Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:21:53.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interaction Between Type of Contact and Type of Instruction: Some Effects on the L2 Proficiency of Adult Learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Nina Spada
Nina Spada
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study which investigated (a) the separate effects that differences in learners' contact can have on various aspects of proficiency, and (b) the combined effects that differences in informal contact and instructional variation can have on improvement in proficiency. Forty-eight adult learners from three intermediate-level ESL classes participated in the study.

To measure differences in learners' informal contact, a language contact questionnaire was administered. The results revealed both quantitative and qualitative differences in learners' out-of-class contact with the second language. When these differences were examined in relation to learners' performance on seven proficiency measures, correlational analysis revealed that while learners' performance on some measures was related to differences in amount of contact, it was related on other measures to differences in type of contact.

To determine whether differences in contact interacted with instructional variation to produce differences in improvement in proficiency, learners' pre-and post-test scores were examined in relation to contact and class in an analysis of co-variance. The results indicated that learners' informal contact interacted with differences in instruction to produce variation in improvement on two proficiency measures.

The findings are discussed in relation to the need for more class-room-centered research to investigate both the separate and combined effects of learner and instructional variables on second language proficiency.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 181 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J. P. B., Cummins, J., Mougeon, R., & Swain, M.. 1982. The development of bilingual proficiency: Interim report on the first year of research. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
AllenJ. P. B., J. J. P. B., J. 1983. Development of bilingual proficiency: Second year report. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. J., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N.. 1984. The communicative orientation of second language teaching. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R., & Taylor, B. (eds.), On TESOL '83, pp. 231–52. Washington, D.C.:TESOL.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Allen, J., & Fröhlich, M.. 1980. Form-function relationships in second language learning. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals I; 131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comprehensive English language test for speakers of English as a second language. 1970. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Day, R. 1985. The use of the target language in context and second language proficiency. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, pp. 257–65. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, J.. 1985. Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 19; 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Hartnelt, D.. 1974. Two studies in adult second language learning. Kritikon Litterarum 2; 220–8.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Seliger, H.. 1976. The role of formal and informal environments in second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1980. Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning 30; 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1982. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), On TESOL '82, pp. 207–25. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly 17; 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. 1980. English language acquisition: The effects of living with an American family. TESOL Quarterly 14; 388–90.Google Scholar
Mason, C. 1971. The relevance of intensive training in English as a foreign language for university students. Language Learning 21; 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1980. Theory and research in second language learning: An emerging paradigm. Language Learning 30; 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michigan test of English language proficiency. 1977. Ann Arbor English Language Institute, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Sato, C. 1981. Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (eds.), On TESOL '81, pp. 11–24. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. 1977. Does practice make perfect? Language Learning 27; 263–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. 1984. Interaction between type of instruction, informal contact, learner opinions and second language proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Spada, N. 1985. Effects of informal contact on learners' L2 proficiency. TESL Canada Journal 2; 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upshur, J. 1968. Four experiments on the relation between language teaching and learning. Language Learning 18; 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar