Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges

System xxx (2017) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges Dan P. Dewey* Brigham Young University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 21 September 2017 Accepted 21 September 2017 Available online xxx

This paper examines ways of measuring (assigning numbers to) social interaction and language use during study abroad. It reviews the development of instruments for such measurement and describes some of the connections that have been made between quantitative measures of social second language use and language development while abroad. Measures addressed include the Language Contact Profile, language logs, the Social Network Questionnaire, the Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire, online social media, photo elicitation, mobile phone surveys, and other computational methodologies. The paper encourages mixed methods for clearer and more elaborate understanding and more detailed documentation of tools and procedures for better understanding of crossstudy similarities and differences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Study abroad Second language use Social network LCP

1. Introduction Accurate measurement is important for second language acquisition (SLA) studies. (Norris & Ortega, 2003; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). To understand language acquisition, we must observe and measure it; to determine the contribution of any variable to SLA development, we must accurately gauge that variable. We cannot draw solid conclusions about how SLA occurs without accurately measuring language acquisition and the factors that influence it. Pedhazur and Schmelkin (2013) note, “Of various definitions of measurement in socio-behavioral sciences, the preeminent, although by no means universally accepted, is one offered and elaborated upon by Stevens… (1968) ‘the assignment of numbers to aspects of objects or events according to one or another rule or convention’ (p. 850)” (p. 16). Measurement as defined here will be the focus of this paper. In the study abroad (SA) setting, one challenge is determining the degree to which learners are immersed in the second language (L2). While learners are generally thought to experience all-out immersion in the L2 while abroad, some research challenges this assumption (Diao, Freed, & Smith, 2011; Iino, 2006; Magnan & Back, 2007; Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998b). Evaluating the accuracy of this assumption and establishing more clearly the amount of contact learners have with locals and the degree to which they use the L2 are challenges that merit careful and thoughtful measurement. Studies of language contact during SA have gathered information on time spent reading, writing, listening to, and speaking
rez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009). the L2 (Badstübner & Ecke, 2009; Dewey, 2004; Ferenz, 2005; Llanes & Botana, 2015; Pe Understanding amount of time using the L2 and how that time is used in a SA setting can enhance general knowledge of the processes of SLA. When acquiring a language in communities where the language is not spoken natively, access to written

* Brigham Young University, Department of Linguistics and English Language, 4064 JFSB, Provo, UT, 84601, USA. E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026 0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

2

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

linguistic resources is typically greater than availability of native speaker interlocutors (see Tse, 2001). Hence, SA provides greater opportunity for exposure to and interaction in the L2 than at-home foreign language learning and social interaction in the L2 is therefore a rich topic for research in SA. From an SLA perspective, one could argue for promoting social interaction through SA in the name of increasing input (Krashen, 1981, 1985), providing opportunities for negotiating meaning with interlocutors (Long, 1985), being forced to output language necessary for various communicative interactions (Swain, 1993, 1998, pp. 127e140), or encouraging the higherorder cognitive activity involved in participation in cultural and linguistic settings requiring meaningful social interaction (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lantolf, 2000). Based on Krashen’s (1981, 1985) input hypothesis, one could argue for the importance of exposure to extensive input and the value of having a readily available native speaker (NS) interlocutor adjust that input to be comprehensible. One could also emphasize the importance of experiencing a broad range of communicative situations during SA (conversational frames, confirmation checks, clarification requests, self-repetitions, other repetitions, expansions, or other adjustments) where the speaker needs to work with an L2 interlocutor to accomplish various communicative goals (Long, 1985). Next, advocates of SLA through social interaction abroad could argue for SA to promote “pushed output” (Swain, 1985). Swain states, “Comprehensible output is, unfortunately, generally missing in typical classroom settings, language classroom and immersion classrooms [at home] being no exception” (p. 252). Swain contrasts classroom learners with “street learners” who are forced to engage in more “two-way, negotiated meaning exchanges” (p. 247). SA participants could be characterized as “street learners” who are pushed to engage in such negotiated meaning exchanges. Finally, advocates of sociocultural theory could argue that SA provides an ideal setting for social interaction through formal, organized institutional settings such as schooling, internships, and sport activities, but also through informal social interaction with host families, neighbors, peers, and others. Learning can be mediated by authentic objects within the SA setting and scaffolded by other speakers of the L2 (both native and nonnative), and individuals can move beyond their current independent capacities as they stretch toward the higher end of their zone of proximal development through the scaffolding of others around them. In short, interaction with and scaffolding by others in one's environment is a key component of SA in line with sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lantolf, 2000). Johnson and Golambek (2011, 2016) illustrate well from a sociocultural perspective how SA can better prepare teachers to engage learners in dialogic interaction in the classroom based on the needs of out-of-class social interaction typical of immersive SA. From all four of these perspectives (input, interaction, output, and sociocultural), the value of investigating social interaction is clear. In this paper, I focus on the measurement of L2 social interaction during SA based on the assumptions that SA is important for SLA and that accurate measurement is critical for understanding the SA experience and its linguistic benefits. I show that social interaction can be measured in multiple ways and from various perspectives, and that each of these approaches can contribute to our understanding of SLA during SA. Although qualitative methods such as ethnographies, interviews, and journal studies are valuable for understanding social interaction, treatment of these methods is beyond the scope of this study, so they are only touched on to illustrate the value of mixed methods. 2. Measuring social interaction: the language contact profile, language logs, and social network surveys L2 social interaction abroad has been measured using a number of tools, including the Language Contact Profile (LCP), language logs, and social network surveys. The LCP and language logs focus primarily on amount of time spent using the L2 in various situations, and social network surveys focus on the individuals a person interacts with and relationships with those individuals. 2.1. The LCP Barbara Freed, a pioneer of research on SA and SLA, first published a complete version of the LCP in 2004 (Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, & Halter, 2004) as a refinement of versions used previously in her SA research (e.g., Freed, 1990, 1995). Freed credits Seliger (1977) and Bialystok (1978) for the title and the foundational concepts behind her LCP, which she describes as “a questionnaire to assess second language contact for students entering and completing language study programs in various contexts of learning (academic classrooms, intensive domestic immersion, and study abroad)” (Freed, Dewey, et al., 2004, p. 349). The 2004 post-SA version of the LCP consists of questions on coursework and living arrangements and selection items where respondents circle the average number of days per week they used a language during their SA and select a range indicating the average number of hours they used that language on those days (0e1, 1e2, 2e3, etc.). Weekly totals are generated by multiplying the two. Questions focus mostly on interactive face-to-face contact (17 questions) but also on reading (9 questions), writing (7 questions), and listening (4 questions). In short, Freed, Dewey et al.’s (2004) LCP is a comprehensive self-report for quantifying language contact and use that “has been continuously fine-tuned and has been used in a number of complementary studies” both before and after its publication (p. 350). 2.1.1. Studies utilizing the LCP Many of the articles included in the 2004 volume of Studies in Second Language Acquisition (SSLA) in which the LCP was published utilized that same version of the LCP. Díaz-Campos (2004), for example, examined L2 Spanish phonological development, finding that the number of days per week and the number of hours each day learners reported using Spanish Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

3

were significant predictors of phonological development abroad. Lafford (2004) found that “students in the SA context consistently used fewer [communicative strategies] than their classroom counterparts, and their [strategy] use correlated negatively with higher use of Spanish outside the classroom and with the host family” (p. 201). Both Díaz-Campos and Lafford could have broken down out-of-class language use to look at social language use or other subcategories, but neither used more than overall totals in their analyses. In the same SSLA issue, Segalowitz and Freed (2004) explored oral proficiency and fluency during SA and at home in Spanish, breaking down LCP results into categories. Their research showed weak (non-significant) relationships between language contact while abroad and speaking gains. In a similar SSLA study of French learners abroad and at home, Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004) used the same LCP and found no connection between spoken interaction and oral fluency development. Only amount of time spent writing correlated significantly with their measures of oral fluencydthe more a person wrote in French, the more fluent he or she became in spoken French. Other LCP studies have likewise utilized figures for total language use or broken down LCP results by categories. Shively, Cohen, and their colleagues (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Shively & Cohen, 2008) had students complete the LCP and reported significant correlations between total reported out-of-class time speaking Spanish and sociolinguistic appropriateness on one of ten vignettes: asking to switch an airplane seat. For those in homestay settings, the greater frequency with which students reported having an extended conversation… in Spanish with their host family, generally favored gains in the appropriateness ratings for” apologizing to a friend for being late to a meeting and asking a professor to speak more slowly to facilitate comprehension (p. 102). Magnan and Back (2007) analyzed LCP data by questions and categories, finding only that amount of time spent speaking with classmates abroad in one's L1 (English) correlated negatively with L2 speaking proficiency gainsdthe more learners spoke English with their classmates, the less they gained in French speaking proficiency. Similarly, Mendelson (2004) analyzed interactive and noninteractive L2 use, finding no significant correlations with gains in Spanish oral proficiency. Taguchi (2008) found that amount of time spent speaking and reading was a significant predictor of gains in comprehension speed but not accuracy of comprehensiondthose who reported spending more time speaking or reading were able to make quicker judgments on pragmatic tasks. Taguchi later (Taguchi, Xiao, & Li, 2016) separated out interactive and noninteractive contact and found that interactive contributed more to Chinese L2 proficiency development than noninteractive. To summarize, attempts to connect language contact with language acquisition over SA using the LCP have resulted in mixed findings. Some found no connection at all, while others found significant relationships. These differences could be attributable to differences in the aspects of language being measured, how long learners are abroad, and other variables. However, it is clear that to understand the role of social interaction during SA, it is important to break down LCP results and analyze by items or categories involving social interaction (i.e., interactive L2 use). 2.1.2. Responses to criticisms of the LCP Critics say the LCP (1) greatly overestimates amount of time spent in the L2 when items are totaled; (2) is too lengthy, making administration impractical and discouraging learners from carefully responding; (3) is outdated, focusing only on types of contact that occurred prior to the age of social media; and (4) inaccurately estimates hours because of individual bias and limits to memory. This section will describe how researchers have responded to these criticisms and insights gained as a result. 2.1.2.1. Overestimating total time. The 2004 LCP sought to provide estimates of amounts of time spent in individual activities and not total time spent in the L2. However, SA researchers often total all LCP item responses to obtain totals for their analyses. Two problems create room for overestimating totals: first, learners are not asked to make estimates in light of any total and therefore do not take a more holistic perspective, and the typical tendency to overestimate in self-assessments (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) gets magnified due to the large number of items in the LCP. Second, there is overlap between questions in terms of interlocutors and purposes (questions ask about time with native speakers, teachers, host family members, and strangers on the street and about purposes including homework clarification, seeking information, and asking directions). Three approaches to LCP analysis address the challenges of totaling time from individual items. The first is to examine individual items relative to each other rather than focusing on totals. For example, in one of our studies (Baker-Smemoe, Cundick, Evans, Henrichsen, & Dewey, 2012), “our goal was to approximate the proportion or degree of time spent in each activity (i.e., if more hours are reported in one activity, the assumption is that it is a more frequently occurring activity, regardless of the difference in total hours in all activities)” (pp. 28e29). In that study, we found specific items, such as using the L2 to ask for information and trying to use what was taught in language classes outside of class, were significantly and positively correlated with L2 proficiency development. Taking two other approaches, we analyzed questions regarding purposes separately from questions about interlocutors, and we used online survey tools to provide running totals to guide them in moderating and estimating their responses. “As students entered their estimates, the survey tool automatically generated a total number for time spent speaking, listening to, reading and writing Japanese and English,” and students could then go back and modify individual item estimates in light of the ongoing totals generated (Dewey, Bown, & Eggett, 2012, p. 120).

