Engineering engagement: Perceived L2 development and short‐term service learning abroad

Abstract

The current study compared perceived language gains between learners of different preprogram proficiencies, academic interests, and genders who participated in the same predeparture preparation and short‐stay service learning program abroad. L2 learners studying Spanish and computer science students participated in a semester‐long program to design two 1‐week technology summer camps for middle school students in the Dominican Republic, followed by a sojourn to the site where participants led all camp learning and social activities. Representative statements from the NCSSFL‐ACTFL Can‐Do Statements (2015) were used to measure students’ self‐assessed predeparture and postdeparture ability in the three modes of communication (interpersonal speaking, interpretive listening, and presentational speaking). Results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in self‐assessed language gain across the modes, with females and students with a higher predeparture proficiency reporting greater gains in perceived language development. Implications for instructional design and implementation of short‐term study abroad are discussed.

Proficiency development and smartphone usage in study abroad: Microgenetic longitudinal case studies of French learners

“…Participants were eight ( N = 8) learners of French selected from 14 students in an SA program in Paris, France, who consented to participate in the research. The selection was conditioned by an Intermediate proficiency criterion to control for similarity in predeparture proficiency (Gaugler & Matheus, 2019). This was determined via a pre‐SA 20‐to‐30‐min ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) administered by a certified tester, subsequently blindly, independently, and anonymously re‐rated by a second certified tester.…”

“…Research has found that SA does not always lead to expected proficiency gains (Kinginger, 2013;Tseng et al, 2021;Tullock & Ortega, 2017). While some inconsistencies can be attributed to differences in research methodology (Tullock & Ortega, 2017), various factors can influence proficiency development, including predeparture proficiency, gender (Gaugler & Matheus, 2019), motivation (Isabelli-García et al, 2018), living arrangement (Kinginger & F I G U R E 1 Example of Can-Do statements.…”

“…Research has found that SA does not always lead to expected proficiency gains (Kinginger, 2013; Tseng et al, 2021; Tullock & Ortega, 2017). While some inconsistencies can be attributed to differences in research methodology (Tullock & Ortega, 2017), various factors can influence proficiency development, including predeparture proficiency, gender (Gaugler & Matheus, 2019), motivation (Isabelli‐García et al, 2018), living arrangement (Kinginger & Carnine, 2019; Mitchell et al, 2017), program duration (Marijuan & Sanz, 2017; Tseng et al, 2021), language instruction, target language use while abroad (Isabelli‐García et al, 2018; Marijuan & Sanz, 2017), social capital (Smith et al, 2011), and social network (Isabelli‐García et al, 2018; Mitchell et al, 2017). Smartphones are now another factor of interest, as they may act as “electronic umbilical cords” between students and their home country (Allen & Dupuy, 2013, p. 475; see also, Godwin‐Jones, 2016; Reinhardt, 2020; Zimmerman, 2020).…”

Researching language-focused study abroad through an equity lens: A research agenda

“…Exemplar: One type of SA program that is commonly associated with developing one's skills as a global citizen as well as an L2 speaker is international service learning-that is, community involvement abroad combined with academic study (Gaugler & Matheus, 2019). Research on service learning abroad and its potential to promote L2 learning has grown in recent years.…”

Language learning at the dinner table: Two case studies of French homestays

“…247–248, italics added). Emotional engagement and intensive relationships emerged in a broad array of settings, including homestays, but also shared lodging, workplaces, recreational affinity spaces (see also, e.g., Fukada, ; Gaugler and Matheus, ; Kinginger & Wu, ; Zeng, ).…”