Language-Learning Motivation

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

27

Language-Learning Motivation During Short-Term Study Abroad: An Activity Theory Perspective
Heather Willis Allen University of Miami Abstract: This study investigated the development of language-learning motivation during short-term study abroad (SA) for six intermediate-level students of French. Taking an activity theory perspective, ﬁndings demonstrated that one of two orientations motivated participants to study or continue studying French at the college level: linguistic motives or career-oriented motives. The choice to study abroad was seen as either a critical step to achieving ﬂuency or a means of travel and cultural learning. Enhanced language-learning motivation emerged to varying degrees for participants with linguistically oriented motives for learning French who viewed SA as a languagelearning experience but not for participants with primarily pragmatic reasons for learning French and participating in SA. Implications of the study include the need for curricular intervention in student learning abroad. Key words: French, activity theory, learning motivation, second language learning, self-regulation, study abroad

Introduction
From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, research on study abroad (SA) largely supported the notion that it is an ideal means of learning a foreign language. Moreover, foreign language professionals often impart this view to students, typically based on their own successful if not life-transforming experiences (Kinginger, 2008). As Davidson (2007) explained, ‘‘[I]t has long been understood that language acquisition at the highest levels of proﬁciency is generally not possible without a substantial immersion experience’’ (p. 277). However, current trends in American students’ SA choices as well as insights from recent research revealing unsupported myths about SA may put some of the foreign language profession’s assumptions about it in question. A tempered assessment of SA emerges in light of studies shifting the focus from outcomes to a closer examination of processes at work during SA and perspectives of SA participants. Some key ﬁndings from these studies are that participants limit time spent with native speakers in favor of speaking their own language with peers (Freed, Segalowitz, & Dewey, 2004; Wilkinson, 1998, 2000) and that native speakers limit pragmatically appropriate language use so that they can be more readily understood

Heather Willis Allen (PhD, Emory University) is Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition and French at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.

28

Spring 2010

by SA participants (Iino, 2006; Siegal, 1995). Furthermore, SA participants’ access to social networks that would most enhance their foreign language learning are particularly challenging for women (Kinginger, 2004; Polanyi, 1995), who represent almost twothirds of Americans studying abroad (Institute of International Education, 2008; see http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/). Given these ﬁndings, it is more apparent why learning is not evenly distributed among SA participantsFeven those in the same programF and why learning outcomes are not as dramatic as the foreign language profession might believe (Churchill & DuFon, 2006; Kinginger, 2008). These insights from research are even more salient given present trends in SA participation by U.S. students. Whereas SA once followed a ‘‘Junior Year Abroad model’’ largely comprising foreign language majors, this is no longer the case: The majority of students now participate in programs of less than eight weeks’ duration, whereas less than 5% do so for an academic year (Institute of International Education, 2008; Kinginger, 2008; see also http://opendoors. iienetwork.org/). As to who studies abroad, foreign language majors constitute only a small percentage (7.2) of SA participants, with majors in social sciences (21%), business and management (19%), and humanities (13%) outnumbering them appreciably (Institute of International Education, 2008; see http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/). As to beneﬁts associated with shortterm SA, research has produced few generalizations, conceivably due to variation in instruments, variables investigated, and study settings and cohorts. Although some studies have reported signiﬁcant gains in foreign language proﬁciency (Allen & ˜ Herron, 2003; Simoes, 1996) associated with short-term SA, others have cast doubt on its ability to bring about signiﬁcant linguistic gain (Davidson, 2007; Freed, 1990) or change superior to that of at-home immersion (Freed et al., 2004). The limited existing research on nonlinguistic beneﬁts of short-term SA is also inconclusive and

has relied mainly on surveys to measure change in students’ attitudes, motivations, and perceptions. For instance, whereas Ingram (2005) and Lewis and Niesenbaum (2005) concluded that short-term SA enhanced students’ motivation to continue foreign language study or travel abroad, Allen and Herron (2003) found no change in students’ motivation or attitudes related to foreign language study or French culture after short-term SA. Results of large-scale comparative studies (Dwyer, 2004; Koester, 1985) of motivational and personal beneﬁts of shorter (1–3 months) vs. longer (3–12 months) SA programs have reported that longer programs resulted in more signiﬁcant and enduring impact. Potential shortcomings associated with short-term SA may relate to how such programs are designed, typically as ‘‘sheltered’’ programs wherein students integrate into a host institution yet remain in a peer group with others sharing their ﬁrst language or ‘‘island’’ programs organized by U.S. faculty in overseas facilities. As a result, students may experience superﬁcial cultural contact, inadequate language use opportunities, and a vacation mentality. Ingram (2005) explained that short-term SA programs are not always well conceived and historically have not been integrated within foreign language curricula by academic departments choosing to prioritize semester- or year-long programs despite trends toward shorter SA stays by American students.

Purpose of the Study
Given the prevalence of U.S. students’ participation in short-term SA and the foreign language profession’s limited understanding of its beneﬁts, the present study investigated how intermediate-level foreign language students’ language-learning motivation evolved during a six-week SA program. In particular, this study sought to answer the following questions: 1. What motives informed participants’ engagement in foreign language learn-

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

29

ing, and how did SA participation relate to these motives? 2. What goals did participants have for SA, and what elements afforded or constrained the realization of these goals during SA? 3. Did participation in SA enhance participants’ language-learning motivation and persistence in foreign language learning? These questions are consistent with an activity theory perspective on motivation and designed to respond to the notion that short-term SA, while less beneﬁcial than longer programs for linguistic gain, may motivate lower-level students to continue studying the foreign language at advanced levels (Davidson, 2007) or to participate in future SA programs of longer duration (Magnan & Back, 2007).

Background
Research has shown that motivational factors play an important role in foreign language learning outcomes, academic performance, and student persistence. However, researchers have disagreed as to what motivation is, what factors affect it, and how motivational processes function (Ushioda, 2008). This section brieﬂy reviews research on languagelearning motivation and deﬁnes motivation from an activity-theoretic perspective.

The Evolving Concept of Motivation in Language-Learning Research
A social psychological perspective on motivation (Gardner, 1985) dominated languagelearning research from the late 1950s until the 1990s, concentrating on two orientations to motivation: an integrative one, or identiﬁcation with and willingness to adopt behavioral features of another linguistic community, and an instrumental one, or emphasis on the practical value of language learning. According to quantitative studies of individual difference variables by Gardner and his associates, integrative motivation was found to predict students’ classroom partici-

pation, language proﬁciency, and persistence in language learning. Beginning in the 1990s, criticisms of this body of work emerged (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) centered on the increasing gap between mainstream and foreign language motivational theories and a desire for increased ¨ convergence (Dornyei, 2001). Whereas researchers involved in this shift represented various perspectives, their work foregrounded two elements mediating language-learning motivation that they believed were not given full consideration in previous research: the learning context and students’ own perceptions of their abilities, performances, and possibilities (Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2007; Ushioda, 2008). Attempting to broaden the concept of ¨ language-learning motivation, Dornyei and his colleagues elaborated a comprehensive process model of motivation with three levels: the language, learner, and learning ´ ¨ situation (Dornyei & Otto, 1998). Later, this model was reﬁned to include longitu¨ dinal aspects of motivation (Dornyei, 2001, 2005). Its sensitivity to temporality is critical given studies showing that motivation tends to diminish over time as the enthusiasm of learning a new language wears off (Bernhaus, Moore, & Azevedo, 2007; Williams, 2004). Also beginning in the 1990s, coinciding with the cognitive revolution in motivational psychology, language-learning researchers began focusing on how students’ motivated engagement in learning is shaped by their patterns of thinking, drawing on attribution theory, self-determination theory, and social ¨ cognitive theory (Dornyei, 2003; Ushioda, 2008). The roles of intrinsic motivation (i.e., to learn something as an end in itself for its own rewards) and extrinsic motivation (i.e., to learn something as a means to something else) in language learning and their relation to other motivational constructs have been investigated using self-determination theory by Noels (2003, 2005) and others (Bonney, Cortina, Smith-Darden, & Fiori, 2008; Vandergrift, 2005). According to

30

Spring 2010

Ushioda (2008), both of these motivations are valuable, but the critical factor lies in whether they are internalized and selfdetermined or externally imposed and regulated by others. The concept of self-regulation, or the process by which learners activate and sustain cognition, behavior, and motivation, was relatively absent from language-learning research until the late 1990s (McDonough, 2001), and research on how language learners can develop motivational self-regulation skills is still limited (Ushioda, 2008). Of the three types of self-regulatory strategies ¨ identiﬁed by Dornyei (2001), motivationmaintenance, goal-setting (Gillette, 1994), and language-learning strategies, only the last has received signiﬁcant attention by foreign language researchers (Mills et al., 2007). Yet as researchers in educational psychology shifted their interest from learning strategies to self-regulation, language-learning researchers also began turning to constructs related to self-regulation including perceived competence (Baker & MacIntyre, 2003), willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, 2007), and self-efﬁcacy (Mills et al., 2007). The common thread among these is a view that learners need more than motivation from within; they must also see themselves as agents of the processes shaping their motivation (Ushioda, 2008). Short of this, they may fall into patterns of negative thinking and self-perceptions with detrimental motivational consequences (Ushioda, 2007). Research on motivation in language learning has progressed tremendously over the past two decades, moving beyond a once-dominant social psychological paradigm and its psychometric approach toward more robust theoretical approaches from motivational and educational psychology that take into account cognitive and contextual aspects of motivation. This study attempted to account for both cognitive (or internal) and social/contextual (or external) aspects of motivation by using activity theory to approach language-learning motivational processes.

An Activity-Theoretic Approach to Motivation and Learning
Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology (Vygotsky, 1978), often called sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) in language-learning research, is a theory of mind ‘‘that recognizes the central role that social relationships and culturally constructed artifacts play in organizing uniquely human forms of thinking’’ (Lantolf, 2004, pp. 30– 31). Thus, research informed by sociocultural theory focuses not just on learning outcomes but also on learners’ mediated participation in social interactions with others (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Learning, from this perspective, is ﬁrst organized and regulated by more competent others (e.g., a parent or teacher) with the goal that the learner will eventually appropriate regulatory means and assume an agentic regulatory role in his or her own learning; thus, the ultimate goal of learning is independent problem-solving (Lantolf, 2000). Mediation is a key concept in sociocultural theory, meaning that humans’ relationships to their world are established using physical and psychological tools with language as the primary tool for directing and controlling behavior and relating to the world (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). It follows from this perspective that motivation is not located solely within an individual but is constructed and constrained by the learning context and evolves as individuals participate in learning activity. Interestingly, although sociocultural theory seems well-suited for research on motivation and learning, its motivational dimension remains relatively undertheorized, as researchers have concentrated more on cognitive aspects of the theory (Ushioda, 2007). However, activity theory, by unifying various concepts from sociocultural theory and explicitly focusing on the motivational dimension of human activities, is a useful lens for analyzing motivational processes in language learning (Ushioda, 2007). ¨ Activity theory (Engestrom, 1999; Leont’ev, 1978, 1981) holds that human

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

31

FIGURE 1

The Development of Motivation From an Activity Theory Perspective
Need + Object Motive + Goal + Participation Motivation

Source: Kim, 2007

activities are motivated by speciﬁc biological or culturally constructed needs. A need becomes a motive once directed at an object (the activity’s focus or orientation), giving ¨ direction to the activity (Engestrom, 1999). Motives, or the cultural-psychologicalinstitutional impetus guiding activity toward an object, are considered inherently unstable, gaining or losing power depending on the conditions, content, and course of activity (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Lompscher, 1999). Activities are instantiated concretely as goaloriented actions, and goals, in contrast with motives, which explain why someone engages in activity, have clear start and end points and relate to speciﬁc actions (Eng¨m, estro 1999; Kim, 2007; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Thus, goals have a regulatory function in activity and are, like motives, unstable as they are modiﬁed, postponed, and even abandoned (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). From an activity theory perspective, motivation for language learning (illustrated in Figure 1) results from the alignment of a motive and goal with a sense of participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in a new community of practice (Kim, 2007), and the development of motivation is contingent on the learner having learned to posit goals for himor herself (Markova, 1990). As Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) explained, a learner becomes a participant in a new discursive space through intentional social interactions with members of the other culture. This conception of how motivational factors coalesce foregrounds learner agency, which links motivation to action, as individuals position themselves in relation to the learning process and others in the learning environment. However, agency is a co-constructed phenomenon, constantly

renegotiated with those around the individual (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). Kim (2007), in a thesis exploring the development of English-learning motivation for Korean immigrants in Canada from an activity theory perspective, explained: Conﬂicts between the subject, object, and tools and the subject’s community as well as rules and division of labor may hinder the transformation of a motive into a motivation. For example, if tension exists between an L2 learner and her L2 community, such as a homestay family or an ESL class, her motive to learn the L2 may not be transformed into a motivation. (p. 39) In fact, past research using activity theory to investigate foreign language learning during SA has demonstrated that languagelearning motivation was shaped by both learners’ beliefs about the foreign language and language learning and by their struggles to access social networks affording learning (Douglass, 2007; Kinginger, 2004, 2008).

The Current Study
The preceding review of literature discussed a number of critical issues related to the study of motivational processes in language learning: namely, the roles of motivation from within the individual and a supportive learning environment to nurture and protect individuals’ motivated learning behavior. Agency, or learners’ intentions, actions, and reactions co-constructed in relation to others, was posited as a key factor in the development and maintenance of motivation. Using the theoretical lens of activity theory, this study focused on the interaction

32

Spring 2010

TABLE 1

Participants’ Demographic Information and Academic Proﬁles Pseudonym / Gender
Chad / M Elise / F Eric / M Molly / F Rachel / F

Age / Year in College
19 / Junior 19 / Sophomore 23 / Senior 20 / Junior 20 / Junior

Academic Major
Marketing Anthropology Art History,Ã Geology Studio Arts History,Ã Political Science Philosophy,Ã German

Previous Study of French
3 years high school, 2 semesters college 2 semesters college 2 semesters college 4 years high school, 2 semesters college 3 years high school, 2 semesters college 2 semesters college

GPA
3.41 3.96 3.34 3.18 3.57

Sam / M
ÃPrimary major

20 / Junior

3.61

of these internal and external forces and how they inﬂuenced the development of language-learning motivation for six intermediate-level foreign language students during short-term SA.

Participants and Their SA Program
From among a group of eight intermediatelevel students recruited as participants, I focused on six in this study, a choice based on their participation in all data collectedF unlike for the other two students recruited, who provided little follow-up after SA. All participants were American and spoke English as their ﬁrst language. Participants’ demographic and academic proﬁles appear in Table 1. The 6-week SA program took place from mid-May to early July 2006 in Nantes, a large French city in western France. It was an ‘‘island’’-type program, organized by the participants’ home university at an overseas facility managed by an American SA provider, and students were taught by the U.S. program faculty member plus a French professor based in France. In total, 26 stu-

dents were enrolled in the programF8 at the intermediate level and 18 at the advanced level. Intermediate students completed two 3-credit courses, Intermediate French I and French Culture and Conversation, and a 1-credit course, French Creative Writing. The academic curriculum was complemented by weekly cultural activities organized by the program assistant, a graduate student in French from the participants’ home university. Students were required per program rules to use French to communicate in class, cultural activities, and free time spent in the academic facility’s library, kitchen, and computer laboratory. Students lived with French homestay families (one student per family) who provided them a private bedroom and daily meals.

Data and Analysis
To investigate the evolution of the participants’ language-learning motivation during SA, I collected multiple data sources before, during, and after the program, including questionnaires, interviews, and learning blogs. By ﬁrst analyzing data sources separately and

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

33

later triangulating them, it was possible for me to document participants’ perceptions, understand the meaning of their actions from their perspective, and interpret how participant perceptions related to stated motives and goals. Participants’ learning blogs, completed twice weekly during SA as a component of the French Creative Writing course, were the most comprehensive data source collected in this study. Students were instructed to focus their blog entries on foreign language and cultural learning, how and with whom time was spent outside class, and how personal goals evolved. They were told that blogging in French or English was acceptable, as was mixing the languages, because the rationale for blogging was not foreign language practice but reﬂection. In practice, the participants’ blogs were written mostly in English. Semi-structured interviews conducted in English, digitally recorded, and transcribed verbatim were another important data source. Participants were interviewed individually three timesFa month prior to SA, at the program’s midpoint, and at its end. Secondary data sources included questionnaires, SA application essays, and e-mail correspondence between participants and the researcher during the year following SA. Students completed the Internet-based questionnaires a month before SA and during the last week of the program. The Pre Study Abroad Questionnaire included a LanguageLearning History and Language Contact Proﬁle adapted from Allen (2002), while the Post Study Abroad Questionnaire included the Language Contact Proﬁle plus 18 Study Abroad Impact questions asking participants to assess their level of satisfaction with goal accomplishment and language contact. I identiﬁed patterns and themes found in the participants’ blogs and interviews using inductive techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and coded them using a qualitative analysis program, QSR NVIVO. After initial, unrelated coding categories were established, they were clustered into categories containing multiple subcategories. This coding process was recursive and led to recoding

data multiple times. Several strategies were used for veriﬁcation (Creswell, 1998) of this study’s emergent analysis. Data were collected over a year-long period, including the 6-week SA program, wherein the researcher interacted with participants multiple times weekly, facilitating the development of trust and engagement. The researcher used multiple data types to establish a conﬂuence of evidence, and, conversely, the researcher searched for negative evidence by looking for disconﬁrming evidence to reﬁne working hypotheses. Member checks took place as participants re-read and commented on their blogs and later veriﬁed the accuracy of transcribed interviews. Readers of this study should be aware that its analysis and ﬁndings were based on how participants represented their SA experiences rather than on ﬁrsthand observation or measurement of participants’ learning behaviors or learning outcomes by the researcher. Transferability of this study’s implications should be interpreted by readers themselves as generalizability of this study’s ﬁndings to other student populations and settings, particularly for programs of different durations, may not be appropriate.

Findings Research Question 1: Participants’ Language-Learning Motives and Choice to Study Abroad
Despite the fact that all six participants were completing a minor in French and none were taking French to meet their college’s language requirement (all had done so with sufﬁcient high school coursework), their reasons varied for choosing to learn or continue learning French. In broad terms, two types of motives for language learning emergedFone primarily linguistic and one primarily pragmatic. Participants with a linguistically oriented motive for engaging in learning French (Elise, Sam, Eric, and Molly) spoke of wanting to achieve ‘‘ﬂuency’’ or ‘‘proﬁciency’’ to use it in academic, professional, or personal ways. Elise, who planned to

34

Spring 2010

work for the U.S. Foreign Service or State Department, began studying French in college after excelling at Spanish in high school, including spending 6 weeks in Spain. She now envisioned using Spanish and French to work with American tourists abroad. Sam and Eric also started French in college, realizing it would complement their major ﬁelds of studyFin Sam’s case, philosophy, and for Eric, art history. In Sam’s SA application essay, he explained his goals, which included ‘‘becom[ing] proﬁcient in German, French, Latin, and Ancient Greek,’’ so that he could better read and understand the philosophy he was studying and hoped to continue studying in graduate school. He had studied German for 6 years and was now enthusiastic to advance his French through SA. Eric was also a successful language learner, having studied Spanish for 4 years in high school before starting French. He explained that his art history major included a lot of literature in French and German, so he was interested in developing his French reading and writing capacities. Molly differed somewhat from Elise, Sam, and Eric, who had completed just 2 semesters of elementary French, in that she had studied French for 5 years. She called ‘‘becom[ing] ﬂuent’’ a long-term aspiration, yet stated, ‘‘It takes a lot to become ﬂuent . . . I still have to take Intermediate French II and conversation and writing [after SA], so I’m still going to be working towards that goal.’’ She called herself a ‘‘French dork’’ and said she was fascinated by cultural differences between France and the United States. Interestingly, Molly was not a conﬁdent language learner and felt ‘‘self-conscious about [her] pronunciation’’ and ‘‘inferior’’ to students above her in French. This lack of conﬁdence led her to repeat elementary French in college. Although she was unsure of her future career, she thought translation was a possibility, citing the example of a cousin who had worked in France as a translator in a bank. Participants with a pragmatically oriented motive for learning French (Chad

and Rachel) were focused on the advantages of obtaining a French minor for their future careers but did not elaborate on plans to use French in the future. Chad, a marketing major, stated, ‘‘I don’t know exactly what I’m going to do yet, but if I’m going to have a French minor and an international certiﬁcate, maybe I’ll do something abroad.’’ Rachel, majoring in history and political science, explained that a French minor would ‘‘increase my chances of employment and expand my future opportunities’’ for working in a congressional think tank or international relations. Neither spoke of continuing French after high school based on a desire to become ﬂuent; rather, Chad explained, ‘‘It’s fun . . . I’ve already invested so much in French,’’ and Rachel similarly said, ‘‘I took French in high school and really liked it, so I ﬁgured I’d take it again.’’ In the same way that participants’ motives varied for learning French, differences also emerged in their reasons for studying abroad. When the researcher asked participants in an open-ended fashion to explain why they were participating in SA, beginning with their most important reason, patterns observed in the participants’ responses generally mirrored those provided for the two groupings of participants regarding their language-learning motives. For participants with languageoriented motives for learning French, SA was seen as an essential experience for achieving linguistic goals. In Molly’s interview before SA, she stated that ‘‘everyone learning a language needs to go and experience that language and not within the classroom or within their university . . . it’s necessary.’’ Similarly, Elise explained wanting to ‘‘learn French in a real setting because it is the only real way to truly know a foreign language.’’ Sam also possessed strong beliefs about immersion, stating in his application essay, ‘‘I will never genuinely believe that I have learned any foreign language until I have practiced it in context with native speakers . . . I believe it is necessary for me to study in France.’’ Eric too spoke about being ‘‘wholly engaged’’ in foreign language

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

35

learning through SA and explained that being ‘‘completely engrossed in the language and culture will really help my comprehension with everything. It is really important to grasping all the aspects of the language.’’ Secondary to their linguistic reasons for studying abroad, Elise and Eric also saw SA as informing future career choices. For Elise, it served as a means to ‘‘make sure that foreign relations is what I really want to do,’’ based on her capacity to adapt to a foreign culture and language. For Eric, SA was a way to enrich his knowledge of the art and architecture of France. Chad and Rachel, who were primarily motivated to learn French to enhance their professional credentials, saw SA foremost as a means of learning about the world beyond the United States and living in a different culture. Rachel explained this in terms of ‘‘gain[ing] more perspective and becom[ing] a betterrounded person as a result of experiencing French culture,’’ whereas Chad said, ‘‘More than just the language, I’d like to experience another culture.’’ For both, foreign travel and living with a homestay family were key elements for cultural learning. As Rachel stated, ‘‘I think staying with a homestay family I will get to see a lot of everyday kind of French culture . . . by traveling around France, I’ll get to see some of the broader things.’’ Chad explained that travel was an important priority, as he did not imagine returning to Europe again given the considerable expense he assumed to ﬁnance the program. Unlike the other participants, Chad and Rachel named accelerating progress toward the French minor through credits earned abroad as a major reason for choosing the summer program in France. Chad was forthright about this, explaining, ‘‘I’m not just doing it because I want to . . . I wouldn’t spend all this money if it wasn’t going to beneﬁt my schoolwork.’’ In fact, SA was a requirement for the International Business certiﬁcate Chad was earning, so by participating in the summer program, he completed essential credits toward both the certiﬁcate and the French minor in a relatively short time.

In summary, prior to SA, differences existed between participants motivated to learn French and participate in SA for primarily linguistic reasons and participants motivated to learn French for careeroriented reasons who viewed SA as an opportunity to experience life in a different culture. The following section demonstrates how these differing motives impacted how participants pursued their goals during SA and the realization or non-realization of those goals.

Research Question 2: Affordances and Constraints to Participants’ Goal Achievement During SA
A month before SA, participants described their goals for the program; as shown in Table 2, these included cultural, linguistic, and social goals. The evolution of participants’ goals was also traced in blog entries and reﬂected upon during interviews and in the Post Study Abroad Questionnaire. This section outlines emergent themes from blog and interview data related to elements that afforded or constrained goal accomplishment, with a particular focus on linguistic goals. These elements included two factors related to how participants regulated their own learning during SAFthrough articulating speciﬁc goals and managing conﬂicting goalsFand two factors related to relations participants established with those around themFnegotiating relationships within the SA peer group and maximizing relations with French homestay families.

Goal Speciﬁcity Regardless of their motives for language learning or reasons for studying abroad, participants’ initial goals were, for the most part, lacking in speciﬁcity as to how they would be realized and deﬁned in real-life terms, particularly for linguistic goals. As Table 2 shows, the majority of participants described wanting to ‘‘improve’’ or ‘‘work on’’ some aspect of their French capacities, most frequently oral conversational abilities. However, once abroad, some participants did

36

Spring 2010

TABLE 2

Participants’ Initial Goals for SA Linguistic Goals
Chad 1. Be able to communicate with someone enough to get to know them on a personal level. 2. Improve speaking and comprehension.

Cultural Goals
1. See as much of Europe as I can.

Social Goals
Build friendships with French-speaking people my age from France and host family.

2. Understand differences in French and American cultural perspectives. Gain an understanding of French culture not based on stereotypes and media. Meet people from France and be with my [host] family.

Elise

1. Have a conversation with a French speaker easily but not necessarily perfectly.

2. Improve accent and pronunciation. Eric 1. Speak the language with conﬁdence and not be worried about making mistakes. 2. Read more quickly and with more precise comprehension. 3. Write with conﬁdence. Molly 1. Become conﬁdent while speaking. Learn on a ﬁrsthand basis how the French live, travel, and work. Make friends and get a relationship with my [host] family. Get a better understanding of European city life and urban history.

2. Work on my pronunciation. 3. Greatly improve my vocabulary. Rachel 1. Speak French better. 2. Improve my accent and pronunciation. 1. Do a lot of traveling. 2. Experience as much of the culture as I can.

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

37

TABLE 2. (Continued). Linguistic Goals
Sam 1. Hold a decent conversation about abstract things in which I understand native French people and they understand me. 2. Feel comfortable speaking and being spoken to at a normal pace. 3. Improve pronunciation (e.g., what letters should not be pronounced). 4. Improve grammar. 5. Improve my writing.

Cultural Goals

Social Goals
Come out of my shell and really become a part of my homestay family; have a relationship with them and keep in touch with them after I leave.

establish concrete subgoals to instantiate previously unfocused ones; these tended to be participants with linguistically driven motives for engaging in language learning and participating in SA. For example, Elise, housed with a 55year-old single French woman, initially had difﬁculty participating in conversations and understanding her host mother. In her blog from week 2 she explained, ‘‘I am trying to listen for key turns and phrases in order to understand my host family.’’ She also described using ‘‘charades’’ to get meaning across and ‘‘using the skills [she] learned in Spain to skirt around a word rather than looking every word up’’ to facilitate interactions. Molly also elaborated on concrete subgoals related to perfecting ‘‘basic speaking skills’’ in French: During week 2 she tried to ‘‘tell [her host family] what I am going to do or did that day . . . or speak about cooking.’’ Further, she stated a goal to ‘‘conﬁdently hold at least 20- to 30-minute

conversations’’ in French, what she saw as ‘‘realistic.’’ The next week, in relation to her goal to ‘‘greatly improve my vocabulary,’’ she described making efforts to remember words by using a dictionary and working to improve her reading capacities with French cooking magazines. Sam, who articulated a general goal to better understand and be understood by French people, aimed to make himself understood at the post ofﬁce, bank, and travel agent. He called his successful participation in those service encounters ‘‘about the most signiﬁcant accomplishment I have made’’ in his week 2 blog. In addition, Eric, who wanted to ‘‘write with conﬁdence’’ as a linguistic goal, described the speciﬁc aims of ‘‘writ[ing] more simpliﬁed thoughts rather than converting the sentences word for word.’’ The researcher found examples of goals remaining unfocused more often in blogs of participants whose primary motivation for SA participation was not linguistic. Chad

38

Spring 2010

said in his week 2 blog that he wanted to be able to ‘‘ﬂuently talk to my family, joke with them, etc., and I know that it is not a realistic goal.’’ However, he followed that statement only by saying, ‘‘I would, however, like to improve my comprehension skills and my grammar before I leave’’ (emphasis added), without detailing how he intended to pursue those goals. In his week 4 blog, another imprecise goal statement appeared: ‘‘I hope to accelerate my learning pace a little more before I leave so I know that I got the full potential from the program’’ (emphasis added). Similarly, Rachel articulated her linguistic goals vaguely, using the terms improve and increase (e.g., ‘‘improve my communication skills,’’ ‘‘improve my pronunciation and accent’’), without mention of what improvement would entail. Only in relation to cultural exploration and travel did she describe concrete goals.

focusing on other goals because they both related it to money and time constraints. The signiﬁcant workload associated with taking seven credit hours entirely in French also caused participants to rethink their goals and activities, and half of the participants (Eric, Elise, and Rachel) commented on this in blog entries. For example, by week 2, Eric realized that his academic responsibilities were formidableFas he described it, a ‘‘balancing act’’: It’s quite a lot on top of getting myself acquainted with and experiencing Nantes and going home to my host family and interacting with them. I am either in the [academic] building or in my room trying to do my homework . . . if I get behind there is no time to pull ahead. Elise also felt the pressure of balancing her priorities, writing in week 3, I am very stressed . . . I must make good grades here before applying for a fellowship next term, I need to read three books for a course I’m taking during Summer Term II, and I also have homework, class, and want to spend time with [my host mother]. Although the SA curriculum was structured to give students 3-day weekends, with classes held Monday through Thursday, participants had difﬁculty juggling competing desires and responsibilities. As I discuss in relation to ﬁndings on Research Question Three, in light of such struggles, some participants abandoned initial linguistic goals to pursue travel-related goals more singularly.

Goal Conﬂict A second important aspect related to how participants pursued goals was related to how conﬂicting goals were managed. In certain cases, participants realized that it was necessary to prioritize one goal over another or abandon a possible goal in order to fulﬁll a different one. For Molly, travel was something that she could not prioritize. As she explained, ‘‘There is not enough time. Before I came I thought I was going to travel every weekend, but after the ﬁrst weekend I thought, no, I need to stay here and bond with my family.’’ Eric decided to curtail weekend traveling after spending a long weekend in Ireland and realizing it negatively inﬂuenced his linguistic priorities. Upon his return, he wrote, ‘‘[Going] to an Englishspeaking country for the weekend was not a great move. Not thinking or speaking in French for three days had a horrible impact Monday. I couldn’t get into the groove of things.’’ Chad and Elise also described limiting travels in Europe, but it was not clear whether this was primarily associated with

Managing Relations with American SA Peers Some participants (Chad, Rachel) perceived the SA peer group as an affordance to learning, and others (Elise, Eric, and Molly) perceived it as a constraint; Sam viewed it as both. Interestingly, participants were largely critical of how their 18 more advanced peers treated the smaller intermediate-level

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

39

group. According to Molly, they became ‘‘frustrated’’ by the intermediate group’s French and ‘‘look[ed] down’’ on them. Similarly, Elise said, ‘‘A lot of the time, I feel that they are judging me based on my abilities or lack thereof as a way to feel better about their own abilities. I am slightly intimidated by them, but I am doing my best.’’ She also stated that she felt more comfortable trying to speak French around native French speakers than with those in the more advanced group. Sam had a different perspective, explaining, The people who are more advanced tend to speak less French . . . I’ve heard they don’t want to isolate the kids who don’t speak as much French, but we actually beneﬁt from their speaking French at a higher level. (emphasis in original) Both Sam and Elise described disappointment with their peers’ efforts to speak French. In Sam’s words, ‘‘It seems like a wasted opportunity for people to come here and just speak English the whole time . . . but when you’re with the group, it’s like . . . pressure . . . you just speak what they speak.’’ According to Elise, even when she repeatedly asked her peers to speak in French, they did not do so, resulting in her ‘‘try[ing] to stay away from the other American students.’’ Besides Elise, two other participants made efforts to remove themselves from their peers to focus on their own goals, particularly in the later weeks of SA. As Eric related during week 5, Being part of this group is exhausting . . . now at the end of the trip I’m tired of bending for people, and I am certainly ready this weekend and next week to do only want I want. I’m here for me, not for others . . . I’m ready to sit down and read and zone out in my readings and writings and not be murmured about for being too big a dork. Molly expressed a comparable sentiment in her blog, as she mentioned ‘‘withdrawing from others’’ and ‘‘trying to pull myself away from everyone’’ to ‘‘soak

up the rest of the time I have here and spend time with my family . . . rather than go out some nights or worry or question what everyone else is doing.’’ Conversely, several participants construed the SA peer group as an affordance. Whereas Sam voiced disappointment that his peers were less motivated to speak French than he had ﬁrst imagined, he also stated that time spent with his intermediate-level peers ‘‘greatly enhanced my social conﬁdence. I feel comfortable speaking French with them, because they are at a similar level of French.’’ Chad and Rachel also viewed their peer group positively, particularly for the emotional support it provided them. As Chad explained, ‘‘It’s scary being in a city or country that you don’t know, but when you have 25 other people going through it, that’s extremely comforting . . . Without them, I would have felt alone and helpless.’’ He did not see the group’s using English as their lingua franca as overly problematic, saying, ‘‘I would never have traded the hilariously entertaining English conversations I’ve had with the other students for the opportunity to improve my French a little.’’ Rachel also emphasized the ‘‘normalcy’’ her peers gave her, explaining, ‘‘Their presence has helped me to see and visit many different things . . . I have gone to Versailles and Mont St. Michel with [Molly] . . . but without her, I may have been too scared to do a lot of traveling on my own.’’ Like Chad, she viewed the advantages of speaking English with peers for ‘‘clarify[ing] things I didn’t understand . . . or vent[ing] about my frustrations’’ as outweighing French people in restaurants or bars being ‘‘less likely to talk to us.’’ The participants’ differing perspectives on the role of their peers was clearly reﬂected in how and with whom they spent time outside class (see Table 3). Whereas Chad and Rachel both reported spending 3.5 hours daily with peers, communicating in French with them only 25% of the time, the other participants (Elise, Eric, Molly, and Sam) claimed to spend almost half that time daily with peersFaveraging 1.88

40

TABLE 3

Participants’ Language Contact During SA

Percentage of communication interacting in French outside class Other non-interactive contact with French music 5–10 minutes daily; televised game shows weekly music 15 minutes daily; televised news, game shows, and soccer daily novels and nonﬁction reading 30 minutes daily; journaling 15 minutes daily; music 15 minutes daily magazines and cookbooks 1 hour daily; writing notes or in her calendar 15 minutes daily; game shows and televised ﬁlms 30 minutes daily music 15 minutes daily; magazines less than once per week Newspapers, online news, comics 1 hour 15 minutes daily; televised news daily 1.5 hours 5.0 hours 2.0 hours 3.0 hours

Hours spent interacting with homestay family in French daily

Hours spent interacting with U.S. SA peers daily
3.5 hours None 2.0 hours 2.5 hours

Chad

25%

Elise

50%

Eric

50%

Molly

25%

Rachel 3.5 hours

25%

1.0 hour

3.5 hours 2.0 hours
Spring 2010

Sam

95–100%

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

41

hoursFand to communicate with them in French for half the time.

mother as a worthy struggle, saying in her ﬁnal blog entry, I’ve always made a big effort to talk, to understand, to be there, and that how I feel this six weeks has been important to me. I’ve always tried to be a part of everything that happened . . . it’s been hard, but it’s been worth it. However, not all the participants viewed their host family as an affordance for learning; several (Chad, Eric, and Rachel) felt their families’ preoccupations kept them from paying sufﬁcient attention to their own linguistic needs. In each case, the participants lived with couples with two or three school-age children or college-age young adults. As Chad described it, ‘‘They aren’t really even taking the time right now to work with me . . . The problem is that the only time they get together to converse is at dinner which is also the time I am at the house.’’ Even at SA’s end, he felt ‘‘lost in the shufﬂe’’ because they were ‘‘so busy with themselves.’’ Rachel’s contact was also limited to dinner conversation, as she explained in a week 4 blog: After class, I usually walk around and do a little shopping . . . go home and rest for awhile in my room. Then my family calls me for dinner. We usually talk about our plans and what we had done earlier that day. After dinner, I go to my room and listen to music and read until I am ready to go to bed. Eric, too, lamented his relatively limited interaction with his hosts, describing the situation as having a mother with ‘‘three kids to take care of, a job, and was searching for an MBA program, and a father then would come home [from work], she’d serve him . . . madness . . . I really wanted to get more interaction.’’ For Chad and Rachel, this limited interaction resulted in them indicating that their homestay contact was ‘‘extremely dissatisf[ying]’’ (Rachel) and ‘‘somewhat dissatisf[ying]’’ (Chad) in their Post Study Abroad Questionnaires. In addition, Chad and Rachel spent less time with their hosts

