Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Toward a model of intercultural contact in an international SLA setting Culhane, Stephen F. 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2001-714535.pdf [ 10.74MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0078210.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078210-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078210-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078210-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078210-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078210-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078210-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TOWARD A MODEL OF INTERCULTURAL CONTACT IN AN INTERNATIONAL SLA SETTING  by STEPHEN F. CULHANE Bachelor or Arts, University of British Columbia, 1990 Bachelor of Education, University of British Columbia, 1992 Master of Arts, The University of British Columbia, 1995  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Language and Literacy Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the requyred^standard:  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2001 © Stephen F. Culhane, 2001  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or by his or her  representatives.  It is understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  ABSTRACT This study focuses on intercultural contact experiences of English as a Second Language students in a study-abroad context. A model is proposed in the study to connect student pre-sojourn expectations with interaction and friendship patterns in first (LI) and second languages (L2), and attitudes toward acculturation. A triangulated research design is employed, involving Multivariate A N O V A and Multiple Regression analyses of questionnaire data, as well as qualitative analysis of student interview transcripts. Questionnaire responses from 140 advanced ESL students are used in analyses of variance to examine relationships between LI and L2 use, language use in student friendship patterns, and student attitudes toward both acculturation and cultural diversity. Regression analysis is used to determine the amount of variance in attitudes toward cultural diversity accountable by four predictor variables: previous intercultural experience, pre-sojourn knowledge of the host society, attitudes toward interacting with members of a student's home society, and attitudes toward interacting with members of the host society. Results of the analyses of variance indicate a positive relationship between LI and L2 use and friendship patterns; language use and attitudes toward interaction with home and host groups; and to a lesser extent, a correlation between each of these, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. Results from the regression analysis found about 26% of the variance in attitudes toward cultural diversity accounted for by the four predictor variables. Analyses of student interviews added to these findings by providing personal examples of sojourner acculturation. Paths laid out in the proposed model were reflected in many instances, but areas where the model can be improved were also suggested. Based on the findings, it is concluded that attitudes sojourners hold toward people they interact with in a host setting significantly impact on their opportunities for acquiring greater proficiency in an L2 and second culture (C2). Student reactions toward cultural diversity of the host setting were shown to relate to language use, friendship patterns, and motivations for contact with home and host groups. The results suggest experiences during a sojourn can enhance or modify attitudes toward people from diverse cultures and speakers of different languages. It is also suggested that sojourners with more tolerant attitudes are likely to show a greater tendency to engage in interactions within the L2, and, therefore, to have a greater likelihood of being successful in acquiring competence in the L2 and C2.  