Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA – the role of...

Conceptualizing and measuring the impact ofcontextual factors in instructed SLA – the role of

language prominence

ALEX HOUSEN, ELS SCHOONJANS, SONJA JANSSENS,AURÉLIE WELCOMME, ELLEN SCHOONHEERE AND MICHEL PIERRARD

IRAL 49 (2011), 83–112 0019042X/2011/049-083DOI 10.1515/iral.2011.005 c©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

This paper reports on a study that investigates the impact of learning context onthe L2 acquisition of English by German-speaking pupils. Learning context isoperationalized in terms of the relative prominence of the L1 and the L2 withinthe learning context, which in turn reflects the functional roles and domainsof use allocated to the L2 and L1. L2 learning outcomes are compared acrossfour different authentic language-learning contexts which represent four dis-tinct positions on the second language (SL) – foreign language (FL) contextcontinuum.

The results show that the learners in the learning context most close to the SLend of the continuum (with high L2 prominence and very low L1 prominence inthe wider extra-curricular context) outperform the learners in the three othercontexts on most aspects of L2 proficiency investigated. Comparisons betweenthe learners in the three other contexts yield less straightforward observations,including better than anticipated results for the learners in the prototypical FLcontext.

1. Context and SLA

The role of contextual factors in SLA has been the focus of much debate amongSLA researchers.1 While scholars such as Gregg (1990, 2006), Long (1997)and VanPatten (1990) have emphasized the essentially cognitive nature of theSLA process and minimized the importance of contextual influences, othershave stressed the importance of viewing SLA as a process which is cruciallyaffected by, and dependent on, contextual factors (e.g., Collentine and Freed2004; Tarone 2000, 2007; Firth and Wagner 1997; Mondada and Pekarek 2000;Lantolf 2000; Pavlenko 2002). The authors of this article consider extreme ver-

1. See the contributions to the 81:3, 82:1 and 91:1 issues of The Modern Language Journal.

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR


84 Alex Housen et al.

sions of either view as misguided, or at least as premature. At the current stateof research in SLA, we prefer to consider SLA as a socio-cognitive process(Atkinson 2002) which can be influenced, and it is exactly this relative open-ness of acquisition to external, contextual factors which must be explored. Inour own research we follow Hymes (1972) who already noted four decades agothat “the key to understanding language in context is to start not with languagebut with context . . . [and then to] systematically relate the two” (pp. xix–lvii).

There is already a substantive body of research showing the effect of differ-ent learning contexts on learner development (see Collentine and Freed 2004;Ellis 2008 for overviews). This research has typically operationalized learn-ing context in dichotomous terms such as natural(istic) vs. classroom or edu-cational contexts, or as second language vs. foreign language contexts (e.g.,Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei 1998; VanPatten and Lee 1990). Research on L2learning in Study Abroad (SA) vs. At Home (AH) contexts also exemplifiesthis broad, etic approach (e.g. Freed 1998; Collentine and Freed 2004; Howard2005). The general assumption underlying this research has been that natu-ral/second language/study abroad contexts offer more favourable opportunitiesfor L2 learning and result in higher or more native-like levels of L2 profi-ciency and in more favourable socio-psychological dispositions than educa-tional/foreign language/at home contexts. These assumptions, however, are notunequivocally borne out by the empirical findings. Although differences be-tween the broad contexts investigated are often observed, the nature and thedirection of the differences have not been consistent across studies (see Col-lentine and Freed 2004; Ellis 2008 for reviews).2 These mixed findings are inpart due to the diversity of methodological design features that have been used(e.g. different research designs, amounts of exposure, aspects of L2 proficiencyinvestigated, testing and measurement instruments used), which make it hardto generalize the findings and to get a clearer picture of the effects of contextualvariation on various aspects of L2 proficiency development. But perhaps moreserious has been the typically binary operationalization of the notion of learn-ing context in these studies (e.g. natural vs. educational, second vs. foreign,abroad vs. at home). Such crude characterization of learning context denies theenormous variation that exists within each of these contexts regarding both thequality and quantity of learning opportunities as well as learning outcomes. Arelated problem has been the failure, in many studies, to sufficiently describethe relevant differences between the contexts compared and to systematically

2. The trend that emerges from this research is that natural/SL/SA contexts are likely to enhanceoral fluency, lexical richness and discourse-pragmatic sensitivity, whereas educational/FL/AHcontexts lead to higher levels of grammatical ability, both in the sense of accuracy and therange of structures mastered. Differences in native-like phonological control are only rarelyobserved.



Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors 85

control for potentially confounding variables. As a result, Ellis (2008) con-cludes his review of the relevant research by observing that “comparison ofthe learning outcomes associated with each [context] are, perhaps, of doubtfulvalue” (2008: 290). The study reported in this paper is part of a larger researchproject which attempts to provide more reliable and interpretable findings bycomparing L2 learning outcomes across a wider range of learning contextswhich systematically differ in terms of a pre-determined set of macro-levelfeatures. The next section outlines the descriptive framework which guided theorganisation of our research and presents key variables and terms.

2. A descriptive-analytic framework for studying learning context ininstructed SLA

2.1. Learning context

Crucial to further discussion is a definition of learning context. Learning con-text includes the linguistic input and output opportunities available to learnersin their socio-physical environment but it is wider than that. Ellis has definedlearning context as “the different settings in which L2 learning can take place”(1994: 197), with each setting functioning as a context determined by the inter-action between a multitude of social factors (e.g., status, sex, learner identity).3

These social factors are believed to influence the language learning process andeventually also the outcomes with regard to linguistic proficiency (Ellis 2008;Barkhuizen 2007). As noted above, the learning context is often divided intodifferent subtypes which typically form a dichotomy (e.g., natural vs. educa-tional contexts). In general, researchers have investigated the relationship be-tween learning context and learning outcomes based on the general assumptionthat the two macro-contexts distinguished, say natural vs. educational contexts,differ significantly with regard to the type of learning which takes place. For in-stance, in natural contexts learning is believed to be informal or largely implicitin nature, resulting from noticing (Schmidt 1990) through observation of andparticipation in the L2 without conscious attention being directed towards lan-guage forms or metalinguistic rules. Educational contexts on the other hand,are characterized by an emphasis on consciously learning the rules and thestructures of the L2, and are believed to mainly promote formal or explicitlearning (Ellis 2008). However, the correlation between natural contexts and

3. Some authors refer to contexts as the settings in which L2 learning can take place while othersrefer to contexts as environments or situations (e.g. Ellis 2008; Long 1998). In this paper theterm context will be used as a cover term. Similarly, we will use the neutral term learningcontext for what other scholars refer to as the social, sociolinguistic or situational context.




implicit learning opportunities on the one hand, and educational contexts andformal learning on the other hand is at best only rudimentary, and both types oflearning can occur in both types of contexts (Ellis 2008; Hulstijn 2005). Severalauthors have proposed a classification of sub-contexts. With regard to naturalcontexts, for example, a distinction has been proposed between majority lan-guage contexts, official language contexts, international contexts and minoritylanguage contexts (Siegel 2003). However, a characterisation and classifica-tion of educational contexts may be of greater use for studies of instructedSLA. One well-established typology of educational L2 contexts distinguishesbetween non-forms, weak forms and strong forms of bilingual education con-texts (Baker 2006; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). In the first type of context onlyone language is used as the means of general instruction (typically the dom-inant language of the wider society) while the other language is taught as “asubject in the curriculum similar to science and mathematics” (Baker 2006:223). This context has also been referred to as mainstream foreign languageeducation. Whereas in non-forms of bilingual education only one language isused as the dominant medium of instruction, this is somewhat less the case inweak forms of bilingual education. An example of a weak form of bilingualeducation is transitional education where speakers of a minority L1 initiallyreceive instruction in their mother tongue. The majority language is first taughtas a subject until the students are proficient enough to switch to this languageas the dominant means of instruction. Finally, strong forms of bilingual edu-cation are those contexts which aim to promote high levels of proficiency inmultiple languages through the use of two or more languages as medium ofgeneral instruction (albeit often to various degrees and at different phases inthe curriculum).

Appealing though these classifications of learning contexts may be, they failto capture the dynamic relations that exist between the different factors thatshape them. It will be clear from what was said earlier that learning context isnot a monolithic construct. Rather, it refers to a dynamic configuration of phys-ical, social, political, cultural, psychological, discursive, linguistic and cogni-tive conditions under which learning takes place (García 2009; Housen andBaetens Beardsmore 1987). We feel that the various types of conditions thatshape the learning context can best be described at different levels of aggrega-tion. For our purpose of investigating instructed second language learning, wefelt it useful to distinguish three broad, overlapping and intersecting contextuallevels (cf. Figure 1).

The first level is the learner’s individual learning context. This micro-levelcontext is shaped by, amongst others, the learners’ individual needs, orien-tations, preferences, abilities, knowledge, personality traits, and their socialnetworks and discourse-interactional practices. Thus learning context not onlyrefers to the more concrete or learner-external elements of the physical and




Figure 1. The learning context in instructed second language acquisition

sociolinguistic environment. Rather, it also includes the learner, as well asother, less tangible elements such as how the learner orientates to the moreconcrete aspects of the learning context (Martinet 1969; Batstone 2002).

The second level is the level of the language classroom or, more generally,the educational or curricular context. This is a higher, meso-level aspect ofthe learning context as it transcends the individual. The curricular context isshaped by the school’s ethos and language policy (whether monolingual orplurilingual) as well as by wider institutional factors such as the prevailingeducational policy (imposed by the educational authorities), and its implemen-tation in terms of the structure of the education system, curriculum design andthe pedagogical approaches and methods prescribed or advocated. These fac-tors in turn determine classroom practices in language lessons in terms of thedidactic methods and activities used as well as the resources available for lan-guage teaching, all with implications for student and teacher roles and relationsand, ultimately, for learners’ focus of attention and the input and output oppor-tunities created in the language classroom. Two sub-types of learning contextscan be further distinguished at the classroom level: (1) language-content class-rooms, where the L2 primarily functions as a medium for instruction and com-munication and only secondarily as an object of learning, and (2) language-subject classrooms, where the L2 is primarily the object of learning and onlysecondarily a means for communication.

The third and broadest level of the learning context is the extra-curricularcontext, which comprises the wider sociolinguistic, demographic, cultural andinstitutional conditions both inside and outside the school that are somehowbeyond the direct control of curricular intervention. Again two sublevels of theextra-curricular context can be distinguished, namely the level of the schooland the level of the wider, out-of-school community. At the school level, theextra-curricular context involves such aspects as opportunities for exposure tothe L2 in informal contacts with peers and staff on the playground or in extra-curricular activities. At the community level, the learning context involves the




language(s), culture(s), attitudes, and other features of the wider society, whichdetermine opportunities for extra-mural exposure to the L2.

Our wider research focuses on the interplay between the extra-curricular andthe curricular level of the learning context, collectively referred to as the socio-educational learning context, with special attention to how extra-curricularsocio-structural factors (e.g. the prestige, status and roles of the L1 and L2, thesize of the L1 and L2 group) mediate the impact of curricular factors (e.g. typeof L2 education) in determining both linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes ininstructed L2 learning.

2.2. Language prominence, functional roles and domains, input and outputconditions

2.2.1. Language prominence. The specific study presented in this article ex-plores the effect of one such socio-structural factor of the socio-educationallearning context, namely the relative presence or prominence of the learners’L1 and L2 in the curricular and, particularly, in the extra-curricular context, onlearners’ L2 proficiency development. The general assumption here is that themore prominent the L2 is in the learning context, and the less prominent theL1, the more L2 acquisition will be promoted. In reality (though not necessar-ily in principle), there is often an inverse relation between the prominence ofthe L1 and of the L2.

2.2.2. Functional roles and domains of use. Language prominence is amacro-level factor which is determined by other sociostructural factors suchas the size, the status, the economic power and the cultural prestige of theL1 and L2 groups. These factors have direct implications for the functions,roles and the domains of use allocated to the L1 and L2 in the curricular andextra-curricular contexts. Relevant factors for the extra-curricular context in-clude whether the L2 and the L1 have a widespread or restricted functionalrole in the school and/or in the society at large, for example whether they havean official function as a medium of communication in the administration andin the media of the school and the wider society, whether and to what extentthey figure in the linguistic landscape of the school and the wider environment,whether they are spoken as a native language or used as a non-native vehicu-lar language by a significant section of the population, and whether most of thesociety or of the school population (students, staff) are monolingual or bilin-gual (Siegel 2003). At the curricular level, relevant factors include whether andto what extent the L1 and the L2 function as media of general instruction orclassroom communication (as opposed to only being taught as a subject).




2.2.3. Second and Foreign language contexts. The concept of languageprominence is also at the heart of the distinction between a second languagevs. a foreign language context. Although definitions and interpretations of thesetwo terms differ widely, there appears to be a consensus that a second language(SL) is learned in contexts where the target language (TL) plays a prominentor even a dominant social role at what we have called the extra-curricular levelof the learning context. In addition, the TL may (but need not) also be promi-nent in the curricular context (e.g. when it is taught as a subject or used asa medium for teaching general content matter). A foreign language (FL) onthe other hand, has a certain prominence at the level of the curricular contextonly (e.g. as a medium of instruction in language-subject lessons or even in afew other, non-language lessons) but no or only marginal prominence in theextra-curricular context. Generally, SL education is recognized and treated asdifferent from FL education on the basis of some convenient but insufficientlydemonstrated assumptions. A first general assumption is that the learning thattakes place in SL and FL contexts is very different in nature, with the differ-ences being along the same lines as those described earlier for the natural vs.educational context dichotomy. A second assumption is that SL contexts leadto higher levels of TL proficiency than FL contexts, especially when the TL isalso prominent in the curricular context (e.g. when it is taught as a subject).Although there is some support for this assumption, it is not unequivocal and itis by no means guaranteed that SL contexts produce high levels of proficiency(Ellis 2008: 289; Collentine and Freed 2004; see also Note 2).

In spite of the vague general acceptance of the existence of two differententities called SL and FL,

a great deal of referential fuzziness within the two and denotative overlap betweenthe two are making the terminological distinctions unclear, impractical and in-effective or, worse still, in some cases inauspicious and irrelevant. (Nayar 1997:10)

Several scholars have questioned not only the distinctions suggested by thedichotomy, but also the adequacy of the terms SL and FL to represent thevaried and complex contexts in which languages are used and learned, par-ticularly languages of wider currency such as English, French and Spanish(Kachru 1992; Nayar 1997; Quirk 1990). There have been several proposals to(re)define the dichotomy in clearer (socio-structural, political) and more gradi-ent terms, i.e., as a continuum that better captures the range and dynamic con-texts in which languages function and are learned (García 2009; Moag 1982;Nayar 1997; Siegel 2003). We will return to the issue of the FL-SL continuumin Section 3.




2.2.4. Contextual input and output conditions. Language prominence ulti-mately has implications for the amount and nature of input and output providedfor L2 learning in the curricular and extra-curricular learning context. Withina socio-structuralist view on SLA, the learning context is primarily seen as thedetermining force with regard to the input and output conditions created for L2acquisition (Ellis 2008): the more prominent the L2 is in the learning context,the greater the contact opportunities with the target language and the higher theamounts and the more varied the range of L2 input and output available to thelearner in the curricular and extra-curricular context.