Interactions with French Host Families Before SA, participants were generally enthusiastic about the idea of living with a French family. Exceptions were Rachel, who was ‘‘not sure [she] wanted to stay with a family’’ but thought ‘‘it would be more homey than living in a dorm,’’ and Eric, who said he would have opted for an apartment had it been offered yet ‘‘g[o]t the feeling it was extremely important’’ to live with a family. Once in France, considerable differences existed in the degree to which participants integrated into their families’ lives and the causes they attributed to the relationships (or lack thereof) that developed between them and their families. Molly, Elise, and Sam each detailed their efforts to interact with their host families in their blogs (in Molly’s case, a couple with young adult children at home; in Elise and Sam’s case, single women with no children) and the strong bonds formed. On average, these participants claimed to spend just over 4 hours daily interacting with homestay family members (see Table 3). Even before SA, Molly stated she would need to ‘‘set goals for myself to say, like, ‘I have to talk to my family . . . You have to talk to them, don’t shy away. You know this is what you’re here forFto learn.’’’ In reality, she did need work at establishing communication with them after initial ‘‘disappointment because I don’t converse with them as much as I want to’’ due to their busy schedules that she did not always understand. By week 2, she ﬁgured out the best times to talk with them and where to station herself in the house to facilitate conversations. Although she remained in contact with her hosts long after SA, even at the program’s end, she claimed to still ‘‘really push myself really hard . . . just as far as asking questions and becoming knowledgeable’’ through conversations with her French family. Elise also spoke of the establishment of a relationship with her host

42

Spring 2010

than othersF1 hour per day in Rachel’s case and 1.5 hours for Chad (see Table 3).

Research Question 3: Participants’ Ongoing Language-Learning Motivation and Persistence in Foreign Language Learning
The question of whether participants’ language-learning motivation was enhanced through short-term SA was perhaps the most important one investigated by this study. To restate an important deﬁnition, from an activity theory perspective, language-learning motivation results from the alignment of a learner’s motive and goal with a sense of participation in a new community of practice. Learner agency, in this view, is critical for both generating goals and carrying out goaldirected actions to accomplish goals in cooperation with those in the learning environment. This study’s data suggested that to varying degrees, participants initially motivated to engage in language learning and to participate in SA for linguistic reasons (Eric, Elise, Molly, and Sam) did develop more motivation to continue studying or using French personally through SA. Conversely, those participants initially motivated to learn French and participate in SA for pragmatic reasons (Chad and Rachel) did not enhance their language-learning motivation, viewing it primarily as a cultural and travel experience. Several participants whose languagelearning motivation grew during SA posited themselves as active agents of language learning, making sustained efforts to pursue linguistic goals. In certain cases, participants described speciﬁc episodes in their blogs wherein their motivation was enhanced through participation in social interactions. Examples from Sam’s and Molly’s experiences abroad are illustrative of this phenomenon. Sam overcame an initial inability to ‘‘initiate [his] French personality and star[t] talking to people in French’’ when he met his French host mother in Nantes. In week 2, he wrote in his blog, The fact that I am able to get across to [her] the gist of my ideas makes me feel

even more satisﬁed that I am making progress. It’s progress I can see ﬁrsthand! Every day! J’aime parler francais! ¸ [I like speaking French!] Although he had not yet reached his pre-SA goal to engage in conversations in French about abstract matters, he said that his dinner conversations with his hostess were ‘‘relaxed’’ and ‘‘almost like the kinds of dinner conversations I have at home.’’ By SA’s midpoint, Sam identiﬁed himself as ‘‘the dictionary guy.’’ He explained, ‘‘When I am in public listening to people talk on the bus, tram, or in the street, I always have my dictionary at hand to look up new words and phrases.’’ In addition, his peers became accustomed to seeing him with his dictionary, and they began to approach Sam daily for deﬁnitions of unknown words, which helped Sam start ‘‘opening up’’ socially with peers, one of his initial personal goals. Two weeks before SA’s end, Sam described a ‘‘perfect example’’ of how he was approaching his goal to engage as actively possible in French with ‘‘classmates, my family, and people I encounter on the street’’: A woman at my morning bus stop asked me if the bus had already gone by. Rather than simply telling her it hadn’t, I explained to her that it was common for this bus to be between ﬁve and 10 minutes late because of the trafﬁc . . . She knew I wasn’t exactly French, but that didn’t matter . . . I was proud of my ability to do it. These are the kinds of experiences I would like to have more of every day during these last two weeks. These instances demonstrate that Sam invested considerable energy in communicating as fully, albeit imperfectly, as possible to instantiate his goal and experienced pleasure and pride from participating in social interactions. As he explained, ‘‘I created the conﬁdence in my ability to be there and to understand them’’ (emphasis added). After SA, Sam claimed to be ‘‘extremely satisﬁed’’ with his efforts to speak French and the accomplishment of his goals. The result

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

43

of Sam’s enhanced language-learning motivation was a changed relation to French. He stated, Before I just thought, OK, I did German, now I’m going to do French, but it’s not like that now. It’s not just being able to read French philosophy, now I’m more interested in using the language. Before I just wanted to be able to read, now I want to meet French people and speak with French people. I like it a lot (emphasis added). After SA, Sam completed his French minor and, unable to take additional courses due to his double major, became a French language partner at his university for students in a hybrid online-classroom French course. He worked in that role during two semesters for several hours per week. Molly also doubted herself linguistically before SA but gained tremendous conﬁdence in her capacity to successfully learn French. Her SA experiences, however, were often not ‘‘feel-good moments’’ but struggles to participate in social interactions. During week 2, she described an attempt to buy train tickets from a French travel agent as ‘‘Very frustrating . . . for me and [her] . . . there’s no way for me to speak if I don’t know what they are saying in the ﬁrst place.’’ But rather than demoralizing her, this encounter led to her articulating a new goal: ‘‘To try to comprehend others better’’ and speciﬁc ways to approach itFby listening to her host family members while they talked together and watching television with her host brother ‘‘for about 30 minutes each night.’’ The following week, an encounter in the train led to a turning point in her efforts to become a conﬁdent French speaker. In her blog, she wrote, A young French guy sat next to me, and he made a comment to me in French, and I just kind of shook my head and laughed, because I didn’t understand what he said. He kept talking to me though, and after a while, I looked at the clock, and we had talked for an hour and

a half. The entire conversation was in French . . . I was sooo happy . . . I already reached my once-goal, and I was amazed. This interaction showed Molly that she could reach her goal of engaging in sustained conversations, and her motive to become a ﬂuent French speaker was strengthened, impelling her to generate new short-term goals. By the end of SA, she described being proud of ‘‘how far I’ve come since I started’’ and said she was ‘‘satisﬁed’’ with her efforts to speak French and her accomplishment of her goals. Further proof of her enhanced motivation and conﬁdence occurred in September, when she changed her major to French. As she explained by e-mail, ‘‘I now have the selfesteem to know if there is something I want to accomplish, there is nothing holding me back . . . I know if I work at it, I can go back like I soon intend to do.’’ During the next year, she persevered in upper-level literature, writing, and cultural studies courses, despite her feeling that ‘‘others are far ahead of me’’ since she ‘‘t[ook] pride in being in these courses.’’ Like Sam and Molly, Elise and Eric described a changed relationship to French after SA. For Elise, who was ‘‘extremely satisﬁed’’ with her efforts to speak French and her goal accomplishment, she no longer felt as she once hadF‘‘Take one more semester, get the minor, and be done with French.’’ After completing her French minor the term after SA, Elise extended her French studies in an advanced French conversation course the following spring but was unable to continue afterward due to the requirements of her major and second minor in Asian studies. Eric, who was ‘‘satisﬁed’’ with how his goals were accomplished during SA, explained how French had changed for him in his interview after the program: Now it’s like, wow, I can get into this. I can start buying literature and start applying this knowledge now. That was one thing that was unexpected and just all of the sudden [sic] you know, I can read this stuff and can comprehend this

44

Spring 2010

easier, I can apply these thoughts, these ideas (emphasis in original). Eric, too, completed his French minor the term after SA by completing an advanced writing course. But after an optional French cultural studies course the following spring, requirements for his double majors precluded him taking any further French courses. A year after SA, he went to Argentina, where he taught English as a second language for one academic year. Not every participant’s language-learning motivation was transformed through SA, as Rachel’s experience illustrates. The combination of little time spent with her host family, the feeling her hosts were not invested in getting to know her, and ongoing communicative struggles weakened her motivation to pursue her linguistic goals. Her blog entry from week 4 underscores her profound demotivation and a goal shift: The ﬁrst 3 weeks that I was in Nantes I was overwhelmed by the challenges I faced but had hope that things would get progressively easier with time . . . I still have difﬁculty understanding and speaking in French all the time. It is very tiring for me. As for my host family . . . we have very little interaction, and they seem content to keep it that way. I am no longer very optimistic that I will get to know my family better . . . With 2 weeks left in Nantes I want to do some more traveling . . . I also hope to explore more in Nantes. I’d like to visit a museum or go to a different park . . . I want to experience more of the culture in France as well. At SA’s end, Rachel said she was ‘‘neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed’’ with her efforts to speak French, ‘‘somewhat dissatisﬁed’’ with her progress toward linguistic goals, and ‘‘somewhat dissatisﬁed’’ with her accomplishment of her cultural goals due to her negative host family experiences. She called ‘‘learn[ing] to travel and experience new places’’ the most rewarding aspect of SA and when reﬂecting on her experiences

said, ‘‘When I look back . . . I remember all the fun trips and cultural experiences I had.’’ After the program, Rachel completed one last course toward her French minor and then ended her French studies. Chad, who was ‘‘neither satisﬁed nor dissatisﬁed’’ with his efforts to speak French during SA but ‘‘satisﬁed’’ with his accomplishment of his linguistic goals, also spoke about SA’s beneﬁts as primarily cultural, saying that his experiences abroad ‘‘changed his aspect on the world’’ and caused him to ‘‘feel compelled to visit other countries and continue to learn about the world.’’ When asked if his relation to French had changed, he responded, ‘‘I can’t honestly say I fell in love with French . . . It was a great experience, but it’s just one culture.’’ Like Rachel, he successfully ﬁnished his French minor with one further course after SA and thus ended his studies of French.

Discussion Theoretical Implications
Findings reported above demonstrated two primary orientations motivating participants to learn French at the college level: linguistic motives and career-oriented motives. Moreover, the choice to study abroad was seen as either a critical step in achieving linguistic goals or a means of traveling and learning about culture. Enhanced language-learning motivation and persistence to continue studying or using French emerged for participants viewing SA as a linguistic experience and a step toward achieving personal linguistic goals but not for those with primarily pragmatic reasons for studying French or participating in SA. From an activity theory perspective, delving into the reasons informing students’ choices to learn French, earn a French minor or an International Business certiﬁcate, or participate in summer SA help researchers better understand their linguistic choices and behaviors abroad and why they spend (or fail to spend) time and effort interacting with American peers, French hosts, or others in their learning environ-

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

45

ment. Through analyzing SA participants’ language-learning motives, goals for SA, means of pursuing goals, and motivational trajectories, one realizes that it is impossible to view motivation as a stable, internal characteristic of individuals or to see students as possessing either ‘‘low’’ or ‘‘high’’ motivation. Rather, one might conclude that some SA participants like Molly and Sam possess social motives (i.e., to communicate with others) and higher-level cognitive motives (i.e., arising from an intrinsic interest to learn something as an end in and of itself) whereas other participants like Chad and Rachel are oriented by lower-level cognitive motives (i.e., learning something with the goal of obtaining a result, such as earning a French minor) (Lompscher, 1999). With earning a French minor rather than achieving French ﬂuency as the object orienting some participants’ engagement in language learning, it is, in the end, unsurprising that their linguistic motivation was not enhanced during SA. Phrased in activity theory terms, this can be explained by a lack of alignment of motive and goal combined with an inability to achieve meaningful participation in their new community of practice. In Chad’s and Rachel’s case, this was demonstrated not only through their expressed motives and goals but also in terms of how relatively little time they spent interacting in French in comparison to time spent interacting with American peers in English. This study’s ﬁndings conﬁrmed the notion that students’ capacity for selfregulation exerts a powerful inﬂuence on how they engage in language learning and what they achieve (Gillette, 1994; Mills et al., 2007). In general terms, agency played an important role in whether participants judged their SA learning experiences as successful and if their language-learning motivation was enhanced. Whereas some participants regulated their language learning through effective goal-setting and positive self-talk, others assumed less responsibility for their learning, privileged the notion of time over effort (e.g., ‘‘I hope

the next few weeks will help me’’ or ‘‘with time my grammar will improve’’), and blamed limited interaction with French people on others. The types of initial goals that participants articulated and their ongoing capacity to set related subgoals during SA inﬂuenced what learning behaviors, or actions, were ‘‘maximized and selected and how they [were] operationalized’’ during SA (Donato, 1994, p. 36). When participants posited speciﬁc, real-life learning targets like ‘‘holding at least 20- or 30-minute conversations’’ in French or being comprehensible in service encounters, they reﬂected on and beneﬁted from successful linguistic interactions and, ultimately, enhanced their language-learning motivation. On the other hand, holding unfocused goals like ‘‘improve my speaking’’ or ‘‘improve my accent’’ and not articulating clear learning targets was associated with less satisfaction with the accomplishment of linguistic goals. Moreover, the fact that most participants’ initial goals were quite vague and that some participants never articulated concrete subgoals may indicate that the frequently discussed myth of foreign language development abroad occurring through a sort of ‘‘osmosis’’ does, in fact, inform how some SA participants approach language learning and may negatively impact linguistic development. A ﬁnal theoretical implication derives from this study’s ﬁndings regarding the dynamic nature of language-learning motivation based on factors both internal to individual learners, such as self-regulatory strategies, and external to learners, such as relationships established in cooperation with French speakers or SA peers. Findings demonstrating divergent motivational and linguistic trajectories for this study’s participants contradict the assumption that SA as a context generates transformative learning, an implicit assumption in much research. Instead, this study offers support for a relational deﬁnition of SA as a learning context: That is to say, by using the conceptual lens of activity theory, context can be understood as emergent from students’ motives, goals, and resultant actions. Context

46

Spring 2010

is not, as Nardi (1996) described, just ‘‘out there’’ but varies and is dependent on the interplay of learner and community, learner intentions vs. those in his or her community of practice. For SA participants, faculty, and program administrators, the clear implication of viewing context in such a way could be summarized as follows: How one regulates and engages in language-learning activity during SA generates the context rather than the context generating learning.

