreigners, affect the input and corrective feedback that they provide (Siegal Reference Siegal1996; Cook Reference Cook, DuFon and Churchill2006; Iino Reference Iino, DuFon and Churchill2006; Kinginger et al. Reference Kinginger, Lee, Wu and Tan2016; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Wu, Di and Kinginger2017).

The second line of research employs recordings of naturally occurring conversations to trace learners’ language development. Such studies have focused on the development of pragmatic features of language such as requests (Shively Reference Shively2008, Reference Shively2013) and openings and closings of service encounters (Shively Reference Shively2008). Other studies have examined the development of linguistic accuracy (DeKeyser Reference DeKeyser2010) or acquisition of particular discourse features, like the German particle also (Schirm Reference Schirm2015). Thus, close qualitative analysis of learners’ interactions can document the processes by which they learn particular features of the language and their progress over time.

Another area of qualitative research involves what van Lier (Reference van Lier1994) terms action research. In a 1994 article, van Lier defined action research as ‘small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such intervention’ (p. 32). In response to qualitative (and quantitative) studies that show that learners’ expectations of SA are often not met, and that gaining access to communities of practice in the target culture is often difficult, many researchers have recommended training and other interventions that may help learners to make more of their SA experience. Research has documented the value of such interventions as requiring learners to participate in extracurricular activities and service opportunities (Engle & Engle Reference Engle and Engle1999; Kinginger Reference Kinginger and Higgins2011), to conduct ethnographic research projects while in-country (Jackson Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a; Kinginger Reference Kinginger and Higgins2011; Lee Reference Lee2012), and to keep blogs or other journals during their sojourn (Allen Reference Allen and Kinginger2013). Jackson (Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a) and Kinginger (Reference Kinginger and Higgins2011) both highlight the importance of teaching learners the skills of observation and introspection. Belnap et al. (Reference Belnap, Bown, Dewey, Belnap, Steffen, MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2016) emphasize training in self-regulation as well as the importance of providing regular conversation partners for SA students, particularly when homestays are not an option. Findings suggest that these interventions promote social interaction during SA as well as increased intercultural development.

Over the past two decades, qualitative research in SA has become popular, particularly as a means of understanding the complexities of SA contexts. The vast majority of the research seeks to understand the individual variation noted in variables-based research, and to examine the roles played by social and environmental factors as well as by individual differences. Such research has focused on various language learning behaviors (Pellegrino Reference Pellegrino2005; Isabelli-García Reference Isabelli-García, DuFon and Churchill2006; Magnan & Back Reference Magnan and Back2007) and motivations for learning the L2 and studying abroad. Qualitative research to date has clearly indicated that language learning in SA is, as Kinginger (Reference Kinginger and Higgins2011) states, ‘a dialogic and situated affair whose success depends not only on the attributes and intentions of the student but also the ways in which the student is received within his or her host community’ (p. 60).

Though qualitative research methods have painted a richer picture of SA participants and the communities in which they interact, some scholars have noted limitations to their application to SA research. Kinginger (Reference Kinginger2009) notes a tendency to limit research to the perspectives of the participants, without reference to the host community. For example, much of the research on gender-related incidents examines only student reactions to incidents deemed ‘harassment’ without an attempt to understand the host perceptions and the typical gender-related practices of the community. Thus, scholars have suggested that researchers expand their inquiry to consider all of the stakeholders in a SA program, including the teachers, administrators, host families, and others with whom the learners interact, as in Trentman & Diao (Reference Trentman and Diao2015). Another limitation includes the relative lack of longitudinal studies examining the effects of SA on learners’ language or identities after SA. In response, some SA researchers have also turned attention to the long-term effects of SA. In particular, they have become concerned with the effects of SA on the change in learner identity (see Benson et al. Reference Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott and Brown2013) and have probed learners’ views of themselves a year or two after the experience. However, this type of research is relatively new, and few have had the time to follow a group of learners for more than a year or so after the SA experience.

2.3 Mixed-methods approach

A fruitful and growing approach to SLA research is the mixed-methods approach, in which researchers combine in-depth qualitative analysis of students’ experiences with quantitative documentation of learning outcomes. Among the studies that successfully blend these two lines of inquiry are Isabelli-García (Reference Isabelli-García, DuFon and Churchill2006, Reference Isabelli-García2010), Kinginger (Reference Kinginger2008), Briggs (Reference Briggs2016), Jackson (Reference Jackson2016), and Tracy-Ventura et al. (Reference Tracy-Ventura, Dewaele, Köylü and McManus2016). These studies evaluate measures of linguistic gain against accounts of learners’ experiences in the host culture, contributing to a fine-grained analysis of individual students’ behavior as an intervening variable between aptitude and initial proficiency and language learning success. The earlier studies used small samples, whereas Briggs (Reference Briggs2016) documents the vocabulary strategies of 241 adult SA learners in two learning contexts and Tracy-Ventura et al. (Reference Tracy-Ventura, Dewaele, Köylü and McManus2016) investigate the personality changes of 58 British undergraduate students who spent their third year abroad in a French- or Spanish-speaking country. And Jackson (Reference Jackson2016) researched the language and intercultural learning of 149 Chinese students who participated in a semester-long exchange program in an English-speaking country.

Other mixed-methods projects include the LANGSNAP research project that documents a range of language domains, connecting progress in L2 to a range of individual, social, and contextual variables. The project tracked a cohort of 56 students majoring in French or Spanish before, during, and after spending their year abroad in France, Spain, or Mexico (McManus, Mitchell & Tracy-Ventura Reference McManus, Mitchell and Tracy-Ventura2014; Mitchell Reference Mitchell2015). Klapper & Rees (Reference Klapper and Rees2012) link cases of ‘quantified’ individual progression with qualitative data. The study involved 57 students in total, with an in-depth focus on 12 who either failed to show progress or who showed substantial progress on various measures of linguistic gain.

Qualitative research is an important component of research on SA phenomena, providing a rich picture of individual variables and of the complexity of language learning in varied SA contexts. Combining quantifiable measures of linguistic or intercultural gains with qualitative descriptions of learners’ experiences, beliefs, and behaviors lends validity to the research. Moreover, there is a need to expand the focus of the research to include a broader range of perspectives.

3.1 Modalities of language use

3.2 Communicative competence

The term communicative competence in SLA has undergone much discussion. Although other versions of communicative competence exist (e.g., Hymes Reference Hymes, Pride and Holmes1972; Bachman Reference Bachman1990), we use Canale's (Reference Canale, Richards and Schmidt1983) model that consists of the following competencies: grammatical (vocabulary, word formation, sentence formation, pronunciation, spelling, and semantics), sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse. Of the elements listed in these competencies, we focus here on the SA research trend of studying accuracy development in grammatical and sociolinguistic competence. Moreover, we review those studies that are situated within methods that take into account the social aspect of language use.

SA research encompassing accuracy, defined as ‘the degree of deviancy from a particular norm’ (Housen & Kuiken Reference Housen and Kuiken2009: 3), is normally included within studies of complexity, accuracy, and fluency and ‘cover a wide spectrum of methods in applied linguistics, ranging from holistic and subjective ratings to objective quantitative measures of L2 production. The latter are clearly the preferred method in L2 studies’ (Housen, Kuiken & Vedder Reference Housen, Kuiken, Vedder, Housen, Kuiken and Vedder2012: 8). These authors also note that, although early research in the area of L2 accuracy was more general in nature, a recent trend ‘calls for finer-grained analyses . . . and hence a return to measures targeting more specific subdomains of language and more distinct linguistic features, as a complement to the use of more global measures’ (p. 8). They add that in SLA research, the number of accuracy measures is ‘daunting and partly reflects the lack of consensus on how [they] should be defined as constructs’ (p. 8). Research focusing on accuracy development in SA has typically focused on the number and type of errors in two areas. The first is the SA learners’ development and approximation to NS phonological/phonetic norms, the second is grammatical development toward the prescriptive norm, and the third area discussed in this subsection is development toward target-like interlanguage norms during SA.