Most theories of SLA hold that linguistic input constitutes the primary datafor the acquisition process and that it has a determining function, albeit withinthe constraints imposed by the learner’s internal mechanisms. The role of out-put in L2 acquisition is more controversial but most models of SLA now alsoinclude it in their account as “production may force the learner to move fromsemantic processing to syntactic processing” (Swain 1985: 249). However, itis also widely accepted that input and output will not function to the fullest inSLA unless they are embedded in interaction (Long 1996; Pica et al. 1996).More particularly, interaction involving negotiation of meaning promotes ac-quisition “because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularlyselective attention, and output in productive ways” (Long 1996: 451-452). Ne-gotiation of meaning, and the linguistic and interactional modifications whichit generates, have been found to occur not only in interactions between nativespeakers and non-native learners (cf. Ferguson’s 1975 study of foreigner talk;Pica et al. 1987) but also in lingua franca interactions or interlanguage talk(Ellis 2008) between language learners. Thus, L2 learners too, can constitutean important source of L2 input and output for each other (Gass 1997; Pica etal. 1996) though it is still unclear to what extent its acquisitional benefits areoffset by the fact that learner interlanguage is often less fluent and, more im-portantly, less complex, varied and less accurate than the production of nativespeakers.

The impact of different types and amounts of exposure to the L2 in the cur-ricular context has already received a fair amount of scholarly attention, bothby research in SLA (for reviews, see Gass 1997; Ellis 2008: Ch. 6) and inbilingual education (for reviews see Baker 2006; García 2009). However, theimpact of various types and amounts of additional, extra-curricular input andoutput in instructed L2 learning, and how it mediates the impact of curricularexposure, has not yet been systematically investigated. This is the focus of thestudy presented in the next section.




3. The study

3.1. Focus and aims

The study examines one aspect of the broader socio-educational learning con-text: the relative presence or prominence of the learners’ L1 and L2 in the cur-ricular and extra-curricular context. The impact of this contextual factor on theoutcome of the L2 learning process is investigated in terms of learners’ globalL2 proficiency as well as in terms of specific aspects of their oral productiveL2 proficiency, namely linguistic complexity, accuracy and fluency.

3.2. Design

This comparative cross-sectional study examines levels of English-L2 profi-ciency among 100 German-speaking primary school pupils (ages 8–14; meanage = 10 years and 6 months) in four authentic instructed L2 learning con-texts. The FL-SL context continuum is used as a general framework withinwhich variations in L1 and L2 prominence between these four authentic con-texts can be rendered more tangible. The four selected contexts vary system-atically in the role and functions of the learners’ L1 (German) and their L2(English) in the curriculum (the curricular context) and in the wider commu-nity both inside and outside the school (the extra-curricular context). Conse-quently, they can be considered to represent four different points on the FL-SLlearning context continuum (Gajo and Mondada 2000; Housen 2002a). The au-thentic contexts under scrutiny are (1) mainstream English-Foreign Language(EFL) classrooms in the regular German school system (a school in Munich),(2) the European Schools in Munich and Frankfurt (Germany), (3) the Euro-pean Schools in Brussels (Belgium) and (4) the European School in Culham(UK).

All language learners involved in the study are native speakers of Germanwho exclusively or predominantly use German at home. In addition, data were

Table 1. Design of the study

Context 1EFL Germany

Context 2ES Germany

Context 3ES Brussels

Context 4ES UK

BenchmarkNative speakers

Context type FL context •---------•-------------------•----------------------•-------------•-- SL context

LocationMunich,Germany

Munich andFrankfurt,Germany

Brussels,Belgium

Culham, UK Culham, UK

N 26 26 26 22 26




collected from 26 English native speaker primary school pupils (from the En-glish L1 section in the European School in Culham) matched for age. Thesenative speaker data serve as a benchmark for comparing and interpreting theEnglish learner data. The amount of classroom contact with the L2 was heldconstant across the four contexts: the pupils in the four contexts had on average580 hours of L2-classroom contact at the time of data collection. As a result ofthis requirement, the pupils from the mainstream EFL class (Context 1) wereon average 30 months older than the pupils in the other three contexts and thebenchmark group.

3.2.1. Features of the educational models. Two general models of languageeducation are involved in our research. The first is mainstream foreign languageteaching (FLT), the prevalent type of language education in most of the devel-oped world (Baker 2006). Here the L2 is taught only as a subject in designatedlessons for a limited number of periods per week. The language classroomis typically the major or sole source of contact with the target language. Thespecific instance of mainstream foreign language teaching involved in our re-search is the German national education system (Kubanek-German 2000). InGermany, a foreign language (usually English or French) is taught on averagefor 3 periods per week from Year 3 of primary school onwards (age 8+), mostlyby non-native speaker teachers. In the specific FL classes in our study, theteachers used a teaching method based on communicative, notional-functionaland structural principles (Richards and Rodgers 2001) with some instances offocus-on-form teaching (Long and Robinson 1998). These EFL lessons primar-ily aim at developing general comprehension skills, functional communicativeoral production skills and basic literacy skills (especially reading).

The second educational model is the model of multilingual education ofthe European Schools (Baetens Beardsmore 1995; Housen 2002a, 2002b). ESpupils receive their basic education in one of fourteen different first languagesections covering the major official languages of the EU. All ES pupils aretaught a second language from the first year of primary school onwards (age6+) until the end of secondary school (age 18+). This L2 must be chosen fromthe three working languages of the ES system, English, French and German.During the first three years of primary school, the L2 is taught as a subject only,for one 45-minute-period a day. L2-subject teaching in primary school is basedon communicative and functional-notional principles of language teaching andemphasizes the development of oral-aural skills. A more analytic and structuralapproach to L2 teaching is adopted in secondary school (Baetens Beardsmore1995; Housen 2002a, 2002b). From Year 3 of primary school (age 8+) on-wards the L2 is also gradually introduced as a medium for teaching other, non-language subjects to groups of pupils from different L1 sections. L2 medium




teaching becomes particularly important in the course of secondary schoolingwhere L2-content classes can make up as much as 50 % of a pupil’s timetable.In principle, L2 teachers in the ESs are native speakers, whether they teachL2 subject or L2 content classes. The European Schools believe that this isan important element which accounts for their linguistic success as it providespupils with fluent, confident and authentic models for L2 learning (BaetensBeardsmore 1995). However, whether, and if so, to what extent, the L2 is ac-tually used as a medium of instruction for teaching content lessons in primaryschool will depend on the pupil’s specific L2 and the specific European School,as will be shown in the next section. In order to reinforce the L2 learning pro-cess, L2 content teaching in the ESs is complemented by communication-richcontexts that promote the production of learners’ output and enable the de-velopment of high levels of productive L2 proficiency (Baetens Beardsmore1995). Through skilful social engineering, the ESs promote spontaneous peerinteraction among pupils from different L1 backgrounds through a commonL2 (in our case English), not only inside the classroom but, importantly, alsooutside the classroom, at the wider extra-curricular school level.

Further extra-curricular reinforcement of the L2 learning process in the ESsmay be provided if the L2 is also prominent in the wider, out-of-school context.This is the case for French-L2 in the ESs in Brussels and Luxembourg, Englishin the ES in Culham (near Oxford, UK), and for German in the ESs in Frank-furt and Munich. ES pupils learning their L2 in an area where it is the officialor dominant language can benefit from the abundance of target language withwhich they are surrounded. In contrast, ES pupils learning an L2 in an areawhere their own L1 or some other non-target language is primarily used aredeprived of such additional extra-curricular opportunities for input, output andinteraction (e.g. German or Finnish pupils learning French-L2 in the ES of Mu-nich). Thus, the prominence of the L2 and the availability of extra-curricularL2 input, output and interaction for L2 learning in the ESs depend very muchon the specific socio-educational learning context, which is different for eachof the three official L2s in each of the European Schools, as will be shown next.

3.2.2. Specific sites of research. The four authentic learning contexts in-vestigated in this study vary systematically in terms of the prominence of thetarget language (English) vis-à-vis the learners’ L1 (German). As illustrated inTable 2, the four contexts represent four discrete points on the FL/SL contextcontinuum: English is very much a second language in the socio-educationalcontext of the ES in the UK whereas it is a foreign language in the context ofmainstream German EFL education. The ESs in Germany and Brussels rep-resent two different midway positions. The main difference between the fourcontexts then, lies in the extra-curricular prominence (roles and functions) of




the L1 and the L2 outside the designated L2 classrooms. We will now brieflycharacterize the four learning contexts.

For the pupils in Context 1 (EFL classes in a regular German school, hence-forth C1), the English FL classroom is the only significant source of contactwith the target language. The L1, German, is prominent at all contextual lev-els in C1, both at the curricular level as the dominant medium of instructionand at the extra-curricular level of the school and of the wider community. TheL2 (English) is not prominent in this socio-educational context, neither in theextra-curricular nor in the curricular context.

The English classrooms in the two ESs in Germany, Context 2 (henceforthC2), are very similar to the EFL classes. Differences between C2 and C1 aremainly related to the specific characteristics of the two educational models in-volved. The L2-English classrooms which the German pupils attend in the ESsof C2 are linguistically mixed with pupils from over 10 different L1 sectionswhereas the EFL classes in the regular German school (C1) are linguisticallymore homogenous (most pupils have German as their L1). In addition, the En-glish teachers in C2 are native speakers of English and the ES pupils oftenhear English being used by English-speaking peers and teachers around theschool. Finally, in C2, English is occasionally also used alongside German asa medium of instruction. All these factors not only provide more and morevaried English-L2 input but may also render the learning of English more per-tinent for the pupils in C2 than for those in C1. These factors thus add to theprominence of English in the socio-educational context in the ESs in Germanyand justify the position of C2 on the FL-SL context continuum, further awayfrom the FL extreme compared to C1. The L1 (German) is also prominent inthe socio-educational context of the ESs in Germany, but less so than in C1.In the two ESs in Germany, German functions as a vehicular language amongthe pupils and staff members from different L1 backgrounds. German is alsoone of the three official working languages of the European School adminis-tration, alongside English and French, but in the reality of the ESs in Germany,German is predominantly used for this function.

This high prominence of the L1 in the extra-curricular context in C2 is whatessentially distinguishes it from Context 3, the ESs in Brussels (henceforth C3).C2 and C3 are almost identical at the curricular level, but the prominence ofthe L1 in the extra-curricular context is different: the German pupils in Brusselshave far less opportunity to use their L1 in the wider society or in interactionsin the schools with peers from other L1 backgrounds. French is the dominantvehicular language in the ESs in Brussels, though English is also widely usedand understood by pupils and staff. The L2 is also used somewhat more con-sistently as a medium of instruction in the final years of primary schooling inC3 than in C2. These factors may render the learning of English more pertinentfor the ES pupils in Brussels than for the EFL and ES pupils in Germany and




Table 2. Language roles, functions and domains of use in the curricular and extra-curricular context

Context 1EFL Germany

Context 2ES Germany

Context 3ES Brussels

Context 4ES UK

Context type FL •----------------------•-----------------•----------------• SLL1 = vehicular L in theschool context

+ + − −

L1 = vehicular L in thewider community

+ + − −

L2 = vehicular L in theschool context

− −/+ +/− +

L2 = vehicular L in thewider community

− − − +

L2 = medium of generalinstruction

− −/+ +/− +

also create more opportunities for L2 input, output and interaction. In sum, theL2 is more prominent in Context 3 compared to Contexts 1 and 2, positioningit more towards the SL side of the continuum.

Finally, in Context 4, the ES in the UK (henceforth C4), the L1 plays nosignificant role outside the German-medium classes in the German L1 sectionitself. In this context, English is the dominant language for communication atthe extra-curricular level, both in the school and in the wider community. Atthe curricular level, English is consistently used as the dominant medium ofinstruction during selected content classes. In other words, the L2 is highlyprominent in and outside the school whereas the L1 is not. German functionsonly at the curricular level, as a medium of instruction for the German part ofthe general curriculum. C4 thus most closely approximates the prototypical SLlearning context on the FL-SL cline in our design.

Table 2 summarizes the varying degrees of prominence of the L1 and the L2in terms of their roles, functions and domains of use in the four contexts.

3.3. Research questions and hypotheses

The central research question investigated is whether the L2 learners in fourdifferent instructional learning contexts along a continuum ranging from EFLto ESL, differ in L2 proficiency levels as a result of varying conditions in theprominence of the L1 and the L2 in the socio-educational context. Our researchfocuses on pupils’ general L2 proficiency but also on more specific aspects suchas the complexity, accuracy and fluency of their English L2 oral production.




The general research questions are the following:1. Impact of language prominence on global L2 proficiency.

Are levels of global L2 proficiency acquired in learning contexts which ap-proximate the prototypical SL context (with high L2 prominence and low L1prominence) different than in learning contexts which approximate the pro-totypical FL context (with low L2 prominence and high L1 prominence)?Can graded differences in levels of global L2 proficiency be observed in dif-ferent learning contexts representing discrete points along the SL–FL con-tinuum?

2. Impact of language prominence on different dimensions of L2 performanceand L2 proficiency.Are levels of linguistic complexity, accuracy and/or fluency of productiveL2 performance and proficiency observed in learning contexts which ap-proximate the prototypical SL context (with high L2 prominence and low L1prominence) different than in learning contexts which approximate the pro-totypical FL context (with low L2 prominence and high L1 prominence)?Can graded differences in levels of complexity, accuracy and/or fluency beobserved in different learning contexts representing discrete points alongthe SL–FL continuum? Are some dimensions of L2 performance and pro-ficiency more affected by variations in L1 and L2 prominence than oth-ers?

We hypothesise that the more a learning context approximates the prototyp-ical SL context (i.e., the higher the prominence of the L2 and the lower theprominence of the L1), the more favourable the L2 learning opportunities pro-vided in terms of input, output and interaction conditions and, consequently,the higher the levels of global L2 proficiency attained. Concretely, we predictthat the highest global L2 proficiency levels are obtained by the pupils in Con-text 4, followed by the pupils in Context 3, 2 and 1, in that order (C4 > C3 >C2 > C1).

Hypotheses with respect to the three main dimensions of L2 proficiency (re-search question 2) are less straightforward. There is some evidence to suggestthat linguistic complexity, accuracy and fluency are differentially promotedin different learning contexts: SL contexts would be more likely to enhancethe development of oral fluency and lexical complexity, whereas FL contextswould lead to higher levels of grammatical accuracy and complexity (see Note2; Collentine and Freed 2004; Ellis 2008). However, these are merely trendsbased on inconclusive evidence. At the current exploratory stage of our re-search we refrain from formulating detailed or explicit directional hypothesesabout the varying impact of L1 and L2 prominence on these different aspects ofL2 proficiency development. Instead, we hypothesize that we will find a similartrend for the complexity, accuracy and fluency of learners’ oral L2 productionas for their general L2 proficiency, with the highest levels of complexity, accu-




racy and fluency for Context 4, followed by Context 3, 2 and 1, again in thatorder.

3.4. Materials

3.4.1. General language proficiency: Cloze test. Pupils’ global English L2proficiency was measured through a series of rational cloze tests that were de-veloped within the framework of The European Language Certificates (TELC)English test banks. Three tests calibrated at the B1 and A2 levels of the Com-mon European Framework of Reference (CEFR) were selected. They feature30 blanks, spread over three stylistically similar texts, gauging pupils’ lexi-cal as well as grammatical knowledge. An extract of the test is shown in theappendix. The acceptable answers method, whereby any contextually accept-able response is counted as correct, was used for scoring. Only answers thatwere appropriate in terms of both phonetic form and meaning were tagged asaccurate. The pupils’ individual scores on the cloze test were converted to per-centages.

3.4.2. Oral production proficiency: Narrative task. Learners’ L2 profi-ciency was further measured through analysis of their performance on an oralpicture-story retelling task, the frog story (Mayer 1969). This kind of task elic-its a wide variety of linguistic structures and lexical items in semi-spontaneouslanguage production. It allows for measurement of the fluency and the accu-racy as well as the complexity of language production (Skehan 2003; Fiestasand Peña 2004).

The oral production data were recorded, transcribed in CHAT format (Mac-Whinney 2000) and then analyzed in terms of measures of distinct dimensionsof L2 performance (complexity, accuracy, fluency, CAF for short). The specificprocedures used in these analyses are described next.

3.4.2.1. Dimensions of L2 production and L2 proficiency: Complexity, ac-curacy and fluency. L2 proficiency is operationalized in our research as theability to produce lexically, phonologically, morphologically, and syntacticallycomplex, accurate and fluent utterances in the target language. A discussion ofthe CAF constructs and their operationalizations is beyond the scope of thisarticle (see Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005; Housen and Kuiken 2009). We willmerely provide a working definition for each construct. These definitions allimply some normative reference, usually corresponding to native speakers’ be-haviour (Pallotti 2009).

Many different measures for each of the three dimensions of proficiencyhave been developed, each with their own strengths and weaknesses in terms




of validity, reliability and practical feasibility (for overviews, see Ellis andBarkhuizen 2005; Norris and Ortega 2009; Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998). Wedecided to calculate general measures of CAF as these have been argued tobe the most sensitive to differences between groups of learners in experimen-tal studies (Skehan and Foster 1999: 229). We acknowledge that none of themeasures used here are unproblematic, either in their computation or in theirinterpretation, but they suit our particular goal, namely providing a baselinefor comparing the various learner groups/learning contexts and their L2 pro-ductions.

Complexity refers to the extent to which the language produced is elaborateand varied or whether it manifests structures which are intrinsically intricate bysome linguistic or psycholinguistic metric of complexity. Complexity in thisstudy was operationalized at the level of the lexicon and the grammar (syntax).Lexical complexity was defined here as lexical diversity and was measuredby a transformation of the type-token ratio (TTR). An analysis of variance ofthe number of different word types per learner transcript was made with thenumber of word tokens as a covariate to correct for the bias caused in the tra-ditional TTR by differences in the amount of speech produced (text length)by individual learners. Grammatical complexity was measured by two typesof subclause ratios. The simple subordination ratio was calculated by countingthe number of subordinate clauses per T-Unit (Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998). Al-though the simple subclause ratio is by far the most frequently used measure ofgrammatical complexity in SLA research, there are questions about its validityand sensitivity as an index of syntactic complexity (Norris and Ortega 2009).Therefore we also computed a weighted subclause ratio by assigning relativeclauses a higher weight (coefficient 2) than adverbial and complement clausesthus adding an extra dimension of linguistic and psycholinguistic complexity.Relative clauses have been shown to be structurally and developmentally themost complex type of subordinate clause in English (Diessel 2004).

Linguistic accuracy refers to the ability to produce speech which is free fromlexical and grammatical (syntactic and morphological) errors. As a general ac-curacy measure, the mean number of lexical, morphological and syntactic er-rors per transcript was calculated and compared across the different groups(Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005; Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998). Again, instead of us-ing a traditional ratio measure, the number of tokens is taken up in the analysisas a covariate in order to correct for differences in text length (see also Section3.5).

Finally, fluency has been defined as the ability to produce speech at a normal,task-appropriate rate without undue pausing, hesitation, repetition or reformu-lation (Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005; Housen and Kuiken 2009). Fluency, likecomplexity, is a multi-componential construct in which different sub-dimen-sions can be distinguished, such as speed fluency (rate and density of delivery),




breakdown fluency (number, length and distribution of pauses in speech) andrepair fluency (number of false starts and repetitions) (Skehan 2003). Speechrate was selected here as a general fluency indicator as it has been shown tocorrelate highly with global ratings of fluency (Riggenbach 1991; Kormos andDénes 2004). Speech rate was operationalized as the mean number of word to-kens per minute in a transcript (Freed et al. 2004): the number of word tokensin each transcript was divided by the total time spent speaking in seconds andmultiplied by 60.

3.5. Statistical analysis

The mean cloze test scores, representing pupils’ global L2 proficiency, werecompared using non-parametric statistics (i.e., Kruskall-Wallis rank test) dueto non-normality of the data. Pairwise Mann-Whitney rank sum tests were usedfor post hoc comparisons. Given the repeated use of paired tests, Bonferroni’scorrection was applied to the alpha levels. As a consequence, for each of thesetests, alpha levels were set at .005 to claim a 95 % confidence level.

The CAF measures that represent ratios or that already incorporate a cor-rection for differences in text length (e.g., the subclause ratios for grammaticalcomplexity and the number of words per minute for speech rate) were sub-jected to a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effect of themain factor context. For the other measures (e.g., number of word types for lex-ical complexity and number of errors for accuracy), differences in text lengthwere corrected by including the total number of word tokens as a covariate(ANCOVA) in the statistical analyses. The assumptions for AN(C)OVA werechecked for each of the variables and, if necessary, transformations were ap-plied to obtain a normal distribution of the data. Bonferroni tests were appliedfor ANCOVA post hoc comparisons, as opposed to Scheffé tests for ANOVApost hoc comparisons. All alpha levels were set at .05 and preliminary analysisshowed that no corrections were required.

3.6. Results

3.6.1. General proficiency (cloze test scores). Table 3 shows the mean clozetest scores obtained for each of the four contexts, their standard deviations inparentheses, the chi square value for the main effect of context and post hoccomparisons. The mean scores are percentages and reflect the pupils’ generalL2 proficiency, with higher scores reflecting higher proficiency levels.

As anticipated, the benchmark (BM) group of English native speakers scoressignificantly higher than all other groups (p < .001). Our hypothesis furtherpredicted that the pupils in C4 would attain the highest score followed by C3,




Table 3. General L2 proficiency: Cloze test scores

Cloze test Main effect context Post hoc comparisons

C1 EFL Germany57.44

(12.38)

C2 ES Germany34.10

(17.45)

C3 ES Brussels37.95

(16.22)Chi-square=74.56

p < 0.001BM > C1,C2,C3,C4

C1=C4>C2=C3

C4 ES UK57.12

(16.91)

BM78.33(9.6)

C2 and C1 respectively. Our observations confirm that C4 indeed outperformsC2 and C3 but not C1. The high average score observed with regard to C1(German mainstream EFL) is striking. In this EFL context, lower L2 profi-ciency levels were anticipated compared to the other contexts, given the morelimited opportunities for input, output and practice available. However, statis-tical analysis shows that the pupils in C1 performed as well as the pupils in C4,and better than those in C2 and C3 (p < .001). The difference between C2 andC3 is moreover not significant.

3.6.2. Oral proficiency.

3.6.2.1. Complexity. Tables 4, 5 and 6 below show the mean scores andstandard deviations obtained for three linguistic complexity measures, with theF values for the main effect of context, their corresponding significance levelsand post hoc comparisons between the contexts under investigation.

The number of word types reflects the lexical diversity of the pupils’ oralproductions, with higher scores indicating more lexically diverse language.ANCOVA shows that the text length (number of word tokens) is a significantcovariate (F = 179,88; p < 0.001).

Table 4 shows that the highest scores were obtained by the BM group, fol-lowed by the pupils in C4, C1, C3 and, finally, C2. The BM group and thepupils in C4 produce equally lexically diverse oral narratives. Pairwise com-parisons for the main effect of context show significant differences betweenC4 and the BM group on the one hand, and C1, C2 and C3 on the other hand(p < .001), with the former outperforming the latter. There are no significantdifferences in terms of lexical diversity between C1, C2 and C3.




