Thirty years ago, Dell Hymes (1972) observed that knowing what goes on outside the school setting is necessary to understanding what goes on inside. He noted further that “the key to understanding language in context is to start not with language but with context … [and then to] systematically relate the two” (pp. xix–lvii). Recently, the importance of learning context has stirred debate within SLA circles, and two coexisting lines of research have contributed to the overall picture that researchers and pedagogues have on SLA. On the one hand, scholars such as Long (1997) contended that it is important to provide an understanding of the acquisition process in psycholinguistic terms relatively independent of external factors (e.g., sociolinguistic variables or the particular methodology employed in a classroom). Researchers such as Firth and Wagner (1997) contended that the best predictive models of SLA consider the interaction of social activity and psycholinguistic elements.

This study investigates the role of context of learning in second language (L2) acquisition. Participants were 40 native speakers of English studying Spanish for one semester in one of two different learning contexts—a formal classroom at a home university (AH) and a study abroad (SA) setting. The research looks at various indexes of oral performance gains—particularly gains in oral fluency as measured by temporal and hesitation phenomena and gains in oral proficiency based on the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). The study also examines the relation these oral gains bore to L2-specific cognitive measures of speed of lexical access (word recognition), efficiency (automaticity) of lexical access, and speed and efficiency of attention control hypothesized to underlie oral performance. The learners also provided estimates of the number of hours they spent in extracurricular language-contact activities. The results show that in some respects learners in the SA context made greater gains, both in terms of temporal and hesitation phenomena and in oral proficiency as measured by the OPI, than learners in the AH context. There were also, however, significant interaction effects and correlational patterns indicating complex relationships between oral proficiency, cognitive abilities, and language contact. The results demonstrate the importance of the dynamic interactions that exist among oral, cognitive, and contextual variables. Such interactions may help explain the enormous individual variation one sees in learning outcomes, and they underscore the importance of studying such variables together rather than in isolation.This research was funded in part by a grant to Barbara F. Freed from the Council on International Educational Exchange, New York, in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to Norman Segalowitz, and in part by a grant from the Dean's Office, Faculty of Arts and Science at Concordia University, to Segalowitz. The authors wish to thank Joe Collentine, Manuel Díaz-Campos, and Barbara Lafford, who are members of the research team involved in the larger project of which this study is one part. A special note of thanks is due to Nicole Lazar, who is also a member of the research team, for her invaluable statistical advice. Finally, the authors would like to thank Conchita Bueno, Hazel Casas, Elizabeth Gatbonton, Randall Halter, Guy Lacroix, Anne-Marie Linnen, Magnolia Negrete, Irene O'Brien, Laura Renteria-Díaz, Marlene Taube, and Naomi Yamasaki, who helped during various phases of this project.

This study investigates the effect of the context of learning—“at home” (AH) classroom versus study abroad (SA)—on the number and types of communication strategies (CSs) used by learners of Spanish as a second language. Oral data from 46 learners—20 AH and 26 SA—were analyzed before and after the treatment period, to discern the effect of various factors on the learners' levels and choice of CS usage: type of CS category (L1 or L2 based, direct or interactional, and problem-orientedness [resource deficit, other performance, and self-performance]) and measures of language use. Posttest results showed a significant effect for context for CS categories and language use: Students in the SA context consistently used fewer CSs than their classroom counterparts, and their CS use correlated negatively with higher use of Spanish outside the classroom and with the host family. It is posited that the pragmatic exigencies of the AH and SA contexts may account for these findings.This research would not have been possible without the support of the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE), which sponsored this team project, headed by Barbara F. Freed and Norman Segalowitz, to study the effects of the SA experience on L2 learners. I am very grateful to the members of the CIEE project team: Joe Collentine, Barbara Freed, Norman Segalowitz, and Manuel Díaz-Campos, for their insightful commentary on earlier versions of this work. Special appreciation also goes to Nicole Lazar for her expert assistance with the methodology and data analysis sections of this paper. My sincere appreciation also goes to Julie Sykes, Rosalind Freeman, and Sharma Martineau, graduate students in Spanish SLA and applied linguistics at Arizona State University, for their assistance with the partial transcription and the coding of the CS data.

