Transcript The Effects of the Study Abroad Program Jean S. Ryu, PhD

The Effects of the
Study Abroad Program
Jean S. Ryu, PhD
Assistant Dean, Asian School II
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
This speech/presentation is authorized by the Defense Language Institute Foreign
Language Center and the Department of Defense. Contents of this presentation are
not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, DoD,
Department of the Army, or DLIFLC.
Study Abroad Program
•
•
•
•
Korean Basic Program at DLIFLC
Six-week OCONUS Program in Korea
5-8 groups go to Korean Universities each year
Korea University (Seoul National University &
Kyunghee University)
• Selection Criteria – GPA, Behavior, Season, etc.
• 2nd semester (Unit 13 & 14) – New curriculum, from
Jan 2012
• 3rd Semester (Unit 17 & 18) – Old curriculum
Major Activities
• Classroom language and culture study: 30 hours per
week
• Daily Out-of-Class Activities – interviews, visits
offices
• Weekly Field Trips
• Host Family
• Student Helper (도우미)
• Special Events: Observe Holidays and 명절
weekends: sports, concerts, movies, etc.
Research Questions
1. Are language skills improved after the 6-week
Study Abroad Program?
2. How do students rate on academic programs
and logistics?
3. Do affective factors (confidence, motivation,
anxiety) change?
Language Skill Improvement
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-Post Diagnostic Assessment Results
Speaking: DA Interview (face to face)
Reading: Online DA
Listening: Online DA
Data: 102 students (16th -25th groups): after
implementing On-line DAs
• Analysis: Paired sample t-test for Pre-Post
Changes in ILR Ratings
2.4
2.2
2.197
2
2.045
1.8
1.6
2.269
2.192
1.721
Speaking
Reading
1.608
Listening
1.4
1.2
1
Pre
Post
Paired Sample t-test Results
• Speaking and Listening skills are Improved;
statistically significant, p<.001
• Reading is improved; statistically significant p<.05
Pre-DA
Post-DA
Speaking
(DA)
m=1.608
m=1.721
Reading
(ODA)
m=2.197
Listening
(ODA)
m=2.045
t value
df =
Sig. (2 tailed)
t=-7.986
df=101
000***
Significant
m=2.269
t=-2.019
df=101
.046*
Significant
m=2.192
t= -4.983
df=101
.000***
Significant
Pre-Post Speaking by Semester
2nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)
1.8
1.75
1.75
1.7
1.66
1.75
1.68
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.75
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.6
1.54
2nd
1.55
3rd
1.5
1.45
1.45
1.4
1.4
1.54
2nd
3rd
Pre-Post Reading by Semester
2nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)
2.4
2.34
2.35
2.35
2.3
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.3
2.22
2.17
2.16
2nd
3rd
2.25
2.22
2.2
2.1
2.05
2.34
2.15
2nd
3rd
2.17
2.16
2.1
2.05
Pre-Reading Post-Reading
Pre-Post Listening by Semester
2nd Sem. (n=41) vs. 3rd Sem. (n=61)
2.3
2.2
2.13
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
2.3
2.27
2.2
2.08
2.1
1.92
2nd
2nd
2
3rd
3rd
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
Pre-Listening Post-Listening
Student Opinion Questionnaire
(N=109)
Part
Part I.
Academic
Program
A.
B.
Curriculum
•In-Class Program
•Out-of-Class Program
•Host Families (for lang. skill imprvment)
Instruction
•Instructor Performance
•Instructor Relationship with Students
Items (#)
mean
rank
1 – 12 (12)
13 – 23 (11)
24 – 32 (9)
3.12
3.19
3.15
11
9
10
33 – 43 (11)
44 – 47 (4)
3.40
3.82
8
1
Part II.
Logistics
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
On-site Transportation
Living Arrangement
Food
Medical Services
Instructional Facilities
Host Families (comfortable, helpful)
48 – 51 (4)
52 – 58 (7)
59 – 65 (7)
66 – 69 (4)
70 – 75 (5)
76 – 77 (2)
3.55
3.77
2.77
1.42
3.60
3.77
6
3
13
14
5
2
Part III. Overall
Evaluation
A.