Table 4. Lexical complexity: Diversity of word types

Wordtypes

Wordtokens

Main effectcontext

Post hoccomparisons

C1 EFL Germany91.69

(17.62)373.85

(116.24)

C2 ES Germany83.31

(13.16)378.04

(107.55)

C3 ES Brussels85.50

(10.95)336.77(76.80)

F=46.56p < 0.001

BM = C4 >C1=C2=C3

C4 ES UK103.64(16.18)

341.95(77.34)

BM115.77(22.91)

356.42(86.87)

Table 5. Syntactic complexity: Simple subclause ratio

Simple subclauseratio

Main effectcontext

Post hoccomparisons

C1 EFL Germany.188

(.083)

C2 ES Germany.133

(.094)

C3 ES Brussels.198

(.124)F=8.12

p < 0.001BM > C2

C4 ES UK.222

(.112)

BM.301

(.130)

Two subclause ratios were calculated to assess the grammatical complexityof the pupils’ narratives. A higher ratio indicates that pupils use more syntacti-cally complex sentences. The results for the Simple Subclause Ratio are shownin Table 5. The highest ratio values are obtained by the BM group, followedby C4, C3, C1 and finally, C2. The ANOVA reveals a significant differencebetween the scores for C2 and the BM group (p < .001), with the BM pupilsobtaining a higher mean score. The differences between the scores of the BMgroup and C4, C3 and C1 are not significant.

The results for the weighted subclause ratio are presented in Table 6. TheBM group obtained the highest score, followed by C3, C4, and C1. The pupilsin C2 again obtain the lowest scores. Statistical analysis reveals that the BMgroup and the learner groups in C3 and C4 obtain comparable scores and each




Table 6. Syntactic complexity: Weighted subclause ratio

Weighted subclauseratio

Main effectcontext

Post hoccomparisons

C1 EFL Germany.220

(.106)

C2 ES Germany.156

(.107)

C3 ES Brussels.271

(.166)F=7.03

p < 0.001BM=C3=C4>C2

C1=C2,C3,C4,BM

C4 ES UK.266

(.155)

BM.352

(.160)

outperform the pupils in C2 (p < .05). No significant differences were foundbetween the EFL learners in C1 and any of the other groups.

3.6.2.2. Accuracy. Table 7 shows the mean values that reflect the generallinguistic accuracy of pupils’ oral productions expressed as the mean numberof errors with their corresponding standard deviations in parentheses, the Fvalues obtained from ANCOVA with ‘context’ as a main effect and post hoccomparisons.

Higher mean values indicate lower levels of accuracy. ANCOVA shows thatthe text length (number of word tokens) is a significant covariate (F = 48,72;p < 0.001).

Table 7. General linguistic accuracy: Lexical and grammatical errors

ErrorsWordtokens

Main effectcontext

Post hoccomparisons

C1 EFL Germany28.15

(13.28)373.85

(116.24)

C2 ES Germany48.62

(22.25)378.04

(107.55)

C3 ES Brussels38.31

(14.40)336.77(76.80)

F = 87.18p<0.001

BM > C1,C2,C3,C4C1=C4 > C2=C3

C4 ES UK21.41(9.98)

341.95(77.34)

BM4.39

(3.66)356.42(86.87)




A similar trend emerges for accuracy as the one observed for the complexitymeasures, with the native benchmark group outperforming all learner groups(p < .001). The learners in C4 in turn produce significantly fewer errors thantheir peers in C3 and C2 (p < .001). The EFL group in C1 produces equallyaccurate narratives as the pupils in C4, and their English production is linguis-tically more accurate than the English produced by the pupils in C2 and C3(p < .01), whose accuracy levels are comparable.

3.6.2.3. Fluency. Table 8 shows the mean scores reflecting the speech ratewith which pupils delivered their oral narratives and the corresponding stan-dard deviations. The table also lists the F value obtained from ANOVA withcontext as main effect, its significance and post hoc comparisons between allinvestigated contexts.

Table 8 shows that the BM group speaks the fastest, producing nearly 125words per minute. They are followed by the learners in C4, C3 and C1. Thepupils in C2 have the lowest speech rate, producing the least words per minute.Pairwise comparisons show that the speech rate scores of C1, C2 and C3 aresignificantly lower than those of the BM group (p < .001). The BM groupspeaks more fluently than other groups with the exception of the learners inC4, whose mean speech rate score does not differ significantly from that of thenative benchmark speakers. Pupils from C2 produce significantly less fluentnarratives than their peers in C4 (p < .001). No other significant differenceswere observed.

Table 8. Oral fluency: Speech rate (words per minute)

Words/minMain effect

contextPost hoc

comparisons

C1 EFL Germany88.05

(16.57)

C2 ES Germany68.75

(22.95)

C3 ES Brussels89.35

(22.94)F=23.09

p < 0.001

BM > C1,C2,C3BM=C4C2<C4

C4 ES UK105.14(26.55)

BM124.85(21.13)




3.6.3. Summary. The results show that, not surprisingly, the BM group out-performs the L2 learner groups in most domains of both general and oral pro-ductive English L2 proficiency investigated. Statistical analyses reveal that fororal fluency (speech rate) and lexical complexity (diversity), the pupils in C4(ES UK) perform equally well as the BM pupils. The two subordination ra-tios only show significant contrasts between C2 (ES Germany) and the othergroups, whereby the pupils in C2 are outperformed by their peers. Notable re-sults were found for the pupils in C1, the EFL classes in regular German edu-cation. Contrary to what we hypothesized, the pupils in C1 often outperformedthe pupils in C2 (ES Germany) and C3 (ES Brussels) and even performed aswell as the pupils in C4 (ES UK) in terms of global L2 proficiency and linguis-tic accuracy.

3.7. Discussion

On the basis of the results presented in the previous section, a number of ob-servations can be made. First, we hypothesized that the ES pupils in Germany(C2) would outperform the pupils in regular EFL classes in Germany (C1).This would be indicative of an effect of curricular L2 prominence, and par-ticularly of the use of the L2 as a medium of general instruction (in additionto being taught as a subject). This hypothesis was, however, not confirmed:the pupils in C2 obtain the lowest scores on grammatical complexity and ac-curacy while the pupils in C1 achieve better results than expected in all thedomains of L2 proficiency considered. This leads us to make at least two im-portant observations. First, the outcomes of traditional EFL teaching can beas successful, if not more successful than those of some instances of bilin-gual education, both in terms of global levels of L2 proficiency and in termsof specific aspects of oral L2 proficiency. In particular, higher levels of ac-curacy were found in C1 than in C2. This finding corresponds to findings ofearlier research reporting greater accuracy gains in FL contexts, associatedwith a greater ‘focus on form’, compared to SL contexts, where the empha-sis is more on the transfer of meaning (Collentine and Freed 2004). Second,this finding also suggests that the effect of curricular and extra-curricular fac-tors can be outweighed by other factors such as the age of the learners. Theage difference between the learners in C1 and those in C2, C3 and C4, re-sulting from our choice to control for the amount of curricular exposure tothe L2 (number of hours of classroom contact) across the four contexts, mayhave confounded with the effects of the contextual variables investigated here.The German EFL learners in C1 were on average 2.5 years older at the timeof testing than the L2 learners in the other contexts, and their higher over-all cognitive maturity and possibly also their more developed metalinguistic




awareness and sensitivity may have given them an unanticipated advantage,especially on the cloze test, a format with which the EFL pupils were prob-ably more familiar than the younger ES pupils, (for a discussion of the ef-fects of ‘age at testing’, see Muñoz 2008; Stevens 2006). These age differ-ences may thus have compromised the validity of C1 in our research design tosome extent. However, such compromises are difficult to avoid in research de-signs like ours, which strive at ecological validity by using authentic learningcontexts. Also, excluding C1 from our statististical analysis would probablyhave yielded a clearer and stronger effect of the contextual variables investi-gated here (L1 and L2 prominence) but would also have drastically limited therange of pertinent positions on the FL-SL context continuum covered by ourdesign.