Context of learning, such as whether a learner studies a second language (L2) in a formal classroom—“at home” or abroad—may be a key factor in developing grammatical and lexical abilities. Yet, little empirical data is available comparing the effects of study abroad (SA) and formal instruction “at home” (AH) experiences on such development (Freed, 1995). The scant research that exists presents conflicting results (DeKeyser, 1986, 1991; Isabelli, 2002; Lennon, 1990; Regan, 1995; Ryan & Lafford, 1992; Schell, 2001). This paper provides a multivariate analysis (see Biber, 1988) of the effects of learning context on grammatical and lexical abilities in oral conversational discourse. The data compare the abilities of two groups before and after studying Spanish as an L2 for approximately one semester (N = 46): (a) a SA group in Alicante, Spain, and (b) a formal-classroom AH group at an American university. The corpus comprises oral segments produced by the learners in an Oral Proficiency Interview before and after the experimental period. In a corpus-based analysis, each segment was transcribed and tagged for various lexical and grammatical features. In two discriminant analyses, I identified various grammatical and lexical features that differentiated the two groups in terms of program gains. The results indicated that the AH context facilitated more development on discrete grammatical and lexical features. However, quantitative discourse analyses of the corpus revealed that the SA group achieved better narrative abilities and could produce language that was more semantically dense. The data are explained in consideration of the SA group's improved fluency and sociolinguistic pressures that distinguished its learning conditions.I would like to express my gratitude to the Council on International Educational Exchange, Barbara F. Freed, and Norman Segalowitz, whose sponsorship and support for the experiment reported here made this article possible. I also would like to thank Barbara F. Freed, Barbara Lafford, Norman Segalowitz, and the two anonymous SSLA reviewers for the valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article. Special thanks is due to Nicole Lazar for her expertise in planning and interpreting the statistical procedures reported in this article.

Studies in SLA have debated the importance of context of learning in the process of developing linguistic skills in a second language (L2). The present paper examines whether study abroad, as it provides opportunities for authentic L2 context, facilitates the acquisition of Spanish phonology. The corpus of this investigation is composed of speech samples from 46 students of Spanish: 26 studying abroad in Spain and 20 in a regular classroom environment in the United States. The students read a paragraph with 60 target words including segments such as word-initial stops (i.e., [p t k]),Throughout the article a phonetic representation of all sounds following the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is presented. Phonetic (instead of phonological) representations avoid making assumptions about underlying L2 representations. intervocalic fricatives (i.e., [ ]), word-final laterals (i.e., [l]), and palatal nasals (i.e., ). The findings reveal the following patterns for both regular classroom and study abroad students across time: (a) similar gain in the case of voiced initial stops and word-final laterals, (b) lack of gain in the case of intervocalic fricatives, and (c) high levels of accuracy in the case of the palatal nasal in the pretest. Concerning the external data, the following factor groups predicted phonological gain among all learners: years of formal language instruction, reported use of Spanish before the semester, reported use of Spanish outside the classroom during the semester (days), reported use of Spanish outside the classroom during the semester (hours), gender, entrance Oral Proficiency Interview, exit Oral Proficiency Interview, and level at which formal instruction began.

