The Heritage Learner and the Overseas Immersion ProgramsA Comparative Examination of Learning Outcomes, L-2 Utilization, and Acculturation in the Flagship Capstone Programs

Dr. Dan E. Davidson and Dr. Maria D. LekicAmerican Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELSJune 22, 2012

American Councils*American Councils for International Education advances scholarly research and cross-border learning through the design and implementation of educational programs that are well grounded in key world languages, cultures and regions. We contribute to the creation of new knowledge, broader professional perspectives, and personal and intellectual growth through international training, academic exchange, collaboration in educational development, and public diplomacy. With a presence in the U.S., Russia and Eurasia for nearly four decades, in addition to representation in over thirty countries across Africa, Asia, China, the Middle East and Southeastern Europe, American Councils strives to expand dialog among students, scholars, educators and professionals for the advancement of learning and mutual respect in the diverse communities and societies in which we work.

*ACTR is a division of the American Councils.

Flagship as Stimulus for Rethinking the Role of Overseas Immersion & Level 3

Goal of overseas study – language and content learning with multiple perspectives, “multi-voicedness” (Byrnes), or hetero-glossia, similar to Bakhtinian dialogism.

AC Programs encourage a self-reflective stance: self-assessments, regular goal setting, expressions of attitude and appreciation, as well as holistic and analytic assessments of L-2 linguistic and related competencies.

Learning with a critical perspective (Byram) on both native and target languages and cultures: ICC = attitudes, L-2 and C-2 interaction skills (linguistic and behavioral), knowledge of L-2 and C-2, and the skills for critical interpretation (reading, listening), literacy (not just talking).

Simon’s Law: time-on-task alone is insufficient. Activity must be “effortful.”

For that reason, learning outcomes are compared with time-on-task, a systematic program of

• goal-setting, • self-evaluation, • external evaluation, and • self-reflection

which accompany the formal and informal training and L-2 utilization components that make up the Flagship Program.

This is accomplished through the use of the online Language Utilization Reporting System (LUR).

Intervention Components: AC Overseas ProgramsAcademic Components (age appropriate)

Intensive language training in small groups All overseas centers are native schools or universities

Direct enrollment courses or classes.Regular twice weekly or daily meetings with language tutor Integrated cultural program (bi-weekly, tied to thematic units of the course)

Co-Curricular (age appropriate)

Integrated homestay or residential component Internships Volunteer opportunities Optional discussion groups with native speakers (5-6 times per

semester) On-going evaluation (testing, site visits, teacher/tutor reports,

portfolio development, self-evaluation) Regular (Weekly or Bi-weekly Language Utilization Reports

(time-place, function)

ROF Program Participants 2004-05 to 2011-12

85 US participants to date Age

65% of students are 22-23 years old Range: 20-41 Average: 23.77

Gender 42 male and 43 female students

Heritage status 10 heritage and 75 non-heritage learners

Representatives of 43 U.S. universities and colleges, including 5 domestic RF’s

Direct Enrollments (Partial Listing) Biochemistry and Viral Immunology

Advanced Probability Theory

Policy of the Russian Regions

Legal Regulations: Social and Political Conflicts

Orthodoxy and the Russian Philosophy of Culture

The Modern System of Defending Human Rights

The Technology of Election Campaigns

Philosophy in the XIX – XX Century

Economy of the Public Sector

The Institution of Conflicting Sanctions: History and Theory

Current Internship Placements: Russia

• Department of Economic Geography (RGPU)• Likhachev International Humanitarian Fund• Center for NGO Development• Hermitage Museum- architectural archeology• Environmental Rights Center "Bellona"• Center "Strategiya" (SPB Think Tank) • St. Petersburg City Zoo and Large Animal Veterinary Center• Ernst & Young• The Civil Society Fund, Eu. Int. University• Leningrad Regional Press Service Center• Magazine "Art & Times"• City Hospital #2. Endocrinology Division.

Formal L-2 Training Courses : SPB ROF

L-2 component taught by a senior lecturer, followed by small group work with a junior faculty member.

Group work Hours per week

Reading beyond the lines: Russian literature and press 2 Analytical reading (section-level) 2 Mass-media: current issues in Russian society (spring semester) 2 Contemporary norms of spoken Russian (phonetics and discourse) 4 Advanced composition and Russian structure 2 Language through culture: lecture plus discussion/excursion 4

Individual: Direct Enrollment seminar or lecture course (fall semester) 3 Language tutorials 4

TOTAL 21

Formal L-2 Training Courses: Heritage Version of SPB ROF

Language and Content Courses Hours per week

Heritage students have direct enrollment courses and internships in both semesters. (One or two direct enrollments are permitted)

Heritage students enroll in the same core lecture sessions, but work as a dedicated group at the section-level of each, where they pursue enhanced readings of general cultural as well as in their areas of specialization. Reading lists are enhanced, with much less time devoted to comprehension of texts, more emphasis on interpretation and discussion.

Heritage “core” is conceived as a “bridge” curriculum between the non-heritage Level 3 core curriculum and the standard SPBSU student-level course work on the same topics.

Heritage writing program is new in 2011-12, based, in part, on the rubrics and norms reflected in the Russian Federation writing standard reflected in the EGE.

I. Starting from the end (Начнем с конца!)

Overview of Measured Learning Outcomes in the Context of the Russian Overseas Flagship for Heritage and Non-Heritage Students.

II. From Product to Process

Relating target language utilization to ultimate attainment in the ROF context

How different are the language behaviors of heritage and non-heritage students of Russian?

Data from the LUR: 2004-2012

What is an LUR?Language Utilization Report (LUR) is an online reporting and database system, developed by AC, to provide overseas students with a standardized format for entering time-on-task data for their target language use (a calendar-diary) as well as for encouraging regular and systematic reflection about their target language growth and strategy selections.

LUR is a required part of the Flagship overseas programs and is submitted by on-program students on a weekly or bi-weekly basis (depending on the program), exc. for vacations

All LUR’s are read promptly by an onsite program coordinator and by a US-based senior language advisor. ROF database:

- 1429 individual reports by 84 students-98,473 documented hours of L-2 use-Mean Total Hours Per Week Using Russian: 69.94

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: By OPI Gain (A-Y)

Activity Low Gain (N=4)1 Threshold Gain

(N=55)2 Threshold Gain

(N=25)

Homework 3.0 6.3 9.4Academic Reading 1.3 2.3 3.0Cultural Events 1.9 2.8 2.8Host Family/Residence 2.7 7.7 9.0Reading for Pleasure 2.8 3.6 3.9Following the Press 1.5 2.5 3.5Local TV/Radio 3.5 5.2 4.9Time Spent with Friends 6.1 11.8 11.2

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: By Post-test OPIs (Academic Year)

ActivityPost-test OPI 2/2+

(N=5)Post-test OPI 3

(N=44)Post-test OPI3+/4/4+ (N=35)

Homework 1.8 6.6 8.4Academic Reading 4.7 2.0 2.7Cultural Events 1.4 2.8 2.9Host Family/Residence 6.0 7.4 8.6Reading for Pleasure 0.8 3.7 4.0Following the Press 2.2 2.5 3.2Local TV/Radio 3.7 5.4 4.9Time Spent with Friends 8.1 11.6 11.4

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: By Heritage Status (Academic Year)

ActivityHeritage (N=10)

Non-Heritage(N=74)

Homework 8.6 6.9Academic Reading 5.0 2.1Cultural Events 3.8 2.6Host Family/Residence 8.2 7.8Reading for Pleasure 4.7 3.5Following the Press 2.6 2.8Local TV/Radio 4.7 5.1Time Spent with Friends 13.3 11.1

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: By Gender (Academic Year)

ActivityFemale (N=43)

Male(N=41)

Homework 7.9 6.2Academic Reading 2.5 2.5Cultural Events 3.2 2.2Host Family/Residence 8.2 7.4Reading for Pleasure 3.6 3.8Following the Press 2.3 3.2Local TV/Radio 5.1 5.0Time Spent with Friends 11.5 11.2

Percentage of Time Spent on Various Activities

Friends 15%

Host Family 13% (3+), 9.5(3), 8.6(2+)

Academic 40%

Reading 14% (3+), 11%(2+/3)

Cultural events 4%(3+), 3.1% (3), 1.7% (2+)

Internships 10% Other 4%

Mean Total Hours Per Week Using Russian: 69.94

Table 3Mean Scores for Student Feedback on Overall Improvement Russian Program Participants AY2010-2011

Number MeanStd.

Deviation

Comfort level speaking language 9 4.56 0.5270

Ability to comprehend spoken language 9 4.78 0.4410

Ability to read language 9 4.56 0.5270

Ability to speak grammatically correct language 9 4.00 1.0000

Ability to write grammatically correct language 9 4.00 0.8660

Understanding of everyday life in your host country 9 4.88 0.3536

Understanding of the culture of your host country 9 4.78 0.4410

Your overall command of language 9 4.56 0.5270

5=Great improvement and 1=No improvement at all

Table 2Mean Scores for Student Feedback on Overall Improvement Russian Heritage Speakers

Number MeanStd.

Deviation

Comfort level speaking language 7 4.43 0.535

Ability to comprehend spoken language 7 4.29 0.756

Ability to read language 7 4.14 0.690

Ability to speak grammatically correct language 7 4.43 0.535

Ability to write grammatically correct language 7 4.14 0.900

Understanding of everyday life in your host country 7 4.43 0.787

Understanding of the culture of your host country 7 4.00 1.000

Your overall command of language 7 4.43 0.787

5=Great improvement and 1=No improvement at all

Table 8Mean Scores for Student Feedback on Impact of Co-Curricular Activities on Language Learning and Understanding Culture

All Russian Participants AY 2010-2011

Russian Heritage Speakers

Number MeanStd.

DeviationNumber Mean

Std. Deviation

One day field trips - Speaking Skills 9 2.56 0.882 7 3.29 1.113One day field trips - Listening Skills 9 3.56 0.726 7 4.00 1.000One day field trips - Understanding Culture 9 3.78 0.972 7 4.43 0.787Free time activities – Speaking Skills 9 4.67 0.500 7 3.71 1.380Free time activities – Listening Skills 9 5.00 0.000 7 3.86 1.464Free time activities – Understanding Culture 9 4.89 0.333 7 4.00 1.414Host family – Speaking Skills 9 4.00 0.866 7 3.43 1.272Host family – Listening Skills 9 4.11 1.054 7 4.00 1.155Host family – Understanding Culture 9 4.67 0.500 7 3.86 0.900Internship – Speaking Skills 9 4.11 0.782 3 4.33 0.577Internship – Listening Skills 9 4.11 1.054 3 3.33 0.577Internship – Understanding Culture 9 4.56 0.882 3 5.00 0.000

5=Great improvement and 1=No improvement at all

III. From Process to an Ethnography of the Overseas Heritage Learner Experience

External factors distinguishing the HL experience at the Flagship level

Internal factors affecting the HL experience

Self-management strategies for dealing with external and internal challenges to the HL experience

The evolution of the HL experience from September to May. The emergence of Level-III functionality and socio-pragmatic competencies.

The HL, as viewed by their instructors, internship providers and homestay hosts – a 360-degree view of the subject.

Target Language : Early Academic Challenges

It is difficult to listen, process the information, and write down what the professor said in Russian.

Answering questions in class: being put on the spot by professors in small classes: difficult and new, but a very good practice for clarifying concepts that I do not understand.

(September)

Early challenges: Language in public

“I was scolded today at the theater box office, because the salesperson thought I was a native Russian and should know and understand what is written on the posters. But I am only a “heritage speaker” and it’s frustrating to explain each time that just because I don’t have an accent doesn’t mean I understand everything.” (September)

Managing expectations for heritage learners: being perceived as native

I was yelled at by one of the heads of the Department because I could not explain clearly what I wanted. I asked if there is a place where I could see the course schedule for the Department. But the woman thought I was a Russian student and should know where it is. After I explained to her I was an exchange student from the U.S., she finally believed me (after asking if my parents were Russian), she apologized and invited me into the office for tea.” (September)

“I tend to play the role of mediator when a fellow student (non-heritage) speaker becomes confused and I am able to explain what is going on to that person, or step in, and explain to the Russian person what exactly my non-native friend means, or is looking for.” (September)

Early HL experiences: external validation of HL roles

HL mediating between two cultures: overseas relatives

I was pleased when I was able to explain certain aspects of life in America as compared to Russia while talking to my relatives (economic crisis, jobs, etc.)