A second observation concerns the effect of the extra-curricular prominenceof the L1. What essentially distinguishes the ESs in Brussels (C3) from the ESsin Germany (C2) is the prominence of the L1 (German) in the extra-curricularcontext, which is very high in C2 and very low in C3. This was hypothesizedto increase the opportunities for input and output in the L2 in C3 and led us topredict higher global and oral proficiency levels in C3 compared to C2. Somesupport for the effect of this factor may be found in the raw scores: lowerglobal L2 proficiency scores were found in C2 in addition to lower levels oflexical and grammatical complexity, accuracy and fluency, compared to C3.But whatever effect of L1 prominence there may be in our study, it is weak andgenerally not statistically significant.

The effect of the prominence of the L2 at the extra-curricular level is moreclearly felt, however. This is shown by the scores of the learners in the ESin England (C4), the context closest to the SL end of the SL-FL context con-tinuum. These learners obtain the highest absolute scores on all dimensionsof proficiency considered. The differences are significant for global L2 pro-ficiency as well as for the lexical diversity and accuracy of their oral perfor-mance. This is probably not a surprising finding. The role of the L2 as a ve-hicular language both inside and outside the school provides the pupils in C4with additional input and output opportunities and probably creates a more fer-tile socio-psychological climate for L2 learning as well. But what is perhapsmore striking is the magnitude of these effects: the pupils in C4 outperform thepupils in C3 by 15–45 percentage points in some of the domains of L2 pro-ficiency investigated here. The results further suggest that the impact of theseextra-curricular variables is most strongly felt in fluency, accuracy, and lexi-cal complexity development. For fluency and lexical diversity, the pupils in C4even attain native-like levels of proficiency, at least on the measures used inthis study. These findings thus corroborate previous studies that reported morefavourable learning outcomes among study abroad learners in terms of lexicaldiversity but not grammatical skills (DeKeyser 1991).




The most unanticipated finding of our study, already noted above, is themuch better than expected performance of the EFL learners in C1. This is per-haps most clearly illustrated by their performance on the cloze test. For globalL2 proficiency, then, we found no statistical evidence backing our predictionconcerning the gradual increase of global L2 proficiency along the FL-SL con-text continuum. In line with our expectations, with regard to pupils’ CAF intheir oral production we found variations in fluency and (lexical) complexity.While the empirical data suggest that oral L2 proficiency development in gen-eral benefits from the prominent role of the L2 in C4, the context closest to theprototypical SL context, not all dimensions of oral proficiency are equally oras clearly promoted.

4. Conclusion

All learning takes place in context and language learning is no exception. Thecontextual dimension is therefore essential for understanding how opportuni-ties for learning are created and how learners are likely to respond to theseopportunities. At present SLA research on different learning contexts remainssensitive to the enormous complexity of the process of L2 acquisition at large.Our study is indicative of the intricate relationship between one socio-structuralfactor, the functional importance or ‘prominence’ of the L1 and L2 and se-lected aspects of L2 learner development. In general, this study demonstratesthat macro-level differences in the learning context affect the outcome of theL2 learning process in instructed SLA in terms of global L2 proficiency as wellas in terms of distinct aspects of productive L2 proficiency (especially lexicaldiversity, accuracy and fluency).

Although we have tried to rigorously frame our research, certain issues re-main unresolved. One is the conceptualization of key constructs such as con-text. As with many constructs in SLA research, context is ill-defined in the lit-erature and the term is interpreted and operationalized in many different ways.The conceptual framework of learning context within which the present studywas couched (presented in Section 2) represents only one possible step in theprocess of construct specification, which is fundamental to progress in researchand theory construction in SLA (Norris and Ortega 2009). Also terms such assecond language and foreign language are ill-defined, and convey the wrongimpression that the relevant distinctions are categorical or dichotomous ratherthan gradient or scalar (Nayar 1997; Siegel 2003). The sociolinguistic and psy-cholinguistic motivations for these two terms may no longer suit the complex-ity of their current ecology, particularly in the case of languages such as En-glish. The present study of contextual variation along a continuum of learningcontexts also testifies to the fuzziness of the boundaries. Furthermore, several




authors have argued that most SLA research has been done on and in a limitedrange of the SL-FL continuum (e.g. learning of English in North-Americancolleges and Canadian immersion) and that the insights gained from these con-texts are likely to be overgeneralized as valid for SLA in all contexts (Nayar1997: 23; Siegel 2003: 183). Therefore we believe that studies of L2 learningin a wide range of contexts, such as the one presented here, make an importantcontribution to our understanding of the complexity and richness of the SLAphenomenon.

At the same time, it will be clear that contextual variation in SLA is mul-tifaceted and that no single variable can capture all the relevant dimensions.In our larger research we therefore investigate L2 learner development alongseveral other potentially relevant dimensions of contextual variation, notablythe status of the L1 and L2 and the (typological) relationship between the L1and L2 (Schoonheere et al. forthcoming, Welcomme et al. forthcoming).

Obviously, the whole enterprise of identifying and understanding the impactof contextual variation on the L2 learning process depends on the quality ofthe measurement practices used. Norris and Ortega (2009) have pointed outthat measurement practices in SLA research, especially in relation to L2 pro-ficiency and its various sub-dimensions such as complexity, accuracy and flu-ency (CAF), must become considerably more “organic, in the sense that theyneed to capture the fully integrated ecology of CAF development in specificcontexts over time, so as to help us understand how and why language de-velops or not within them” (2009: 556). Our own research too, would benefitfrom increased and improved measurement of both global L2 proficiency andCAF, including more valid, more sensitive and more specific measures thattap into various sub-dimensions of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Futureanalyses of our data will therefore also investigate breakdown fluency (num-ber, length and distribution of pauses in speech) and repair fluency (numberof false starts and repetitions), two sub-dimensions of fluency that may welldevelop differently among learners in different learner contexts (Freed et al.2004; Schoonjans et al. forthcoming). Linguistic complexity too, is a multi-dimensional construct and the exclusive reliance on syntactic subordinationand lexical type-token measures in SLA research is problematic, for both the-oretical and empirical reasons (Housen and Bulté forthcoming). Further anal-yses will therefore measure differences between learning contexts in terms ofphrasal (rather than clausal) complexification, morphological diversity (inflec-tional and derivational) and lexical sophistication. For accuracy not just thesheer number but also the different types of errors which the learners in thedifferent learning contexts commit will be investigated. Another key issue re-lates to the precise impact of contextual variables on the L2 acquisition process(Ellis 2008), i.e., how contextual variation affects not only the rate and ultimateoutcome but also the very route of acquisition. So far there is only very lim-




ited evidence of a direct effect on the route. Analyses of specific grammaticalfeatures whose development may be assumed to be sensitive to contextual vari-ation (e.g., verb morphology) no doubt will help to gain more insight into thesespecific mechanisms (Howard 2005).

We hope that the findings of our study contribute to an understanding of whathappens in different learning contexts but we should not lose sight of the factthat it is not the context per se that promotes various types of learning and out-comes but rather, as Freed and others have emphasized, the nature of the inputand output conditions, the quality of the experiences, and the efforts investedto use the L2 that render one learning context superior to another with respectto L2 development. In this respect, another limitation of the study presentedhere is that implications from contextual variation in language prominence forL2 input, output and interaction conditions have been posited, but not yet suf-ficiently demonstrated. To this end we will complement the present analysesby a study of the language background profiles which were administered to thelearners in this study and which provide important information about their ac-tual use of the L1 and L2 in a variety of domains and for a variety of functions.