5.1 Five categories of SA curriculum

Curricula, syllabi, pedagogical or teaching and learning approaches, specific course materials, readings or textbooks, course assignments, and formative and summative assessments receive little attention in most L2 SA research. This might be surprising given the potential of such to influence the linguistic, communicative, and intercultural learning outcomes that this research measures or explores. Perhaps because most research studies on SA are primarily interested in out-of-class opportunities for language use, studies measuring students’ L2 proficiencies usually provide only minimal description of the curricular program. They provide specific information related to the language research scope and design rather than a commitment to explore pedagogy and programming. Research or scholarly reports that solely or primarily focus on curriculum and pedagogy for SA, or the articulation of SA with domestic curricula, are rare.

More research on curricular issues is needed because, as Engle & Engle (Reference Engle and Engle1999: 43) maintain, ‘curriculum and extracurriculum are intimately linked.’ If instruction is given by a foreign instructor or offered by a foreign partner institution, the cultural norms of the host location will surely already be present in the classroom too—for either positive or negative effect (Brecht & Robinson Reference Brecht, Robinson and Freed1995; Polanyi Reference Polanyi and Freed1995; Bacon Reference Bacon2002; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2004; Pellegrino Reference Pellegrino2005; Churchill Reference Churchill, DuFon and Churchill2006). Nonetheless, the general issue for the field has been not knowing what students are doing in the target language while on SA (Clyne & Rizvi Reference Clyne, Rizvi, Davis and Olsen1998; Adams Reference Adams, DuFon and Churchill2006; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2009 Reference Kinginger2010; cf. Ranta & Meckelborg Reference Ranta and Meckelborg2013). Thoughtful curriculum design ensures that learners are engaging constructively with the SA IM environment. Plews, Breckenridge & Cambre (Reference Plews, Breckenridge and Cambre2010: 18) criticize the curriculum of mere exposure for leaving potential learning ‘to chance and individual initiative,’ and many scholars have called for more effective program structure or curricular interventions (e.g., Bertocchini & Costanzo Reference Bertocchini and Costanzo1996; Brierley & Coleman Reference Brierley and Coleman1997; Engle & Engle Reference Engle and Engle1999, Reference Engle, Engle, Grünzweig and Rinehart2002; Wilkinson Reference Wilkinson2000, Reference Wilkinson and Lavine2001; Byram, Nichols & Stevens Reference Byram, Nichols and Stevens2001; Paige et al. Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002; Vande Berg Reference Vande Berg2007; Jackson Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010; Brewer & Cunningham Reference Brewer, Cunningham, Brewer and Cunningham2009; Vande Berg et al. Reference Vande Berg, Connor-Linton and Paige2009; Vande Berg, Paige & Lou Reference Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Bown, Dewey & Belnap Reference Bown, Dewey, Belnap, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015). After all, students do not acquire L2 skills by their mere presence in that unfiltered environment; rather, they learn ‘through individually constructing and through their membership in various cultural communities, co-constructing the world through the very act of perceiving it’ (Vande Berg et al. Reference Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012: xv). Brewer & Cunningham (Reference Brewer, Cunningham, Brewer and Cunningham2009) identify factors pertinent to curriculum and pedagogy that impede such processing perception and successful SA: when participants remain too much in the company of co-nationals; when excursions are touristic rather than academically engaging; when students’ language skills are insufficient for effective communication; when students lack knowledge of the host culture; when they are unwilling to suspend judgment or take risks or are unprepared to work through disorienting experiences; when programs do not give students opportunities to reflect on and make sense of experiences for themselves, or make new sense of themselves.

A laissez-faire attitude to students’ out-of-class experience of IM in the L2 environment along with either importing domestic L2 class instruction into the host environment or sourcing classes offered by a foreign partner institution might exemplify one curriculum approach to SA. Beyond this, there are four ways in which SA researchers and program designers have attended to the experience of the SA environment also as curriculum and pedagogy. Thus, in the second curriculum category, there is the intentional use of the immersion environment as an extracurricular addition to a standard classroom course (Tang & Choi Reference Tang and Choi2004; Brubaker Reference Brubaker2007; Cohen & Shively Reference Cohen and Shively2007; Di Silvio et al. Reference Di Silvio, Donovan, Malone, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015). Third, there is the explicit integration of course content and IM environment (Tschirner Reference Tschirner2007; Plews Reference Plews2013). Fourth, SA is understood as a process involving the three stages of moving from one place to another and back again (Lewis & Niesenbaum Reference Lewis and Niesenbaum2005; Jackson Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b, Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010). Finally, SA is largely or fully articulated with the domestic degree as a central component and means of achieving the overall curriculum goals (Brockington & Wiedenhoeft Reference Brockington, Wiedenhoeft and Lewin2009; Bathurst & La Brack Reference Bathurst, La Brack, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012).

5.2 Intentional addition

By way of intentional addition to a standard course, some SA programs add features to help learners take advantage of the immersion environment. A variety of interventions are discussed in the literature, including homestay, cultural excursions, and tandem partnerships. Di Silvio et al.’s (Reference Di Silvio, Donovan, Malone, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015) study of homestay interaction provides a rare example of an intervention in this area. Host family members received one hour of training—including understanding their role, typical conversation contexts, and talking prompts—to help encourage meaningful interaction with American students of Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. Brubaker's (Reference Brubaker2007) investigation of a short-term SA program for upper-level German students highlights the need for curricular interventions to help learners engage with the culture. She notes that ‘while culture-specific learning was certainly addressed in and out of class, the concept and process of culture learning was not explicitly presented or discussed, as is the case with most programs’ (p. 121). As a result, the students in her study did not possess a theoretical frame or develop the vocabulary necessary to express their thoughts, feelings, experiences, and observations, and most exhibited a passive attitude toward learning about culture. Thus Brubaker suggests exercises such as an iceberg inventory, cultural and personal differentiation, and other activities described by Paige et al.’s (Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002) Maximizing study abroad to help students focus explicitly on the L2 culture (see also Goldoni Reference Goldoni2007). Such exercises are designed to assist intercultural and language learning but do not necessarily require immediate L2 use; however, Cohen et al. (Reference Cohen, Paige, Shively, Emert and Hoff2005) report statistically significant language gains in students from assigned weekly readings from the Paige et al. (Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002) guide.

In SA programs designed specifically for pre- and in-service teachers, immersive cultural experiences include ‘visiting schools’ (Badia Reference Badia1994: 137) or ‘teacher contact with schools in the host country’ (Roskvist et al. Reference Roskvist, Harvey, Corder and Stacey2013: 7). For example, Tang & Choi (Reference Tang and Choi2004) describe an English IM program for Hong Kong pre-service teachers in Canada and Australia that includes fieldwork in schools. Participants were required to conduct ‘classroom observation, curriculum and lesson planning as well as individual or team teaching with the support of mentor teachers in the schools they are placed’ (p. 53), though this specialist experience was not formally linked to the IM language class or to the ongoing course of study AH. Nonetheless, Tang & Choi claim the international experience led to increased language competence and personal growth. Plews et al. (Reference Plews, Breckenridge and Cambre2010, Reference Plews, Breckenridge, Cambre and Fernandes2014) investigate a residence abroad program for in-service Mexican teachers of English that required them to assist Spanish classes at school and university in Canada. The researchers find that homestay for teachers specifically with host-country teachers or education administrators strengthened professional and disciplinary knowledge and potential access to professional networks.

Engle & Engle (Reference Engle and Engle1999) take a more proactive stance with the extracurricular IM context by recommending mandatory activities that aim to integrate students into the local culture and encourage reflection on the home culture. In addition to the regular academic course and exploring local culture independently or with fellow students, their program in France requires American students to participate in a weekly conversation exchange with a tandem partner (see also, e.g., Badstübner & Ecke Reference Badstübner and Ecke2009; Wilkinson Reference Wilkinson, Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra2012; see Bown et al. Reference Bown, Dewey, Belnap, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015, for hired conversation partners), pursue a personal interest or hobby by joining a local club or organization (see also, e.g., Fraser Reference Fraser2002; Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight Reference Schmidt-Rinehart and Knight2004), and contribute community service (see also, e.g., Kiely & Nielson Reference Kiely and Nielson2003; Lewis & Niesenbaum Reference Lewis and Niesenbaum2005; Parker & Dautoff Reference Parker and Dautoff2007). Engle & Engle (Reference Engle and Engle1999) claim that these interventions are enriching since they help students break out of the co-national group passively consuming the SA destination and instead engage with it personally. The success of these activities depends on the foreign tandem partners’ self-interest in connecting with the SA students, the students’ linguistic preparation (especially for pursuing their personal interest or hobby), student mentoring, and the fact that the students had selected the program precisely because it offered such mandatory components (for a recent review of the program, see Engle & Engle Reference Engle, Engle, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). Vande Berg et al. (Reference Vande Berg, Connor-Linton and Paige2009) found that the cultural mentoring in their program positively affected language proficiency and intercultural development.

Another intervention includes journaling, which facilitates reflections on homestay experiences and informal interactions with local people and culture. Plews & Misfeldt (Reference Plews and Misfeldt2016) indicate that most student journals discussed in SA research are introduced as part of the research study design to gather data on intercultural awareness and not as a pedagogical intervention (in the target language) intended to enhance students’ language acquisition or linguistic awareness. In fact, Paige et al. (Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002), who describe procedures for effective use of journaling, view this activity primarily as a tool for culture learning rather than language learning. However, in a small number of studies, journals are used as pedagogical interventions to facilitate language learning. For example, Bown et al. (Reference Bown, Dewey, Belnap, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015) describe the use of ‘weekly speaking journals’ in which learners reflected on their interactions in the previous week and planned ways to improve their interactions in the coming week. Nevertheless, in this study, students wrote their journals in their L1. In a program described by Rollmann (Reference Rollmann, Lorey, Plews and Rieger2007), students wrote in their L2 to record their daily experiences and list new vocabulary. However, they were allowed to choose between the L1 or the L2 to record their impressions of the culture and to discuss problems.

Journals can also be used to help learners reflect on cultural differences, especially if, as Paige et al. (Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002) suggest, they are not viewed as mere records of itinerary. Instead, the authors propose structuring journal assignments according to four categories: impressions (of people, places, things, ideas, etc.), descriptive (a picture of an event, etc.), narrative (stories of experiences), and expressive (evaluations). Ingram (Reference Ingram2005) and Raschio (Reference Raschio2001) describe programs in which students kept journals to record and interpret differences between their home country and the host country. In Bridges’ (Reference Bridges2007) study, journals allowed pre-service teachers studying abroad in Australia to gauge progress in intercultural and interpersonal development, confidence in English, and awareness of personal language proficiency, and to raise critical awareness of language use, pedagogy and classroom practice, and both Hong Kong and Australian culture.

Blogging represents a contemporary form of journaling. Lee (Reference Lee2011) analyzes the use of personal blogs, a class blog, and project blogs by Americans in Spain to increase engagement with the target culture and interactions with Spanish speakers out of class. She concludes that the interaction with Spaniards and the collaboration required by the blogs increased students’ learner autonomy, sense of belonging, and ability to compare and exchange ideas about the two cultures, which led to intercultural competence development.

5.3 Explicit integration

The third category concerns programming that formally combines language and culture course content and assignments with engagement with the IM environment and community. Particular teaching and learning approaches are central to this endeavor, as is the intention to avoid remaining ‘touristic’ (Lewis & Niesenbaum Reference Lewis and Niesenbaum2005: 258). Tschirner's (Reference Tschirner2007) study of an intensive IM for pre- and in-service American teachers of German included curriculum or program structures such as knowledge about the development of oral proficiency, intensive language instruction, as well as course projects designed to increase interaction with locals and homestays and/or tandem partners. Thus, in addition to three hours of daily intensive language practice through task- and genre-based instruction, participants in this program had to work for a further three hours daily on small-group cultural research projects for in-course presentations.

Similar to Tschirner's project-based course component, Plews (Reference Plews2013) used task-based language teaching in an intensive advanced German language and culture IM course to raise students’ sense of personal, emotional, and creative ownership of the target language. All class tasks (e.g., drawing family trees, visiting a Turkish restaurant, mapping the local Turkish-German community, investigating the rules of romantic dating, designing local flyers) and the themes of the capstone task (individual ethnographic studies) were related to a contemporary novel read in the course. Misfeldt (Reference Misfeldt, Plews and Schmenk2013) used the reading of a novel and drama pedagogy in an upper-intermediate course in the same program to encourage students to engage with Germans and German culture, and to build vocabulary through personal experience, discussing challenging topics with each other and their hosts, and access different kinds of intercultural knowledge and self-knowledge.

Ethnography is emerging as an especially popular and effective approach for integrating the experience of IM into the SA curriculum (Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Byram, Baro, Jordan and Street2001). In preparing ethnographic assignments, students are taught techniques for participant observation, making field notes, keeping a reflective journal, attentive interviewing, and processing and analyzing data. The presentation of the ethnographic study is fundamental to completing the process. Jackson (Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b, Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010) describes ethnographic research as a central component of a short-term SA. She chooses this approach since ‘ethnographic projects require sojourners to move beyond the safety of their group and venture into unfamiliar territory,’ ultimately using unscripted language for purposeful communication (Reference Jackson2006b: 93). Participants in Thompson's (Reference Thompson2002) investigation of American teachers of Spanish studying in Spain gained considerable conversational interaction with L1 Spanish speakers by conducting ethnographic interviews on topics of their own choice. These interviews helped learners refresh their linguistic knowledge, acquire cultural knowledge, and improve their attitudes toward Spaniards.

Brockington & Wiedenhoeft (Reference Brockington, Wiedenhoeft and Lewin2009) report on two projects that enrich students’ language, offer meaningful interaction with L2 speakers, involve learners in their own cultural learning process, increase their knowledge of other cultures, and enable self-reflection. The two projects include the Earlham College ethnographic project, undertaken as part of a field studies course or internship abroad, and Kalamazoo College's ethnographic-like project, the Integrative Cultural Research Project (ICRP), reworked from the former program. Whereas the Earlham College project tries to shape students’ worldview by having them critically compare their local placement with home, the ICRP engages with local communities in order to acquire an ‘understanding [of] how and where the activity at the project site is located in a larger cultural context’ (p. 126). Here, the L2 is used to increase the participants’ firsthand experience and understanding of the everyday lives of local people not solely for the participants’ sake, but for the sake of the hosts. At stake for the participants is achieving meaningful interaction with local people and improving analytical skills. In this project, students learn and use the ethical transformative method of DIVE: ‘Describe in value neutral terms. Interpret what is happening within the local context. Verify your interpretation with a local person. Evaluate how well it seems to be working within the local context’ (p. 126). Brockington & Wiedenhoeft underline that description and reflection are key to the success of ICRP since they help students come to terms with the external observations and challenges and internal feelings of dissonance presented by the SA context and thereby make sense of their surroundings. But it is unclear whether the description and reflection are written in the L2.