October.

Dealing with native stereotypes: overseas relatives

“When in Moscow I got into a lengthy discussion with my uncle about my participation in the Flagship Program. He, with a limited knowledge of my language proficiency, could not figure out why I was studying Russian, especially as a foreign language. I, meanwhile, was trying to explain that I have valid reasons for wanting to improve my Russian. Keeping us with this fast-paced discussion and trying to prove a point wasn’t always easy, and got a bit frustrating.” (Oct.)

Dealing with native stereotypes: overseas relatives

“When communicating with my Russian family now with a lot more cultural understanding behind what I am saying. I complimented my grandmother the other day over the phone in Russian, and, in what I think was a very Russian way. And from her reaction, I realized that she no longer thought of me as her ‘American’ grand-daughter.” (9-28)

Self-assessing the language of negative affect: relatives in the US

I have been able to explain to my mother [in NY by phone] certain frustrations completely in Russian without adding any words in English. (11-30)

External validation of language progress: role of parents in the US

I called my parents and read my essay (about the winter vacation) and they were very impressed with my essay, use of words, grammar, etc., saying that it has improved a lot since I moved to SPB: небо и земля! I felt very proud of myself. (January)

External validation of language progress: role of an outsider

I went to the doctor and he did not attempt to speak English with me the way he did last time. I guess I showed a better understanding and ability to speak Russian.

(January)

I went to a Russian stand-up comedy show, KVN, with my friend last weekend. It was a challenge meeting a large and diverse group of Russian native speakers and trying to pass as a native. (I had been watching the show KVN since I was 7 years old and dreamed of seeing live all my life.) It was an amazing experience. I met great, interesting people, learned a lot about the Russian culture, jokes, aphorisms, history, politics. In the end, no one figured out that I was from the US and only when I told two people the truth, they were very shocked!” (February)

External validation of language progress: passing for native?

External validation of language progress: job performance metric

My interview at the boarding school was successful. I was able to interact with the schools principal and vice-principal, discuss my qualifications, interests, abilities, and ideas for the organization. It was my second job interview in Russian, although it wasn’t as formal as American interviews, I still think it was a good experience which helped me express myself in Russian in a professional setting… Both women offered me a position! (January)

B. From Process to Ethnography of HL Learning (cont.)

Internal Factors

Culture Shock: Heritage Experience

“For the first time, I felt like my Russian was getting worse, even worse than when I first came. I realize it is a part of culture shock, but I didn’t experience it when I studied in Ufa this summer, and neither did I think that I would, since I am a heritage speaker and my situation is different.” (9-30)

Early challenges for the heritage learner

“Sometimes it is great to be a heritage speaker, because it is easier for me to speak in Russian than for the others. But other times, it is very frustrating, because people automatically expect you to know everything, like a true native Russian. Today’s [box office exchange] was the first of many more explanations that I had to give this week for my lack of knowledge, or for pauses when I can’t remember a certain word in Russian.” (September 10)

Self-reflection and early-stage challenges

“The more I am here, the more I feel at home. When I look back at the challenges, I realize how much they have actually helped me understand and adapt to the Russian culture, as well as greatly improving my language skills.” (September)

Self-assessment, self-management: early-stage HL

This week during our test in phonetics and speaking I found it difficult to use newly-learned vocabulary, and felt myself regressing back to my comfort zone. (November)

C. From Process to Ethnography of HL Learning (cont.)

The evolution of the HL experience from September to May and HL management of the process

The emergence of Level-III

functionality and socio-pragmatic competencies.

The challenge of Russian colloquial speech

Most heritage learners comment on the difficulty early on of understanding Russian colloquial speech, the informal language used by young people their own age.

HL speech behavior. Having the necessary background knowledge to make an appropriate request.

“Problems arise when I ask people to perform some kind of service for me in a store or a restaurant. I also have been reprimanded for asking someone to do something that was considered a given.”

(September)

HL: Challenge of Intertextuality in the Target Language/Culture

My greatest challenge is identifying various allusions to classical literature and film that are made in contemporary media and literature.