Finally, in this study, as in most other studies on context in SLA, contextualinfluence on L2 learner development has been studied in terms of linguistic de-velopment. Although socio-psychological outcomes, such as the formation ofattitudes, motivation and affect, have attracted much attention from researchersin applied linguistics and bilingual education for many years, how and in whatkind of learning situations they develop has not been fully explored (Yashimaand Zenuk-Nishide 2008; Dörnyei 2005). Our future work will therefore alsoinvestigate the effects of learning contexts on these and other non-linguisticaspects of learner development by analyzing the data obtained through the at-titudes and motivation questionnaire which we administered to the learners inthe four authentic learning contexts. These analyses will provide a yet fullerpicture of the multifaceted process of instructed SLA, not only as it is shapedby curricular factors but also by factors at the extra-curricular context. This isimportant for as Hymes (1972) observed, knowing what goes on outside theclassroom setting is crucial to understanding what goes on inside.

Vrije Universiteit Brussels〈[email protected]〉

〈[email protected]〉〈[email protected]〉

〈[email protected]〉〈[email protected]〉

〈[email protected]〉



[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

[email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]



Appendix

References

Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. TheModern Language Journal 86(4). 525–545.

Baetens Beardsmore, Hugo. 1995. The European School experience in multilingual education. InTove Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.), Multilingualism for all, 21–68. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets& Zeitlinger.

Baker, Colin. 2006. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Zoltán Dörnyei. 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic vi-olations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly32(2). 233–259.

Barkhuizen, Gary. 2007. A narrative approach to exploring context in language teaching. EnglishLanguage Teaching Journal 62(3). 231–239.

Batstone, Rob. 2002. Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on ‘intake’ and ‘pushedoutput’. System 30(1). 1–14.

Collentine, Joseph & Barbara F. Freed. 2004. Learning context and its effects on second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 153–171.

DeKeyser, Robert. 1991. Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In Barbara F.Freed (ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom, 104–119. Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Diessel, Holger. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in secondlanguage acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.



http://www.reference-global.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1515/iral.2011.005&iName=master.img-057.jpg&w=248&h=219






Ellis, Rod. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Ferguson, Charles A. 1975. Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological

Linguistics 17. 1–14.Fiestas, Christine E. & Elizabeth D. Peña. 2004. Narrative discourse in bilingual children. Lan-

guage and task effect. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 35(2). 155–168.Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental

concepts in SLA. The Modern Language Journal 81(3). 285–300.Freed, Barbara F. 1998. An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad

setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4. 31–60.Freed, Barbara F., Norman Segalowitz & Dan P. Dewey. 2004. Context of learning and second lan-

guage fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domesticimmersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2). 275–302.

Gajo, Laurent & Lorenza Mondada. 2000. Interactions et acquisitions en contexte. Fribourg: Édi-tions Universitaires.

García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

Gardner, Robert C. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudesand motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gass, Susan. 1997. Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, N.J.: LawrenceErlbaum.

Gregg, Kevin R. 1990. The variable competence model of second language acquisition and why itisn’t. Applied Linguistics 11(4). 364–383.

Gregg, Kevin R. 2006. Taking a social turn for the worse: The language socialization paradigm forsecond language acquisition. Second Language Research 22(4). 413–442.

Housen, Alex. 2002a. Processes and outcomes in the European Schools model of multilingualeducation. Bilingual Research Journal 26(1). 43–62.

Housen, Alex. 2002b. Second language achievement in the European School system of multi-lingual education. In Daniel So & Garry Jones (eds.), Education and society in plurilingualcontexts, 96–128. Brussel: VUB Press.

Housen, Alex & Hugo Baetens Beardsmore. 1987. Curricular and extra-curricular factors in mul-tilingual education. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9(1). 83–102.

Housen, Alex & Bram Bulté. Forthcoming. Complexity in SLA research – Conceptional andmethodological issues. 2009. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Com-plexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA – Definitions, measurement and research, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Housen, Alex & Folkert Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second languageacquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 461–473.

Howard, Martin. 2005. Second language acquisition in a study abroad context: A comparative in-vestigation of the effects of study abroad and foreign language instruction on the L2 learner’sgrammatical development. In Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in in-structed second language acquisition, 495–530. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Hulstijn, Jan. 2005. Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 129–140.

Hymes, Dell. 1972. Reinventing anthropology. New York: Random House.Kachru, Braj B. 1992 [1982]. The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd edn.). Urbana: Uni-

versity of Illinois Press.Kormos, Judit & Mariann Dénes. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the

speech of second language learners. System 32(2). 145–164.




Kubanek-German, Angelika. 2000. Early language programmes in Germany. In Marianne Nikolov& Helena Curtain (eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern languages in Europe andbeyond, 59–69. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Lantolf, James P. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InWilliam C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition [Vol. 2.Second language acquisition], 413–468. New York: Academic Press.

Long, Michael H. 1997. Construct validity in SLA: A response to Firth and Wagner. ModernLanguage Journal 81(3). 318–23.

Long, Michael H. & Peter Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. InCatherine J. Doughty & Jessica Williams (eds.), Focus on form in second language acqui-sition, 15–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. II: The database (3rdedn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martinet, André. 1969. Le français sans fard. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Moag, Rodney. 1982. English as a foreign, second, native and basal language: A new taxonomy of

English-using societies. In John. B. Pride (ed.), New Englishes, 11–50. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Mondada, Lorenza & Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2000. Interaction sociale et cognition située: quelsmodèles pour la recherche sur l’acquisition des langues? Acquisition et Interaction en LangueÉtrangère 12. 147–174.

Muñoz, Carmen. 2008. Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructedL2 learning. Applied Linguistics 29(4). 578–596.

Nayar, P. Bhaskaran. 1997. ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOLQuarterly 31(1). 9–27.

Norris, John & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA:the case of complexity. [Special issue: Fluency, accuracy and complexity in second languageacquisition: Theoretical and methodological perspectives]. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578.

Pallotti, Gabriele. 2009. CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics30(4). 590–601.

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second lan-guage learning and use. In Vivian J. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user, 277–302. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Pica, Teresa, Felicia Lincoln-Porter, Diana Paninos & Julian Linnel. 1996. Language learners’interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback need of L2 learners? TESOLQuarterly 30(1). 59–84.

Quirk, Randolf. 1990. Language varieties and standard language. English Today 6(1). 3–10.Richards, Jack & Theodore Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Riggenbach, Heidi. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative

speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14(4). 423–441.Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Lin-

guistics 11(2). 129–158.Schoonheere, Ellen, Aurélie Welcomme, Els Schoonjans, Michel Pierrard & Alex Housen. Forth-

coming. Le rôle du statut langagier en apprentissage d’une langue seconde.Schoonjans, Els, Aurélie Welcomme, Ellen Schoonheere, Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard. Forth-

coming. A contextual perspective on oral L2 fluency.Siegel, Jeff. 2003. Social context. In Catherine Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.), The handbook

of second language acquisition, 178–223. Malden, MA: Blackwell.




Skehan, Peter. 2003. Task based instruction. Language Teaching 36. 1–14.Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on

narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1). 93–120.Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human

rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Stevens, Gillian. 2006. The age-length-onset problem in research on second language acquisition

among immigrants. Language Learning 56(4). 671–692.Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and com-

prehensible output in its development. In Susan Gass & Carolyn G. Madden (eds.), Input insecond language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Tarone, Elaine. 2000. Still wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Ap-plied Linguistics 20. 182–198.

Tarone, Elaine. 2007. Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research 1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal 91(5). 837–848.

VanPatten, Bill. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 12. 287–301.

VanPatten, Bill & James F. Lee. 1990. Second Language Acquisition – foreign language learning.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Welcomme, Aurélie, Els Schoonjans, Ellen Schoonheere, Michel Pierrard & Alex Housen. Forth-coming. The impact of typological distance on the acquisition of French as a second language.

Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development inwriting: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i,Second language teaching and curriculum center.

Yashima, Tomoko & Lori Zenuk-Nishide. 2008. The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, at-titudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international community. System 36(4).566–585.



Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA – the role of...

Documents

Transcript of Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA – the role of...