Search for a command to run...
To what extent can the transformative power and language learning affordances provided by the study abroad experience be virtualized? The large-scale shift away from on-site study abroad to online learning in 2020-2021, caused by the COVID pandemic, has made it possible to compare data for in-person immersion learning versus digitally mediated forms of direct instruction and second language (L2) community engagement of otherwise similarly prepared L2 learner cohorts. The present study compares measured proficiency outcomes, as well as other performance-based data of late-adolescent and young adult U.S. participants in a group of federally sponsored overseas intensive immersion study programs for Arabic, Chinese, and Russian operating abroad for the period 2017-2019 and as virtual programs in 2020-2021 (in-person N=1388 and virtual N=770). Program data for early-stage learners, mid-level learners, and advanced learners are analyzed separately by target language, initial proficiency levels, and program durations. As a result of the COVID pandemic, all programs shifted from in-person format to virtual instruction, provided by the existing overseas partner faculties, who adapted core curricula, group instruction, direct enrollment courses and tutorials for use in both synchronous and asynchronous forms of online instruction. Similarly, organization of homestay visits, internship programs and cultural programming was also shifted to virtual format. Given the importance of language contact and L2 interactions, this study provides comparisons of both aggregate and activity-specific L2 time-on-task levels for both cohorts, documenting comparable levels of instructional time available within the two formats (18 hours/week), but less than half the available hours to the virtual student for informal L2 contact and community engagement activities. Comparisons of the speaking proficiency outcomes by language and training levels revealed a relatively consistent gap in mean gain levels across languages, with participants in the virtual groups attaining on average one proficiency sub-level lower in speaking gains than their respective face-to-face counterparts. Comparisons of reading, listening, and writing outcomes, however, showed smaller differences, sometimes none at all. Intercultural Development Index (IDI) and other data related to participants’ cultural competencies, including cultural referencing, self-presentation (Identity Competence), socio-pragmatic strategy selection, lexical and collocational choices, and other markers were observed generally to fall short of the standards set in previous years by students enrolled in the in-person versions of the same programs. Finally, the study takes note of curricular and technological interventions introduced during the COVID period which have been recommended for adoption in the new cycle of in-person programs in 2022-2023 and beyond.