B.
C.
Affective Factors
Miscellaneous
Student Helper
78 – 81 (4)
82 – 90 (9)
91 – 92 (2)
3.66
3.06
3.42
4
12
7
Scales
0: No opinion, 1: Strongly Disagree,
2: Disagree, 3: Agree, 4: Strongly agree
Part I. Academic Program
Curriculum & Instruction
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.11
In-Class
Program
3.19
Out-of-Class
Activities
3.16
Host Family
3.41
Instructor
Performance
3.82
Relationship
with
Instructors
Part II. Logistics
4
3.55
3.77
3.6
3
3.77
2.77
2
1.42
1
0
On-site
Transportation
Living
Arrangement
Food
Medical
Services
Instructional
Facilities
Host Families
Part III. Affective Factors
3.73
3.75
3.7
3.68
3.65
3.65
3.6
3.56
3.55
3.5
3.45
Confident in
Speaking
Less Anxious in
Converstaion
Taking Linguistic
Risk
Motivated to
Improve
Proficiency
Student Helper (도우미)
Students helper was helpful at all times
(m=3.41)
I recommend this program for future program
(m=3.43)
Negative Comments (free response)
– Not always available (tests, part-time jobs, etc)
– Roles are not clearly defined.
Part IV. Immersion
Component Preferences
Components
1. In-Class
2. Out-of-Class
3. Host Family
4. Student
Helper
Question Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Listening
Reading
Speaking
Writing
Grammar
Culture
Area Studies
Interaction with native speakers
Interaction with speakers of wider
variety of background
10. Discussing a wide variety of topics
11. Culturally appropriate behavior
12. Confidence level
13. Motivation to continue improving my
proficiency in Korean
Scales
5: very beneficial
4: quite beneficial
3: beneficial
2: somewhat
beneficial
1: not beneficial
at all
Immersion Component
Preferences ( How beneficial)
3.7
3.7
3.65
3.65
3.62
3.6
3.55
3.5
3.45
3.47
3.4
3.35
In-Class
Out-of- Class
Host Family
Student Helper
Most to Least Beneficial Areas
In-class/Out-of Class/Host Family/Student Helper
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
In-class instructions (m=3.45)
10. Provided opportunities for discussing a wide
variety of topics. (m=4.24)
13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in
the target language (m=3.96)
01. My listening comprehension (m=3.96)
06. My knowledge of the target language culture
(m=3.91)
03. Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=3.89)
Out-of-class Activities (m=3.65)
06. My knowledge of the target language culture
(m=4.26)
08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction
with native speakers of Korean (m=3.99)
13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in
the target language (m=3.99)
07. My knowledge of the target country area studies
(m=3.96)
03. Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=3.94)
Host Family (m=3.62)
08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction
with native speakers of Korean (m=4.19)
11. Provided opportunities for learning culturally
appropriate behavior (m=4.18)
06. My knowledge of the target language culture
(m=4.04)
12. My confidence level (m=4.02)
13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in
the target language (m=4.01)
Student Helper, 도우미 (m=3.70)
08. Provided opportunities for one-on-one interaction
with native speakers of Korean (m=4.43)
13. Motivation to continue improving my proficiency in
the target language (m=4.23)
12. My confidence level (m=4.16)
3. Significantly improved my speaking ability (m=4.25)
8. Provided opportunities for discussing a wide variety
of topics (m=4.07)
Conclusions
• Long-term research (3 years)
• Study Abroad Program in Korea is Effective for
– Language Skill Improvement
– Confidence & Motivation
• Communications in all levels are crucial
• Various evaluation tools should be used
• Will be continued
Q&A
Thank You Very Much!
Jean S. Ryu, PhD
Professor & Assistant Dean
Asian School II
Defense Language Institute
(831) 242-7820
[email protected]