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

4

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

2.1.2.2. Excess length. Because of concern that the LCP is too long and thus impractical to administer, scholars have reduced the number of items, focused only on specific areas, and simplified question format. Taguchi et al. (2016) included only fourteen items, seven focusing on interactive language use and seven on noninteractive. Taguchi (2008) included only seventeen items, ~ oz (2013) used a twelve-item version removing questions focusing on purpose and other redundant material. Llanes and Mun of the LCP revised for children. In a similar study also including adolescents, Llanes and Serrano (2014) mention using a version of the LCP “simplified in order to make it suitable for children” (p. 5). Children and adolescents reported interacting more with native speakers while abroad than adults did, and both children and adults had more L2 interaction abroad than learners at home. Pyper and Slagter (2015) simplified in a different way: “Whereas the 2004 LCP requires participants to first indicate the number of days per week and then the hours per day for each behavior, this proved to be cumbersome, and a number of students would discontinue the survey upon reaching these items. For this reason, the response prompt for these questions were changed to a single response of ‘hours per week’” (p. 86). Participants reported spending an average of 25.7 h per week speaking L2 Spanish and 8.5 h speaking L1 English during SA. Simplified and focused LCP-like language contact questionnaires are common. Di Silvio, Donovan, and Malone (2014, 2015) measured interaction in homestay situations, asking about “language activities conducted at home and student dispositions
r, and Iwaniec (2014) collected data on direct spoken contact, direct toward the host family” (2014, p. 174). Kormos, Csize written contact, and media contact. Reported written and media contact increased, but spoken interaction decreased over time abroad. Similarly, Moyer (2006) opted for a shorter measure including one item each regarding time spent (1) interacting with friends and acquaintances, (2) using German in professional settings, (3) using German on campus or in town, (4) watching TV or films, (5) writing emails or using the Internet, and (6) doing other things. Several researchers report adjusting the LCP but give minimal details. George (2014, p. 100) used a version of the LCP
lix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker, 2015, p. 78) used “a “based on Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, and Halter (2004),” and Fe customized version” of the LCP, but specific modifications or customizations go unmentioned in both of these studies. Mora
rez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2011) for details; however, Pe
rez-Vidal and Valls-Ferrer (2012) also give no specifics, referring to Pe and Juan-Garau do not detail what modifications were made to the LCP, simply mentioning questions “based on the Language Contact Profile” (p. 170). The lack of detail in studies using modified versions of the LCP indicates the importance of documenting changes made or alternative questionnaires used. While some of these studies show connections with interactive and noninteractive language use and language gains, others do not. Understanding these differing findings may require more careful explication of modifications of the LCP or alternative methods used. 2.1.2.3. Content. Martínez-Arbelaiz, Areizaga, and Camps (2016) articulated an additional concern: “It is clear from a cursory look at the LCP that it does not cover the whole array of emerging technologies and social media, nor the associated language uses that these technologies can facilitate” (p. 3). In their study, they include an extensive set of questions in this area and report that students regularly used a range of digital media (WhatsApp, Facebook, and other online social networks) in their mother tongues and their L2s. Stressing the importance of considering the availability and use of various technologies while abroad, Coleman and Chafer (2010) state, We would argue that the stage of development and adoption of telecommunications in home and host countries is a factor which should be, but often is not, taken into account in comparing contemporary studies with some of the most widely cited study abroad publications. The question of Internet access is extremely date-sensitive. An obvious prerequisite is that published studies should make clear at what date the subjects undertook their sojourn abroad. (pp. 164e165). Coleman and Chafer emphasize the importance of the dates data were collected, but they could also emphasize the importance of gathering information on use of social media, mobile phones, and other resources. They might also stress the need to publish questions used in such studies, so researchers can understand what SA participants were asked and how media use compares to other areas of language use while abroad. Bracke and Aguerre (2015) document changes to the LCP and questions asked about social media use by supplying a complete copy of their questionnaire. That questionnaire resembles the LCP but asks learners to indicate who they were in touch with, in which ways, and in which languages rather than estimate amount of time spent. Face-to-face, online social networking, and email communication are included in the questions. The inclusion of the actual survey is helpful, especially since others, such as Hardison (2014), have adjusted the LCP “to include electronic communication” (p. 424) without elaborating or providing illustrative items. 2.1.2.4. Hour estimates. Briggs (2015a, 2015b) has expressed concerns over the use of retrospective estimates by learners of hours spent in various activities and over wording in the LCP. She explains her concerns and modifications: Many amendments were made to the LCP for use in the present study. The most significant of these was a modification of the Likert scale from a frequency to a “how true of me” rating in order to find out which scenarios were most highly identified with by the sample. This change was made because an out-of-class situation may not present itself regularly, yet a learner may act in one particular way every time the situation occurs. Similarly, it is more difficult to accurately gauge how often something happens than to state how representative it is of one's behaviour, and frequency scales of items of a different nature cannot be treated cumulatively. (2015a, p. 299).

