Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-kbzls Total loading time: 1.649 Render date: 2021-04-11T11:27:17.530Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Nina Spada
Affiliation:
McGill University

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study which investigated (a) the separate effects that differences in learners' contact can have on various aspects of proficiency, and (b) the combined effects that differences in informal contact and instructional variation can have on improvement in proficiency. Forty-eight adult learners from three intermediate-level ESL classes participated in the study.

To measure differences in learners' informal contact, a language contact questionnaire was administered. The results revealed both quantitative and qualitative differences in learners' out-of-class contact with the second language. When these differences were examined in relation to learners' performance on seven proficiency measures, correlational analysis revealed that while learners' performance on some measures was related to differences in amount of contact, it was related on other measures to differences in type of contact.

To determine whether differences in contact interacted with instructional variation to produce differences in improvement in proficiency, learners' pre-and post-test scores were examined in relation to contact and class in an analysis of co-variance. The results indicated that learners' informal contact interacted with differences in instruction to produce variation in improvement on two proficiency measures.

The findings are discussed in relation to the need for more class-room-centered research to investigate both the separate and combined effects of learner and instructional variables on second language proficiency.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Allen, J. P. B., Cummins, J., Mougeon, R., & Swain, M.. 1982. The development of bilingual proficiency: Interim report on the first year of research. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
AllenJ. P. B., J. J. P. B., J. 1983. Development of bilingual proficiency: Second year report. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. J., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N.. 1984. The communicative orientation of second language teaching. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R., & Taylor, B. (eds.), On TESOL '83, pp. 231–52. Washington, D.C.:TESOL.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Allen, J., & Fröhlich, M.. 1980. Form-function relationships in second language learning. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals I; 131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comprehensive English language test for speakers of English as a second language. 1970. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Day, R. 1985. The use of the target language in context and second language proficiency. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 257–65. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, J.. 1985. Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 19; 2757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Hartnelt, D.. 1974. Two studies in adult second language learning. Kritikon Litterarum 2; 220–8.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Seliger, H.. 1976. The role of formal and informal environments in second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1980. Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning 30; 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1982. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL '82, pp. 207–25. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly 17; 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. 1980. English language acquisition: The effects of living with an American family. TESOL Quarterly 14; 388–90.Google Scholar
Mason, C. 1971. The relevance of intensive training in English as a foreign language for university students. Language Learning 21; 197204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1980. Theory and research in second language learning: An emerging paradigm. Language Learning 30; 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michigan test of English language proficiency. 1977. Ann Arbor English Language Institute, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Sato, C. 1981. Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL '81, pp. 1124. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. 1977. Does practice make perfect? Language Learning 27; 263–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. 1984. Interaction between type of instruction, informal contact, learner opinions and second language proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Spada, N. 1985. Effects of informal contact on learners' L2 proficiency. TESL Canada Journal 2; 5162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upshur, J. 1968. Four experiments on the relation between language teaching and learning. Language Learning 18; 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 112 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 11th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *