Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multi-level meta-analysis

Abstract

This study set out to re-examine the effectiveness of study abroad programs in second language (L2) acquisition through a multi-level meta-analysis. Overall, 42 primary studies published between 1995 and 2019 were identified, and in total 283 effect sizes were meta-analysed. This study implemented a three-level random effects model to account for the clustered, mutually dependent effect sizes often nested in the primary studies of L2 study abroad research. The results indicated a medium-to-large effect ( g = 0.87) on study abroad language programs. Essentially, the featured moderators in general explained more heterogeneity variances at level 3 (i.e. the between-study level) than at level 2 (i.e. the within study level). For study abroad language learners, language acquisition is optimal when learners, in particular those of a lower proficiency level, take both formal and content-based language courses while living with host families. Learners’ age and pre-program training may not moderate the effectiveness of study abroad language programs. Importantly, this study further established that the length of study abroad programs are positively associated with learners’ language gains, but that an extended and prolonged domestic program does not necessarily lead to such gains. Research and pedagogical implications are further discussed based on the research findings.

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

“…However, for this group of participants, previous SA research showing that living arrangement and program duration can impact proficiency development was expanded (Kinginger & Carnine, 2019; Marijuan & Sanz, 2017; Mitchell et al, 2017; Tseng et al, 2021). Indeed, this study found that participants who lived in a foyer had more interpretive development and that those who participated in a shorter program had greater interpersonal development.…”

“…Proficiency demonstrates what a language user is able to do" (LTI, 2012, p. 34). 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).…”

Brief but Mighty? Sustained L2 Learning and Perceived Psychobehavioral Benefits After Short‐Term Study Abroad

“…Despite this upward trend, empirical research on shorter‐term programs remains limited relative to longer‐term programs—for instance, out of the 42 primary studies included in Tseng et al.’s (2021) recent meta‐analysis on L2 development abroad, only 8 considered programs lasting less than 8 weeks. As echoed by several voices (e.g., Grey et al., 2015; Zalbidea et al., 2021), this state of affairs underscores the need to advance our understanding of the contributions of intensive, short‐term stays abroad for expanding learners’ linguistic systems.…”

“…One important issue that remains unaddressed, however, concerns the robustness and durability of developmental outcomes promoted by study abroad experiences, particularly regarding shorter‐term sojourns. Although the majority of U.S. students currently participating in study abroad choose to enroll in programs of shorter duration (Institute of International Education, 2020), research on such programs remains limited relative to programs of longer duration (see Tseng et al., 2021). Additionally, from a methodological perspective, the majority of empirical studies on short‐term study abroad (≤ 8 weeks of program length) have adopted a single‐posttest design, whereby solely the immediate (i.e., end‐of‐program) developmental gains that result from immersion abroad are measured.…”