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

5


r and Kormos (2009) also use a scale (ranging from “not at all” to “very much”) Similarly to Briggs (2015a, 2015b), Csize instead of having learners report number of hours of contact. Their items focus on direct spoken contact, direct written
r and Kormos's questions were not designed to examine language contact, indirect contact, and media usage. While Csize contact in SA per se, they have proven useful in determining complex connections between indirect and direct contact with language and self-confidence, instrumentality, and other variables.
ndez and Tapia Concerned that the LCP might not accurately and adequately capture language contact during SA, Ferna (2016) used another modified version of the LCP and compared results with supplemental, open-ended student comments on these items, interview responses, and observations of interactions during SA. Their version of the LCP has students write in (rather than select) number of days per week and number of hours per day in each activity and then comment about activity associated with each item. Students reported ambiguity regarding the meaning of individual LCP questions and problems with overlapping content. They also mentioned difficulty estimating number of hours of use in hindsight because amount of time varied according to their language abilities and circumstances over the course of their SA. Student concerns draw attention to the need to (1) evaluate individual items to avoid confusion, (2) consider using items that might capture differences in quality of interaction rather than or in addition to time, and (3) reconsider questions regarding amount of time students spend in various manners in light of (1) and (2). 2.2. Language logs Regarding timing of the LCP, Magnan and Back (2007) note, “Given that the LCP [is] a self-recall done at one time at the end of the program, the data might not reflect reality as much as a continuous logging of activity throughout the program would” (p. 56). Garcia-Amaya (in this issue) expresses similar concerns. To capture language use over an extended period of time and have learners reflect more immediately following language use or contact, researchers have utilized language logs instead (e.g., Martinsen, 2010; Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013). Learners are asked to log amount of time spent in various activities on a daily basis. An early example of language logs in SA literature is found in the Russian studies by Brecht and his colleagues (Brecht, Davidson, & Ginsberg, 1993, 1995; Brecht & Robinson, 1995; Ginsberg & Miller, 2000). Learners were asked to write what they did in calendar diaries, who they were with, and what language they used during each block of time. While these data were highly informative, the researchers report that the open-ended nature of the task allowed for a broad range of labeling and therefore made it difficult to categorize and tally results. They found no significant relationships between their quantified language log results and multiple measures of language gain during SA. In another more recent language log study, Martinsen, Baker, Dewey, Bown, and Johnson (2010) had learners estimate language use at the end of each day for one week at the mid-point of SA. Rather than writing in activities on a schedule, learners estimated amount of time spent on twenty specified activities each day. Learners in service-learning SA reported using the target language out of class more than learners in more traditional SA. In a different approach to daily logs, Ranta and Meckelborg (2013) had participants complete a computerized form each day consisting of a calendar and drop-down options students selected to indicate what they did, who they interacted with, where they were, and what language they used during each 15-min period throughout the day. Students submitted logs for seven days in a row once a month over a six-month period. The combination of using predetermined drop-down categories and indicating activities for each 15-min time slot throughout the day is particularly noteworthy. Students reported engaging in receptive L2 use much more than interactive. Furthermore, their reported L2 use as international students was largely for academic purposes and they tended to report using their L1 as much as or more than the L2 for daily living, social interaction, and recreational activities. Variation in timing, length of reporting, and what and how learners record their interactions make it difficult to compare language log studies. The relative immediacy of recall is an apparent benefit of this approach, but without more consistency, control, and comparison it is difficult to determine the advantages of one approach over another or of language logs over a one-time LCP. 2.3. Social network surveys One weakness of the LCP and other measures is that they often conflate two variables: how much the L2 is used and the interlocutors with whom SA participants interact. The focus of the LCP is clearly the amount of L2 use. Questions ask, “How much time did you spend speaking in Spanish [the L2] outside of class,” attaching a purpose such as “to obtain directions” or “to clarify classroom-related work.” The LCP also elaborates by adding possible interlocutors: “with classmates,” “with a host family, Spanish roommate, or other Spanish speakers in the dormitory,” etc. (Freed, Dewey, et al., 2004, p. 354). This list of interlocutors can be helpful for getting learners to think about amount of L2 use with others, but SLA can be influenced by more than time alone (Long, 1996; Ortega, 2009). The closeness and nature of learners’ relationships can also affect SLA as they contribute not only to L2 use but also to motivation to acquire the language, attitudes toward the host culture, and other € rnyei, 2003; Isabelli-Garcia, 2006; Milroy, 1987). variables that can affect SLA (Do Several SLA researchers have drawn on social network theorydtheory regularly informing fields outside of SLA ranging from mental and physical health (Nicolas, DaSilva, & Donnelly, 2011; Valente, 2010) to career development (Granovetter, 1973; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Regarding SLA research, Mercer (2015) states, Social network theory can help us to Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

6

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

understand the social interactions of individuals and groups. For example, it can cast light on individuals and their in- and out-of-class language use, their contact with users of the target language and their “social capital” in terms of language use and learning opportunities. (p. 79). Social networks can determine the types of information, language, and culture a person is exposed to (Xu, Wang, & Wei, 2008), and the notion of social capital involves investment in informal networks or civic organizations (Putnam, 1995, 2001). Investment is a key contributor to SLA (Norton, 2013; Norton Pierce, 1995). When learners invest more in their SA experience, they become part of communities that provide rich linguistic input, meet immediate needs, and engage learners in cultural exchanges. When learners develop social networks, they benefit from more than simply increased time of exposure to the L2. Two research groups have quantitatively examined connections between social networks and SLA during SA: my own research group (Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown, & Martinsen, 2014; Baker-Smemoe et al., 2012; Dewey, Belnap, & Hillstrom, 2013; Dewey et al., 2014) and the Southampton Language and Social Networks Abroad Project (LANGSNAP) group (McManus, Mitchell, & Tracy-Ventura, 2014; Mitchell, 2015; Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2015, 2017). My group has utilized a survey based on (1) the General Social Survey (Burt, 1985), a key instrument used in social network research, and (2) the
al Index of Linguistic Integration (Segalowitz & Ryder, 2006). The General Social Survey was created to gather inMontre formation on the social landscape of the United States. It includes questions asking people through interviews (rather than paper or online surveys) to name the people they interact with and to elaborate on the nature of their relationships with them. This is done not to gather names but rather to get people to be more careful and specific in describing the quantity and types of social relationships they have. Segalowitz and Ryder (2006) built on the General Social Survey and sought to measure who people use their first and second languages with in bilingual communities. Our own survey, the Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire (SASIQ), asks learners to list the people they interact with most during study abroad, rate the closeness of relationships with them, describe how they met them, etc. My group found connections between social networks, language use, and L2 gains during SA in several studies using the SASIQ. In one study of over 100 SA participants in Mexico, Spain, France, Egypt, Russia, or China (Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014), learners who made significant gains in spoken proficiency during SA reported belonging to more social groups and having stronger social relationships with their native speaker friends than those who made no significant gains. Similarly, in a study of over 200 learners in Japan (Dewey et al., 2012), dispersion (number of social groups a person is connected with) was a good predictor of perceived gains in proficiency over SA. In Arabic, SA learners reporting closer relationships with Arab friends made greater gains in Arabic proficiency (Dewey, Belnap, et al., 2013). These studies illustrate that it might be not just number of hours of language use but also number and types of relationships that influence language development during SA. In addition to quantifying relationship information, the SASIQ provides qualitative information on how learners develop friendships and what types of people they befriend (Dewey, Ring, Gardner, & Belnap, 2013; Ring, Gardner, & Dewey, 2013), helping us to test concepts such as Coleman's concentric circles model (Coleman, 2013), which categorizes relationships SA learners make and their transformation over SA. LANGSNAP involved European ERASMUS Project students on SA to French- or Spanish-speaking countries between 2011 and 2013 (Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2017; http://langsnap.soton.ac.uk/). LANGSNAP utilized a Social Networks Questionnaire (SNQ) and a Language Engagement Questionnaire, the former resembling the SASIQ and the latter the LCP. Both were given three times over SA. The SNQ asks learners to list people they regularly interact with in each of five contexts and tell how often they interact with each individual, what language(s) they interact in, what their relationships are, and how they first met. SNQ results were significant predictors of gains in fluency during SA, but not of proficiency, accuracy, or lexical complexity (McManus, Tracy-Ventura, & Mitchell, 2016). Furthermore, learners tended to develop extensive friendships in the L2 (French) early on and then those numbers dropped over time. The number of L2 English-speaking friends these SA participants reported interacting with decreased over time as well (McManus et al., 2014). Both the LANGSNAP work and my group's research indicate significant correlations between social relationships and language gains during SA. They also highlight patterns of making and developing friendships with locals. There are other studies examining connections between social networks and L2 development, but the studies by these two groups are larger than most and represent what can be done to measure social networks in order to assess connections between social networks and language gains. 3. Recent innovation in measuring L2 social interaction One of the strengths of self-reports is that they allow quantification valuable for identifying trends across the data and statistical relationships between social interaction, L2 use, and SLA abroad. This strength can also be a limitation, since selfreports tell us little about the nature of an individual's experience. Coleman (2013) and Kinginger (2009) emphasize the need to go beyond generalization and better understand the diversity of individual SA: “Individual trajectories are in fact the essence of recent SA research, in which the focus has shifted from quantitative to qualitative, from product to process, from a search for generalizability to a recognition of complexity and variation” (Coleman, 2013, p. 25). Several recent innovations allow for the tabulation of information about interlocutors and language use and provide rich qualitative information about individuals' experiences using social media, photo journaling, and mobile phone technologies, exemplifying mixed methods and their benefits to SA researchers. The limitations of quantitative methods described previously are clear, but traditional qualitative methods such as interviews and journaling have limitations as well. Back (2013) points out that traditional qualitative methods such as Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

