Brief Interethnic Exchanges and Classroom Language Learning
Alina MacFarlane
University of Otttawa
A study of French immersion graduates (MacFarlane & Wesche, 1995) indicates that those who used French with native speakers outside the classroom during their immersion studies integrated French more into their daily lives after graduation than those who had had no contact with native speakers. The results of this research led to the hypothesis that certain classroom language learning limitations may be overcome by providing young learners of both official languages with opportunities for contact with native speakers and their culture beyond the classroom.
This hypothesis was tested in a study which examined interethnic contact in the context of the SEVEC (The Society for Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada) School Year Group Exchange Program (MacFarlane, 1997; MacFarlane, 1999). The School Year Group Exchange Program, linked directly to classroom language study through pre- and post-exchange activities which supplement the 5 to 7 day visits in each community, pairs groups of anglophone and francophone students between the ages of 10 and 18 at minimal cost to participants.
A three-stage study was designed to address the following questions:
1. What are the characteristics of school year group exchanges?
2. Which factors promote successful school year exchanges?
3. How are brief interethnic contact experiences and classroom language learning complementary?
A three-stage study was designed to address these questions. The first stage consisted of a survey sent to all 1992-93 school year group exchange participants. It provided baseline data on participants throughout Canada, described exchange activities, outlined the perceived effects for participants and the conditions which made them perceive the experience as more or less successful. Correlations between participant characteristics, exchange features and exchange outcomes provided an indication of which factors promoted successful exchanges.
The second stage consisted of a twelve-month case study of one exchange between grade six classes in Ontario and Québec. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to gather data: questionnaires tied this stage to the preceding one; focus groups, observation and interviews provided an in-depth understanding of how participants perceive the exchange experience and of the acquisition processes in operation during the exchange which affect the development of second language (L2) skills, L2 use outside the classroom, and language-related attitudes.
The third stage consisted of a retrospective survey sent to 126 school year group exchange participants from ten to fifteen years before. This survey integrated the findings from the first two stages by examining to what extent the outcomes of the first two stages represented long-term benefits.
Data from all three stages provided details of school year group exchanges in three areas: participant characteristics, exchange activities and participants' reactions to them, and exchange outcomes. Participants are between the ages of 10 and 18; most participants in "13 and under" exchanges are 12 years old and most participants in "14 and above" exchanges are 15 years old. More girls than boys participate in school year group exchanges, particularly in the 14 and above exchanges, presumably because more girls continue L2 studies in high school and exchanges are more attractive to girls. Anglophone participants report more years of exposure to classroom L2 instruction and more participation in intensive L2 programs; francophone participants claim more previous L2 use outside the classroom and more exposure to L2 culture. More francophone than anglophone participants chose learning more L2 as a reason for participating in the exchange.
Similar activities were available to participants in all three stages including group activities, sightseeing, attending classes, and time alone with exchange partners. Most participants reported enjoying all exchange activities except "educational" sightseeing excursions. Few participants under 13 years of age attended classes, probably due to their limited L2 proficiency. All participants indicated that they used their L2 more during free time with their twins than during group activities.
Almost all participants considered their exchange experience successful. For many, the deciding factor was enjoyment rather than improvement in language learning skills. Most participants reported improved listening comprehension, particularly in face-to-face L2 encounters while explanations given by tour guides, group conversations and L2 television still caused some difficulty. Most also reported improvement in speaking ability. Observation and focus groups discussions during Stage 2 suggest that specific areas of improvement included accent, faster rate of speech, and the acquisition of routines, formulae, fillers, and colloquial expressions. Most participants indicated that they were more self-confident as a result of the exchange. Most expressed a desire for further contact opportunities and many indicated that they intended to continue to study the L2.
Results from Stage 1 and 2 indicate that several factors promote these positive exchange outcomes. The first is second language use during the exchange. Two participant factors seem to be prerequisites for this L2 use: a threshold level of proficiency and self-confidence. Two exchange features also encourage L2 use: the homestay context provides one-on-one interaction opportunities for twins which promotes the formation of social bonds. These one-on-one opportunities and social bonds also encourage L2 use. Enjoyment promotes continued communication with the twin both during and after the exchange and motivates further language study.
Evidence from the case study exchange indicates that exchange language learning processes and classroom language learning processes are complementary. The classroom equips participants with basic language skills without which communication would be impossible: it provides participants with the positive attitudes needed to motivate participation in an exchange and with the self-confidence to attempt communication with native speakers (NSs). The exchange provides a sheltered "real" L2 use context: participants are paired with a same sex/same age native-speaking partner on the basis of shared interests. Billeting provides a non-threatening opportunity to develop a relationship with this partner on a one-to-one basis by providing situations which guarantee opportunities and incentive for communication. The psychological barriers which often prevent communication between groups who do not share the same language are quickly overcome through this one-on-one contact in the homes of the partners.
Whereas the classroom is mainly limited to academic discourse and vocabulary, the exchange context expands the range of discourse types and vocabulary through the introduction of L2 use contexts unavailable in the classroom such as group activities (museum visits, sports, eating out). The unmodified vocabulary of the various interlocutors that participants encounter improves listening comprehension skills and introduces vocabulary needed for everyday communication. Because these various interlocutors are mainly native-speaking peers, participants are motivated to converge to native-speaker norms rather than the non-nativelike version of L1 classmates. Many students are more motivated for further study through the exchange experience. The exchange experience helps them to realize how much they have already learned while pinpointing areas in which they still needs assistance.
During the first exchange, many participants were able to communicate very effectively with their partner. However, communicating in groups or understanding tour guides still presented difficulties for many participants. A second exchange would permit participants to expand their communication network further within the sheltered context of an exchange. The perception of improved L2 ability gives participants the self-confidence to attempt interaction with less familiar interlocutors and in unfamiliar contexts. While self-confidence acquired through classroom learning permits students to attempt communication with a native speaking peer in a sheltered one-on-one interaction provided by an exchange, self-confidence gained through interaction with native speakers during the exchange motivates contact in more 'real' contexts. Once students experience a wider network, they may eventually select their own language contact experiences during and following classroom language learning. Introducing learners to contact with native speakers at an early age and in the sheltered context provided by the exchange may decrease the operation of psychological factors when interaction is attempted in later life.
Finally, different learning styles are accommodated in each context. For gregarious students, unmotivated by classroom academic-type L2 acquisition, the exchange context provides a social stage for language acquisition more suited to their personalities.
This examination of the processes which operate during a bicultural exchange suggests that a cyclical pattern alternating between the classroom and exchange type experiences may encourage learners of both official languages in Canada to attempt more native-like use of their second language, seek future experiences for contact with speakers of the other language and help them to integrate the second language into their future lives. The school year exchange thus provides a transitional context between the classroom environment and natural L2 use contexts.
References
MacFarlane, A. (1999). English-French School Year Group Exchanges in Canada and their impact, 1982-1996. Canadian Heritage Report. Ottawa: SEVEC.
MacFarlane, A. (1997). Linguistic and attitudinal aspects of school year group exchanges: immediate and long-term outcomes for participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
MacFarlane, A., & Wesche, M. (1995). Immersion outcomes; beyond language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review,51(2), 250 - 274.
About the Author
Alina MacFarlane is Coordinator of Special ESL Programs and a professor of ESL at the Second Language Institute of the University of Ottawa. She also taught FSL at the secondary level for twenty years.