5.4 Three-stage process

The fourth way of attending to the immersion environment as curriculum and pedagogy conceives the L2 SA experience as part of a learning process or cycle of (two or) three stages that begins with guided preparation before departure, optimally includes specified engagement beyond the classroom during the sojourn, and preferably continues with a reflective and interpretive project drawing on SA experiences after returning to the home campus. This thinking underlies the culture- and language-learning strategies in Paige et al.’s (Reference Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi and Lassegard2002) Maximizing study abroad, in which activities for intercultural learning and each language skill are subdivided for pre-departure, in-country, and post-study-abroad. This category concerns a smaller group of reported programs for ‘typical study abroad programs’ and ‘do not include pre- or post-sojourn elements or specially designed components during the study abroad’ (Jackson Reference Jackson2006b: 94). In these examples, the pre-departure phase involves more than a general travel orientation offered by the home institution, ranging from linking to course content already discussed on campus (Lewis & Niesenbaum Reference Lewis and Niesenbaum2005) to a preceding course with directed readings and discussion of expectations in addition to previewing the itinerary and other practical information (Ingram Reference Ingram2005; Wolf Reference Wolf2007; Schwieter & Kunert Reference Schwieter, Kunert, Chamness Miller, Watze and Mantero2012), web-based courses (Rollmann Reference Rollmann, Lorey, Plews and Rieger2007), chat or other online exchanges (Godwin-Jones Reference Godwin-Jones2016), or an intercultural communication course and the development of research skills required for ethnographic work (Jackson Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b, Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2009, Reference Jackson2010; Lou & Bosley Reference Lou, Bosley, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). The short-term German program described by Rollmann (Reference Rollmann, Lorey, Plews and Rieger2007) comprises three courses that begin online 12 weeks prior to the SA component. These courses are domestic courses revised to focus on practical vocabulary building for visiting Germany, the local history and culture of the destination city, and conversation practice (to enable students to describe themselves and where they come from) and grammar review, and are completed overseas in combination with a language class for international students and optional excursions offered by the partner institution. Dewaele et al. (Reference Dewaele, Comanaru, Faraco, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015) prove that a 2–4-week on-site pre-sessional course had a positive impact on participants’ affect and willingness to communicate by preparing them for French social and academic life.

The in- and post-sojourn components of the three-stage SA programs often require journals or the collection of material and data for ethnographic study that are then reviewed and analyzed for the purpose of term papers, class presentations, or ongoing work on the student's sense of linguistic and (inter-)cultural self (Jackson Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b; Wolf Reference Wolf2007). However, even when a contextualized pre-departure and in-program curriculum is provided, post-sojourn activities can still be lacking or concern informal choices such as enrolling in further language courses, recalling the SA experience for outreach presentations or independent study credits, attending another SA program, and opting for a major in languages (e.g., Ingram Reference Ingram2005; Rollmann Reference Rollmann, Lorey, Plews and Rieger2007; Wolf Reference Wolf2007). Wilson et al. (Reference Wilson, Brain, Brown, Gaind, Radan and Redmond2016) highlight the need to go beyond the typical institutional, optional reintegration session to realize the full potential of SA as experiential learning. They suggest requiring a critically reflective project that is researched while abroad, developed AH, and presented to fellow returnees, newly arrived international students, and non-SA students on the home campus. Digital technology offers possibilities for extending the participants’ reflections and insights for the benefit of future participants (Rodríguez Reference Rodríguez2010; Hampton Reference Hampton, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015; Godwin-Jones Reference Godwin-Jones2016). Also, Hampton (Reference Hampton2016) describes a novel UK Routes into Languages project in which British undergraduate students of French volunteer to collect realia with linguistic and cultural value during their year abroad to enhance language education at UK secondary schools after their return home. Her data show that the social engagement required when acting as cultural intermediaries enhanced the participants’ experience.