7

ethnographies, journaling, and interviews can suffer from recall bias and contrived experiences and can fatigue and demand much of both researchers and participants. Back advocates other more natural ways of gathering information on individuals' experiences abroad, reporting specifically on an analysis of the use of social media by SA participants. Language use and social interaction in Back's social media study occurred in authentic ways not contrived or manipulated by researchers but instead naturally produced by the learners as they interacted with others at home and in the SA country in the L1 and L2 as a natural part of their stay abroad. Social media posts and relationships were quantifiable, written out in situ by the learners and their interlocutors and available for various mixed methods analyses. 3.1. Social media to understand social networks Research has shown that Internet and social media use can be both beneficial and detrimental for SLA during SA. Mitchell (2012) found that learners took opportunities to produce the L2 regularly on social media in authentic situations while abroad, helping them practice patterns in appropriate and genuine ways. On the other hand, Magnan and Lafford (2012) and Dewey (2008) note that learners who used social media to stay in regular contact with home, interacting mainly in their L1, tended to suffer in terms of linguistic development. Taking advantage of learners’ tendencies to connect with both new and old friends through Facebook, Back (2013) analyzed the Facebook interactions of three learners of Portuguese on SA in Brazil, aiming to document actual (as opposed to self-reported) language use over ten months abroad and compare that with one-time LCP data. Back reports that LCP data correspond in some ways to Facebook language use but not in others and that they “do not offer the level of detail that the Facebook data offer regarding frequency of interactions over the entire observation period” (p. 385). Back reports increases in L2 use overall over time and individual variation across learnersdone who had never been abroad reported homesickness and used the L2 less on Facebook than others. A high L2 user on Facebook posted status updates in Portuguese despite having a majority of nonreaders of Portuguese as friends. Back notes the power of Facebook to elucidate language use, social interactions, and responses to SAddata useful for a range of SA research, from acquisition of specific features of the L2 to motivation and identity. The potential to conduct both quantitative and qualitative analyses of social media data is clear from her study. 3.2. Photo elicitation as a tool for understanding social networks Another tool that can contribute to the understanding of L2 interaction abroad is photo elicitation. In a mixed methods study, Umino and Benson (2016) present both quantitative and qualitative results from analyses of social interaction over four years of SA by a single learner in Japan to describe how he entered and engaged in communities of practice over time. They draw on life history approaches that use photos taken by or including a participant to elicit information regarding his or her life experiences. Their participant categorized 12,425 of his own photographs according to whether individuals appearing were local natives, fellow international students, university support staff, or others. Photos were also categorized by whether the activity captured was formally planned by the university or informally planned by those in the photo. Totals were then used to quantitatively track development over time. The number of photos showing the participant alone decreased over time, as did the number including fellow international students, largely following Coleman's concentric circle model (Coleman, 2013), with association moving gradually from conationals to others (fellow international students) and then to locals. The number of local Japanese grew gradually, moving from 3.59% in the first year to 40.75% in the last year. Qualitative analysis based on the participant's photo-elicited recall describes him moving from being a peripheral participant in Japanese social circles to being a full-fledged member. The Japanese in the pictures toward the end of the experience were highly supportive of the participant's language and social development. This study demonstrates the power of photo elicitation as a means of longitudinal analysis of social interaction over SA and as a source of data that can be both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. 3.3. Mobile phones to understand social networks The use of mobile phone technologies to better track learners' language use and social interactions while abroad also has potential. Garcia-Amaya (in this issue) notes that his Daily Language Questionnaire (DLQ) was often taken by mobile phones and other mobile devices, allowing timely completion. In my own unpublished pilot work aiming to take advantage of mobile phone capabilities, we tracked social interaction and language use over a semester abroad by regularly contacting learners by mobile phone to ask about their interactions with others. Using a combination of Short Message Service (SMS), browser-based surveys, and telephone marketing software, we asked students to provide both selection and open-ended responses indicating how they had used their time in the most recent hour, whom they interacted with, what topics they discussed, etc. We found that learners moved from interacting primarily with fellow international students and roommates in their L1 early in their time abroad to spending significantly more time with locals speaking their L2. The number of native interlocutors dropped off towards the end as participants reported spending their time on “the most fruitful relationships.” This research also supports and has potential to shed additional light on Coleman's concentric circles model (2013), since learners moved from conationals to locals over time. In addition to quantifying time use and interlocutor information, we were able to Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

8

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

understand the nature of learners' interactions, interlocutors, and L2 use. Correlational analyses were not conducted since this pilot study involved only nine students. 3.4. Computational tools to measure and diagram social networks A 2015 small-scale (seven-participant) study by Gautier and Chevrot involved data collection through language logs and diaries and a social network questionnaire. Taking a unique approach to their data analysis, the authors expanded on work by Isabelli-Garcia (2006) that depicted the social networks of learners abroad graphically. They analyzed networks “using Ucinet software, and the social network graphs were created using Netdraw software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999), accessible at http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/ (p. 174). This approach to quantifying and graphically depicting social networks is common in social network research in the social sciences and is spreading to a variety of fields (Moreno & Fox, 1987; Moreno, 1946; Scott, 2012; Wasserman & Galaskiewicz, 1994; Wassermann & Faust, 1994). Gautier and Chevrot (2015) focused on the density of networks, defining it as “the proportion of pairs of network members whom the respondents indicated were likely to have contact with each other” (p. 174). They found that “learners with dense connections with L1 speakers tend to increase or maintain a high usage rate of formal variants of sociolinguistic variables, while those with a loosely connected social network that contains L2 speakers tend to decrease their usage of formal variants “ (p. 180). Their study shows how methods of analyzing and describing networks from the social sciences can inform SLA. 4. Conclusion Understanding how learners use language and interact with others while abroad is a challenge that has involved a broad range of measurement techniques. The LCP, an early tool used in this effort, is a practical and quick means of gathering data that has been extensively used in a range of variations, yielding mixed results in terms of connections with SLA. A common LCP findings is extensive reported use of the L1 during SA. Variations in LCP makeup and administration, along with differences in SA length, location, and program design make comparisons across studies difficult but also illustrate the potential to focus on any given aspect of language use by selecting the most relevant items or creating other more focused items and gaining learners' perspectives on their social language use. Language logs and social network surveys have gone beyond the LCP and provided valuable additional insights into how learners report spending their time and who they spend that time with while abroad. Asking learners about language use and social interaction at different stages of the SA experience and more immediately following their L2 interactions rather than just at the end of SA has provided greater understanding. Overall, these measurement methods show potential to elucidate the role of social interaction in SLA and to validate, elaborate on, or revise models of social interaction and SLA abroad, such as Coleman’s (2013) concentric circles model. One recent method particularly valuable for documenting L2 interaction abroad is the use of technological developments. Social media, individuals’ digital photo archives, and mobile phone technologies, for example, have great potential. Social media leaves a record of who an individual interacts with and language samples that can be analyzed in detail (Back, 2013). Digital photos can prompt recollection of events, people, and language use (Umino & Benson, 2016), and mobile phone technologies allow us to access and query learners on-the-spot as they interact and are exposed to language during SA. These tools have potential to increase accuracy of recall and reporting, yield data going beyond self-reports, and provide authentic language samples produced in situ that allow for both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Variation in language use and development over SA is a theme that consistently appears in the literature. Perhaps largely due to this variation, there are differences in the makeup of questionnaires, language logs, social network surveys, and other tools across nearly every study. Where the tools themselves do not vary, the timing and methods of administration often do. As documented earlier, changes to the LCP are often described in vague terms and without illustrative examples. Furthermore, in cases where language logs have been utilized, instructions and examples are not typically included in the reports. And journal manuscript length limitations often prevent the inclusion of social network and other surveys with the written research reports. To develop a thorough understanding of SLA and interactive L2 use while abroad, comprehensive documentation and transparency are necessary. I recommend that when variations of the LCP, DLQ, SASIQ, SNQ, or other instruments are used, changes be clearly documented so others can replicate or accurately compare. The recent option to publish supplementary material online with many academic journals makes it possible to include such revised versions. When these options are unavailable, use of IRIS, a digital repository of instruments and materials for research into second languages (Marsden, Mackey, & Plonsky, 2016), or publication via personal means (e.g., university websites or free web publication) is imperative. Openness and publication of resources and methods are key to understanding, comparing, and finding trends in SLA during SA. Using current technologies allows for better data collection, analysis, and comparison and provides more open access that facilitates progress in our understanding. While methodological diversity contributes positively to this understanding, full disclosure allows clearer insights.

References Back, M. (2013). Using Facebook data to analyze learner interaction during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 377e401.

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

9

Badstübner, T., & Ecke, P. (2009). Student expectations, motivations, target language use, and perceived learning progress in a summer study abroad program in Germany. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 41e49. Baker-Smemoe, W., Cundick, D. K., Evans, N., Henrichsen, L., & Dewey, D. P. (2012). Relationship between reported out-of-class English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied Language Learning, 22, 21e45. Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464e486. Bialystok, E. (1978). Language skills and the learners: The classroom perspective. In C. Blatchford, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL ’78 (pp. 224e231). Washington, DC: TESOL. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET 6.0: Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bracke, A., & Aguerre, S. (2015). Erasmus students: Joining communities of practice to learn French? In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 139e168). Essex, UK: European Second Language Association (EUROSLA). Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. B. (1993). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. NFLC occasional papers. Washington, D.C: National Foreign Language Center. Retreived from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360828.pdf. Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37e66). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Brecht, R. D., & Robinson, J. L. (1995). On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: Student reactions in context. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 317e334). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Briggs, J. G. (2015a). A context-specific research tool to probe the out-of-class vocabulary-related strategies of study-abroad learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 291e314. Briggs, J. G. (2015b). Out-of-class language contact and vocabulary gain in a study abroad context. System, 53, 129e140. Burt, R. S. (1985). General social survey network items. Connections, 8(1), 19e23. Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern Language Journal, 91, 189e212. Coleman, J. A. (2013). Researching whole people and whole lives. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 17e44). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Coleman, J. A., & Chafer, T. (2010). Study abroad and the internet: Physical and virtual context in an era of expanding telecommunications. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 151e167.
r, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Modelling the role of inter-cultural contact in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language. Applied Linguistics, Csize 30(2), 166e185. Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 303e327. Dewey, D. P. (2008). Japanese vocabulary acquisition by learners in three contexts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15(Winter), 127e148. Dewey, D. P., Belnap, R. K., & Hillstrom, R. (2013). Social network development, language Use, and anguage acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners' perspectives. Frontiers: The. Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22 (Spring). Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., Baker, W., Martinsen, R. A., Gold, C., & Eggett, D. (2014). Language use in six study abroad programs: An exploratory analysis of possible predictors. Language Learning, 64(1), 36e71. Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Eggett, D. (2012). Japanese language proficiency, social networking, and language use during study abroad: Learners' perspectives. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 68(2), 111e137. Dewey, D. P., Ring, S., Gardner, D., & Belnap, R. K. (2013). Social network formation and development during study abroad in the Middle East. System, 41(2), 269e282. Di Silvio, F., Donovan, A., & Malone, M. E. (2014). The effect of study abroad homestay placements: Participant perspectives and oral proficiency gains. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 168e188. Di Silvio, F., Donovan, A., & Malone, M. E. (2015). Promoting oral proficiency gain in study abroad homestay placements. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 75e94). Wessex, UK: EUROSLA. Diao, W., Freed, B., & Smith, L. (2011). Confirmed beliefs or false assumptions? A study of home stay experiences in the French study abroad context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 109e142. Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249e273. € rnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), Do 3e32.
lix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler-Barker, M. (2015). Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context. System, 48, 75e85. Fe Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers' social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 339e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.002.
ndez, J., & Tapia, A. M. G. (2016). An appraisal of the Language Contact Profile as a tool to research local engagement in study abroad. Study Abroad Ferna Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 1(2), 248e276. Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 459e477. Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123e148). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349e356. Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275e301. Garcia-Amaya, L.. (in this issue). Detailing L1 and L2 use in study abroad research: Data from the Daily Linguistic Questionnaire. System. Gautier, R., & Chevrot, J. P. (2015). Social networks and acquisition of sociolinguistic variation in a study abroad context: A preliminary study. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 169e184). Essex, UK: European Second Language Association (EUROSLA). George, A. (2014). Study abroad in central Spain: The development of regional phonological features. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 97e114. Ginsberg, R. B., & Miller, L. (2000). What do they do? Activities of students during study abroad. In R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 237e260). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360e1380. Hardison, D. M. (2014). Changes in second-language learners' oral skills and socio-affective profiles following study abroad: A mixed-methods approach. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 415e444. Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of linguistic and cultural resources (vol. 15). Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters. Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation, and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M. A. Dufon, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231e258). Cleveland, OH: Multilingual Matters. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

10

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers' professional development. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. London, UK: Pallgrave Macmillan.
r, K., & Iwaniec, J. (2014). A mixed-method study of language-learning motivation and intercultural contact of international students. Journal Kormos, J., Csize of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(2), 151e166. Krashen, S. D. (1981). The “fundamental pedagogical principle” in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35(1e2), 50e70. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121. Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 201e225. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publication Group. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second languge acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108e124. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.  & Botana, G. P. (2015). Does listening comprehension improve as a result of a short study abroad experience? Revista Espan ~ ola de Lingüística Llanes, A., Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 199e212.  ~ oz, C. (2013). Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying abroad and at home. Language Learning, 63(1), 63e90. Llanes, A., & Mun  & Serrano, R. (2014). The effectiveness of classroom instruction “at home” versus study abroad for learners of English as a foreign language Llanes, A., attending primary school, secondary school and university. The Language Learning Journal, 1e13. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377e393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Titchie, & T. K. Bathia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413e468). New York: Academic Press. Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43e61. Magnan, S., & Lafford, B. (2012). Learning through immersion during study abroad. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 525e540). London, UK: Routledge. Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey, & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1e21). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Martínez-Arbelaiz, A., Areizaga, E., & Camps, C. (2016). An update on the study abroad experience: Language choices and social media abroad. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14, 350e365. Martinsen, R. A. (2010). Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504e530. Martinsen, R. A., Baker, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad, service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language Learning, 20(1e2), 45e69. McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2014). Understanding insertion and integration in a study abroad context: The case of English-speaking sojourners in France. Revue française de linguistique appliqu
ee, 19(2), 97e116. McManus, K., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Mitchell, R. (2016). L2 linguistic development before, during, and after a nine-month sojourn: Evidence from L2 French and Spanish. In Paper presented at the second language research forum (SLRF). New York, NY: Columbia University. Mendelson, V. G. (2004). Spain or bust? Assessment and student perceptions of out-of-class contact and oral proficiency in a study abroad context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst, MA: University of MassachusettseAmherst. €rnyei, A. Henry, & P. D. MacIntyre (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language Mercer, S. (2015). Social network analysis and complex dynamic systems. In Z. Do learning (pp. 73e82). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Mitchell, K. (2012). A social tool: Why and how ESOL students use Facebook. Calico Journal, 29(3), 471e493. Mitchell, R. (2015). The development of social relations during residence abroad. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 22e33. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2015). Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad. Wessex, UK: EUROSLA. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Identity, social relationships, and language learning. London: Routledge. Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610e641. Moreno, J. L. (1946). Sociogram and sociomatrix. Sociometry, 9, 348e349. Moreno, J. L., & Fox, J. (1987). The essential Moreno: Writings on psychodrama, group method, and spontaneity. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Moyer, A. (2006). Language contact and confidence in second language listening comprehension: A pilot study of advanced learners of German. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 255. Nicolas, G., DaSilva, A., & Donnelly, S. (2011). Social networks and the mental health of Haitian immigrants. Pompano Beach, FL: Caribbean Studies Press, Educa Vision. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716e761). UK: Blackwell: Oxford. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Toronoto, ON: Multilingual Matters. Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9e31. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
rez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of Study Abroad (SA) on written performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9(1), 269e295. Pe
rez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A study abroad perspective. IRALPe International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 157e185. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(04), 664e683. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster. Pyper, M. J., & Slagter, C. (2015). Competing priorities: Student perceptions of helps and hindrances to language acquisition during study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 83e106. Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 1e33. Ring, S. A., Gardner, D., & Dewey, D. P. (2013). Social network development during study abroad in Japan. In K. Kondo-Brown, Y. Saito-Abbott, S. Satsutani, M. Tsutsui, & A. Wehmeyer (Eds.), New perspectives on Japanese language learning, linguistics, and culture (pp. 95e122). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii National Foriegn Language Resource Center. Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173e199. Segalowitz, N., & Ryder, A. (2006). The montreal inventory of linguistic integration (MILI). Unpublished questionnaire. Montreal, Canada: Concordia University.

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026

D.P. Dewey / System xxx (2017) 1e11

11

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219e237. Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, 263e278. Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. G. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shively, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies during study abroad.
Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 13(20), 57e118. Stevens, S. S. (1968). Measurement, statistics, and the schemapiric view. Science, 161, 849e856. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 253e256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 158e164. Swain, M. (1998). The output hypothesis, second language learning and immersion education. In J. Amau, & J. Artigal (Eds.), Immersion programs: A European perspective (pp. 127e140). Barcelona, ES: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona. Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33e71. Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775e796. Tse, L. (2001). Heritage language literacy: A study of us biliterates. Language Culture and Curriculum, 14(3), 256e268. Umino, T., & Benson, P. (2016). Communities of practice in study abroad: A four-year study of an indonesian student's experience in Japan. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 757e774. Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1994). Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Wassermann, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, S. (1998a). On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4(Fall), 121e138. Wilkinson, S. (1998b). Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 23e39. Xu, D., Wang, X., & Wei, L. (2008). Social network analysis. In L. Wei, & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 263e274). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Please cite this article in press as: Dewey, D. P., Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges, System (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026