(September)

HL: Confronting English loan words in Russian. Who is right?

There have been a couple of instances when I caused confusion among native speakers when I used an English word that has been incorporated into Russian, without pronouncing it in the Russian way: bowling, slang, notebook (laptop), etc. (September)

Developing Level-3 Functional Skills;Self-Assessing Speech Situations

“I talked the nice security “grannies” downstairs at the entrance of our building into letting me in without my student ID.” (September)

I helped an old woman on the bus who was visually impaired. I was most proud of the fact that I could hold a normal conversation with the woman, and it was not difficult at all. (October)

Developing Level-3 Functional Skills;Self-Assessing Speech Situations

Although I had written many letters in Russian, I had not learned the formal etiquette of addressing and signing a letter. I guessed what the closing should look like, and was wrong, but now I know the correct way. (September)

In the middle of the week, my host mother told me that her mother had passed away. Even though I have delt with similar situations before, it was difficult to come up with the right words.” (October)

Developing Level-3 Functional Skills;Self-Assessing Speech Situations

“There was a man on the street who started bothering us as a group and I did not know how to get out of this situation linguistically. I feel like ‘a Russian person’ would know how to say ‘no’ and how to control that sort of situation. I would like to work on this.” (November)

I decided to write an official letter of complaint at the end of my vacation tour group to Italy. I was unhappy with the organization of the tour and the way it was handed (irresponsible and rude). I used all the cliches and sentence constructions that we learned in our writing class. Proudest moment of my vacation! (January)

Acquiring and self-assessing new functional skills

Setting goals for greater control of functions and registers

My goals for the months ahead include attempting to improve my ability

to engage in “small talk” (January)

expressing emotions (February)

“I am so excited that I am starting to pick up on cultural references in people’s speech. When we started the kino class, I had my doubts that memorizing a hunch of quotes from movies was going to be useful - but I was wrong; since I’ve started listening for them, I’ve been hearing these references all over. Makes me wonder what I thought they meant before I knew where they were from?”

Flagship 2010Level III: ICC – can understand a make use of embedded cultural references and expression.

HL and the host family. Navigating and assessing sensitive topics

Had a very engaging conversation about the upcoming elections with my host family. My host mom and sister felt very strongly about one candidate, but they don’t follow the elections and only watch things on TV. I told them my point of view in a diplomatic way, and related the information that I had been reading online, in newspapers, and in class… I just don’t like when something is being shown in a biased way, so I explained this to my family. It was a good and engaging conversation, even on such a delicate topic. (March)

HL Self-Assessment: Demonstrating

Intercultural Competence at Level 3

I went to an office party with two of my co-workers, which was fun. We had a game of “Mafia” (Russians sure do love that game!), and I was able to play along and fit right in. I also got into some philosophical discussions about racism with one of my co-workers, something I definitely would not have been able to handle a year ago. (May)

HL Self-Assessment: L/C Linguistic and Acculturation Progress

“I am reaching a point where I can meet new people and not have to explain that I am not native to St. Petersburg. I notice that I am making fewer mistakes. People have no clue that I am from abroad. This is the level I want to be at.” (March)

“I had to comfort a friend when she was crying. And that was the first time I had to do that with a Russian friend.” (April)

HL: Speaking in public; meeting professional demands through Language

“My proficiency declines quickly when I speak in an academic setting in front of only Russians. I am in a discussion class and was the most vocal participant by far, since I was the only one who had prepared in advance. It was invigorating, and terrifying!” (April)

HL and the professional internship

I had to attend and take notes at a lecture for the sixth-year medical students, which was conducted by one of the professors at the Institute where I am interning. I got to see the manner of teaching at that level.

This is one of the most valuable experiences that I have had to date and it will be incredibly helpful in my future and a great thing to put on my resume. The knowledge that I am getting and the experience is priceless.” (February)

Conclusions (very preliminary)

Research and designs for HL in SA setting still early stage

Early evidence indicates benefit for HL learner from dedicated program components

HL experiences a range of challenges (external and internal) that are distinct from non-HL

Given favorable conditions, prognosis for Level 3,3+,4 ultimate attainment is good

Thank you!

davidson@americancouncils.org

mlekic@umd.edu