One of the most extensively analyzed examples of the three-stage SA curriculum process is provided by Jackson's (Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b, Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2009, Reference Jackson2010) work on a 5-week ‘Special English Stream’ program, which was designed to enhance the linguistic, communicative, cultural, intellectual, and interpersonal knowledge and skills of Hong Kong English majors. The program goals were based on Byram's (Reference Byram1997) model of intercultural communicative competence and addressed ethnocentrism, cultural world views, native-speaker communication, and the critical evaluation of both host and home cultures. The initial stage included a literature seminar with readings related to the cultural itinerary and a linguistics seminar in which students developed ethnographic research techniques and were required to conduct a ‘small scale ethnographic project to explore their own cultural world’ (Jackson Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a: 139). The next stage included homestay, courses on English literature, language, and current affairs, a cultural program, informal interaction with other international students, and a field journal to record impressions of intercultural encounters and communication. The subsequent stage involved meetings with the researcher-director to analyze critical incidents described in the students’ diary entries and ethnographic reports. Jackson (Reference Jackson, Byram and Feng2006a, Reference Jackson2006b) finds that language gains varied among the students but that those with positive attitudes and experiences invested more in building relationships and initiated communication more often, and thereby became more confident in speaking English. However, Jackson's (Reference Jackson2009) continued examination cautions that SA is no guarantee of intercultural competence and L2 acquisition, that the two do not necessarily develop in parallel, and that some students might gain an advanced level in the L2 but remain ethnocentric. Nonetheless, she maintains that ‘well-planned pre-sojourn preparation, adequate socio-emotional support during the program, and post-sojourn debriefings can prompt and sustain deeper levels of language and intercultural learning’ (Jackson Reference Jackson2009: 14).

5.5 Full articulation

In the preceding category, courses or tasks within the domestic curriculum serve the SA program's linguistic and intercultural learning goals. In the fifth category of understanding the IM environment as curriculum and pedagogy, SA is fully articulated with and integrated into the domestic curriculum, as the central learning opportunity directly serving the overall curriculum goals. Examples include the aforementioned Earlham and Kalamazoo programs, whose ethnographic studies are discussed by Brockington & Wiedenhoeft (Reference Brockington, Wiedenhoeft and Lewin2009), as well as the SA experience in the School of International Studies at the University of the Pacific described by Bathurst & La Brack (Reference Bathurst, La Brack, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). Streitwieser (Reference Streitwieser and Lewin2009) proposes that research-oriented undergraduate SA shape the 4-year North American degree in order to graduate culturally and globally responsible future professionals (see also Brockington & Wiedenhoeft Reference Brockington, Wiedenhoeft and Lewin2009: 131). The characteristics of such programming would include pre-departure preparation aimed at training students to develop research proposals based on their personal interests and with culturally appropriate research designs for collecting and analyzing data abroad to be approved by the home institution, on-site adviser guidance in relation to being sensitive to the cultural and interactional norms of the foreign context, the ability to conduct research in an L2, and accountability through the thoughtful presentation and use of the research upon return to the home campus (see Streitwieser Reference Streitwieser and Lewin2009: 402–407). Such an extensive integration of SA into the curriculum requires broad institutional structures, including an internationalized curriculum per se, scholarships reserved for SA, a variety of types of SA, and subject courses taught in the target language (see Wanner Reference Wanner and Lewin2009). For these reasons, Wanner (Reference Wanner and Lewin2009) advocates a ‘realistic’ rather than a ‘maximal model,’ hoping that short-term programs will motivate students to incorporate language in their curriculum choices and undertake long-term SA. One example of the realistic model of L2 SA articulated with the domestic curriculum is the integration of Spanish and biology for cultural and environmental conservation in Costa Rica reported by Gorka & Niesenbaum (Reference Gorka and Niesenbaum2001).