Pedagogical Implications
In terms of this study’s practical implications, it is evident that foreign language students have varied reasons for learning a foreign language and choosing to participate in SA. In the SA cohort investigated in this study, some participants’ motives, goals, and learning behaviors facilitated language learning whereas others did not. For anyone who has taught in or directed SA programs, interesting differences in participants’ attitudes and behaviors often emerge once they are abroad and experience the academic, communicative, cultural, and social demands of daily life in a foreign country. Some students do not adapt well to learning conditions beyond the foreign language classroom despite years of previous study and, in many cases, stellar grades in the foreign language studied. As Vande Berg (2007) explained, some SA participants are ‘‘admirably self-sufﬁcient’’ whereas others ‘‘simply do not know how to go about learning in a new and different cultural environment’’ (p. 394). This study presents a compelling, theory-driven explanation for how and why some students’ language-learning motivation is enhanced during SA while other students experience demotivation. But beyond merely explaining motivational phenomena, this study makes researchers consider a critical question: How can shortterm SA programs structure learning experiences for students with varied motives, goals, and means of pursuing their goals? As Lantolf and Pavlenko explained, activity theory ‘‘compels the researcher to

intervene in communities of practice’’ to help people participate in learning activity as fully as possible (2001, p. 157). Accordingly, I support the notion of intervention in SA, particularly for short-term programs, because of their current popularity among U.S. students and based on limited existing literature on best practices in program design. Intervening in SA learning experiences could take any number of forms, one of which, reﬂective blogging, was illustrated in this study. However, it is evident from this study’s ﬁndings that blogging in the absence of other forms of mediation is not sufﬁcient to transform learning outcomes. Another form of intervention to be explored is the implementation of differentiated instruction, or a curriculum that takes into account not just students’ incoming foreign language levels but also their personal goals for linguistic and cultural learning. Such an instructional approach would entail little time spent learning the foreign language from behind a desk during SA but would, instead, comprise student-centered planning and execution of tasks requiring structured interaction with cultural informants. Students would later create task completion reports in the foreign language and reﬂect on how language use enabled or constrained participation in the task. The classroom would serve as a site for task planning and, later, sharing and comparing results among groups of students. Language, rather than an end in and of itself, to be memorized or mastered, would function as a tool for interaction and reﬂection. Whereas future research efforts are critically needed to both describe and investigate the effects of intervention in SA, the incorporation of reﬂective blogging and differentiated instruction would be valuable steps in improving the curricula of short-term SA and in maximizing participants’ participation in their communities of practice abroad.

Acknowledgments
This study was funded by grants from the University Center for International Studies at the University of Pittsburgh and the

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

47

College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Miami. I am also grateful to Richard Donato for his invaluable ongoing insights related to this study and to Martha Witman for her assistance with data management. Finally, I thank the three anonymous reviewers of the ﬁrst version of this article for their excellent suggestions for revision; any further errors or oversights are entirely my own.

language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ¨ Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman. ¨ Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ¨ Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ´ ¨ Dornyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University Working Papers, Vol. 4). London: Thames Valley University. Douglass, K. (2007). From the learner’s perspective: A case study on motives and study abroad. In S. Wilkinson (Ed.), AAUSC issues in language program direction: Insights from study abroad for language programs (pp. 116– 132). Boston: Heinle. Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151–163. ¨ Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. ¨ ¨ Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19– 38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freed, B. F (1990). Language learning in a . study abroad context: The effects of interactive and non-interactive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proﬁciency. In J. Atlantis (Ed.), Linguistic, language teaching and language acquisition: The interdependence of theory, practice and research (pp. 459–477). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Freed, B. F Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. ., (2004). Context of learning and second language ﬂuency in French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275–311. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 195–213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward two-way

References
Allen, H. W. (2002). Does study abroad make a difference? A study of motivational and linguistic outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 1279. Allen, H. W., & Herron, C. A. (2003). A mixed methodology investigation of the linguistic and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 370–384. Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 53, 65–96. Bernhaus, M., Moore, E., & Azevedo, A. C. (2007). Affective factors inﬂuencing plurilingual acquisition of Catalan in a CatalanSpanish bilingual context. Modern Language Journal, 91, 235–246. Bonney, C. R., Cortina, K. S., Smith-Darden, J. P., & Fiori, K. L. (2008). Understanding strategies in foreign language learning: Are integrative and intrinsic motives distinct predictors? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 1–10. Churchill, E., & DuFon, M. A. (2006). Evolving threads in study abroad research. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 1–27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469–512. Davidson, D. E. (2007). Study abroad and outcomes measurements: The case of Russian. Modern Language Journal, 91, 276–280. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second

48

Spring 2010

ﬂow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 151– 173). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ingram, M. (2005). Recasting the foreign language requirement through study abroad: A cultural immersion program in Avignon. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 211–222. Institute of International Education. (2008). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/ Kim, T.-Y. (2007). Second language learning motivation from an activity theory perspective: Longitudinal case studies of Korean ESL students and recent immigrants in Toronto (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, A68-06. Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case histories of Americans in France (Modern Language Journal Monograph Series, Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell. Koester, J. (1985). A proﬁle of the U.S. student abroad. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language and foreign language learning: An overview of sociocultural theory. In K. Van Esch & O. St. John (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 13–34). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 1– 28). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141– 158). London: Longman. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second

language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress. Lewis, T. L., & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005). Extending the stay: Using community-based research and service learning to enhance short-term study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 251–264. Lompscher, J. (1999). Motivation and activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 11–22. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 91, 564–576. Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43–61. Markova, A. K. (1990). Ways of investigating motivation for learning in school children. Soviet Psychology, 28, 21–42. McDonough, S. K. (2001). Promoting selfregulation in foreign language learners. The Clearing House, 74, 323–326. Mills, N., Pajares, F & Herron, C. (2007). ., Self-efﬁcacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57, 417–442. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Noels, K. A. (2003). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners’ orientations and perceptions of their teachers’ communication style. Language Learning, 53, 97–136. Noels, K. A. (2005). Orientations to learning German: Heritage language background and motivational processes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 285–312. Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoreti-

Foreign Language Annals Á vol. 43, No. 1

49

cal framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12–28. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the ﬁeld. In B. F Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition . in a study abroad context (pp. 271–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad: Women learning Japanese in Japan. In B. F Freed (Ed.), Second language . acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 225– 243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ˜ Simoes, A. R. M. (1996). Phonetics in second language acquisition: An acoustic study of ﬂuency in adult learners of Spanish. Hispania, 79, 87–95. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner,

curriculum and assessment (pp. 5–24). Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Grifﬁths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 392– 399. Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proﬁciency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70–89. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad from the participants’ perspectives: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 23–39. Wilkinson, S. (2000). Emerging questions about study abroad. ADFL Bulletin, 32, 36–41. Williams, M. (2004). Motivation in foreign language learning. In M. Baynham, A. Deignan, & G. White (Eds.), Applied linguistics at the interface (pp. 167–180). London: British Association for Applied Linguistics.

Language-Learning Motivation

Similar Documents

Walanya Kayo

Management Informtion System

Motivation

The Effects of Study Habbits to Academic Performance

Motivation in L2

Introduction to Motivation

The Effects of Study Habbits to Academic Performance

Second Language Learning Among Young Students

Reading Motivation in Middle School Education

Motivation

Academic Performance

Theory of Teaching

Quality Teaching

Negative Attitude Towards Language

Research Method

Popular Essays