We compared the acquisition of various dimensions of fluency by 28 students of French studying in three different learning contexts: formal language classrooms in an at home (AH) institution, an intensive summer immersion (IM) program, and a study abroad (SA) setting. For the purpose of oral data collection, students participated in oral interviews (similar to the Oral Proficiency Interview) at the beginning and the end of the semester and provided information regarding language use and interactions. Analyses included comparisons of gain scores as a function of the learning context and as a function of the time reported using French outside of class. The main findings that reached statistical significance include: (a) The IM group made significant gains in oral performance in terms of the total number of words spoken, in length of the longest turn, in rate of speech, and in speech fluidity based on a composite of fluidity measures. When compared to the AH group, the SA group made statistically significant gains only in terms of speech fluidity but fewer gains than the IM group. The AH group made no significant gains. (b) The IM students reported that they spoke and wrote French significantly more hours per week than the other two groups. The SA group reported using English more than French (although the difference was not statistically significant) and reported using significantly more English in out-of-class activities than the IM group. (c) Multiple regression analyses revealed that reported hours per week spent writing outside of class was significantly associated with oral fluidity gains.Appreciation is expressed to a number of organizations and individuals without whom this project would not have been brought to completion. Contributions of funding, technical support and expertise, or both are acknowledged from: ACTFL (Elvira Spender and Robert Vicars); Carnegie Mellon University (The Office of the President and Bonnie Youngs in the Department of Modern Languages); The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Concordia University (International Initiatives Research Program, Office of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science); Concordia University (Randall Halter, Eric Buisson, Christine Brassard, Eowyn Crisfield, Nilmini de Silva, Sarah Frenkiel, and Heather Wilcox); Middlebury College (Clara Yu, Michael Katz, Beth Karnes, Kara Gennarelli, Paula Schwartz, Carol Rifelj, Jean-Claude Redonnet, Guy Spielmann, Beverly Keim, Anna Sun, and Alex Chapin). The authors also thank Nicole Lazar for her helpful statistical advice.

To investigate the role of context in reading development, a comparison of reading comprehension and processes was conducted between learners of Japanese as a second language in study abroad (SA; n = 15) and intensive domestic (in the United States) immersion (IM; n = 15) contexts. A significant difference was found between contexts in pretest to posttest gains on only one measure of reading comprehension, a self-assessment. Differences on the two other measures of comprehension—free-recall and vocabulary knowledge—were not significant. The self-assessment measure indicated that SA students felt more confident reading the second language than their IM counterparts. In terms of reading processes, think-aloud protocols showed significant differences in changes over time in the amount of monitoring understanding (less for IM than SA) and responding and reacting to text content affectively or emotionally (more for IM than SA). In the IM context, office-hour interaction with teachers influenced students to monitor comprehension less and more efficiently and to respond affectively to text more often. Variability in terms of gains on reading measures and contact with language and culture outside of class was greater for SA than for IM. The controlled IM setting and the open SA context contributed to differences in variability. The need for a variety of new measures designed to capture gains specific to any given context is discussed and specific suggestions for new measures are given.I wish to thank the following individuals for their help: Joe Collentine and Barbara F. Freed for extensive feedback on the manuscript; Barbara F. Freed, G. Richard Tucker, and Isabel Beck for advising on the dissertation that led to this manuscript; the Office of Michael Katz, Dean of the Language Schools at Middlebury College, for facilitating much of the data collection for this study through the Baker Research Fellowship; my former colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University for ongoing input throughout this study; and the two anonymous SSLA reviewers of this paper for their input and suggestions.

The study of SLA, as is true for much social science research, aims broadly at answering questions of causality—for instance, “Is one learning context more likely than another to promote gains in second language learning?” Context-of-learning research in the study of SLA, however, often involves observational, rather than experimental, manipulation of subjects. As is well known, this compromises the ability to draw causal inferences. There are some interesting possibilities for overcoming this handicap, arising from recent statistical theory. In particular, the so-called Rubin causal model has some advantages over other approaches, such as path analysis, that are more familiar to social scientists. The purpose of this article is to relate ideas of causal inference to the studies presented in this thematic issue and to suggest how they may be useful to future research in SLA, particularly in context-of-learning studies.

Efforts to gather data of various sorts—demographics, language-learning history, contact with native speakers, use of the language in the field—as they relate to participants in SLA research studies are inherent to understanding more about language acquisition and use. Scholars frequently develop questionnaires of their own, which are rarely shared widely in the profession. Consequently, much time and effort is invested in reinventing the process of gathering the types of data that are commonly needed.This research was funded in part by a grant to Barbara F. Freed from the Council for International Educational Exchange (New York), in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to Norman Segalowitz, and in part by a grant from the Dean's Office, Faculty of Arts and Science, at Concordia University to Segalowitz.

Publications received.