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  T A B L E OF CONTENTS  iii  LIST OF TABLES  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  x  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xi  DEDICATION  xii  CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5  Background and Rationale Studying a Second Language Abroad Sojourner Acculturation Learning a Second Language and Culture Multicultural Education Overview of Upcoming Chapters  1 3 5 6 9 10  CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.0 2.1  2.2  2.3  Overview Definitions of Key Concepts 2.1.1 Culture 2.1.2 Jntercultural Contact 2.1.3 Sojourners and Acculturation 2.1.4 Contact Motivation 2.1.5 Multicultural Societies 2.1.6 Canadian Multiculturalism 2.1.7 Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity Themes in the Research Program 2.2.1 Overview 2.2.2 Sojourner Acculturation 2.2.3 Contact and Motivation in Second Language Acquisition 2.2.4 Interaction in SLA: an Analogy for Second Culture Learning 2.2.5 Acculturation Attitudes 2.2.6 Modification of Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity Assessment 2.3.1 Assessment of Acculturation 2.3.2 Evaluating Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity  13 13 13 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 23 25 31 34 38 44 49 49 54  c  CHAPTER HI: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A N D PROCEDURE 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4  Introduction Assumptions and Rationale A Model of Intercultural Contact Site Selection Participant Selection 3.4.1 Pilot Test Participants 3.4.2 Research Program Participants 3.5 Demographic Overview of Participants 3.6 Quantitative Research Design 3.6.1 Data Collection 3.6.2 Instruments 3.6.3 Variables 3.6.4 Coding of Variables 3.7 Establishing Validity and Reliability of Quantitative Data 3.7.1 Validity: Source of Variables 3.7.2 Reliability: Pilot Testing of Instruments 3.8 Quantitative Research Program 3.8.1 Research Hypotheses 3.8.2 Summary and Conditions for Testing Hypotheses 3.8.3 Questionnaire Administration 3.9 Treatment of Quantitative Data 3.9.1 Data Entry 3.9.2 Data Screening 3.9.3 Assumptions of A N O V A & M A N O V A 3.9.4 Assumptions of Multiple Regression 3.9.5 Quantitative Analyses 3.10 Qualitative Research Program 3.10.1 Interview Participants 3.10.2 Data Collection: Interview Procedures 3.10.3 Data Analysis: Interview Transcripts 3.10.4 Researcher Role: Social Context of Qualitative Data  57 57 60 65 66 66 67 68 72 72 73 73 77 81 81 82 84 84 86 87 87 87 88 90 91 93 94 94 96 97 98  CHAPTER IV: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7  Overview Analysis of Variance Research Question #1: Research Question #2: Research Question #3: Research Question #4: Research Question #5: Regression Analyses  Research Hypotheses Hypothesis la, lb Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3a, 3b; 4a, 4b Hypothesis 5a, 5b Hypothesis 6  102 102 103 110 113 124 128 129  V  CHAPTER V : QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3  Overview Discussion of Transcripts The Model and the Interview Transcripts Student Experiences 5.3.1 Enhanced Maintenance Motivation Betty.... Jack 5.3.2 Adaptation to Maintenance Motivation Olga 5.3.3 Enhanced Exploration Motivation Ana Tadashi 5.3.4 Adaptation to Exploration Motivation Mariana  134 134 135 139 139 140 147 152 153 163 164 170 180 180  CHAPTER VI S U M M A R Y A N D LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4  6.5  Overview Summary of the Study 6.1.1 Quantitative Analysis 6.1.2 Qualitative Analysis Limitations of the Study 6.2.1 Limitations of Quantitative Analysis 6.2.2 Limitations of the Qualitative Analysis Enhancing the Model of Intercultural Contact Implications of the study 6.4.1 Implications for Educational Practice 6.4.2 The Intercultural Contact Model in Educational Practise 6.4.3 Implications for Future Research Conclusion  188 188 189 192 194 195 200 202 207 207 212 215 217  REFERENCES  218  APPENDICES  231  A:  Documents A.l A. 2  B:  C:  Guidelines for Participants-Intercultural Questionnaire Guidelines for Participants- Interview  Instruments B. l Intercultural Questionnaire B. 2 Interview Protocol Quantitative Data Tables C. l Descriptive Statistics  231 232 233 239 241  u  vi  D:  C.2 Tables of Significant and Non-Significant F Values C. 3 Tests of Homogeneity of Variance Reliability Data / Pilot Test Results  243 244  D. 1 D.2 D.3 D.4  246 248 250 251  Reliability Analysis - Pilot Test Reliability Analysis - Final Questionnaire Administration Validity Analysis - Expert Rating Scale Interview Participant Data  vii  LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1:  Berry's Acculturation Attitudes  Table 2.2:  Acculturation Attitudes Korean Immigrants in Canada  Table 2.3  Overview ofAcculturation Scales  Table 3.1:  Previous knowledge of Canada (KNOWLEDGE) by LI  Table 3.2  Summary and Conditions for Testing Hypotheses  Table 3.3  Demographic Background of Interview Participants  Table 4.1  MANOVA Ll-FR, L2-FR by LI-USE, L2-USE  Table 4.2  Friendship Levels by Language Use Tukey Multiple Comparisons  Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6  41 42 52 71 86 95 103  104  Two-way ANOVA (2x3x3) EXPERIENCE by Ll-USE andL2- USE  110  Two-way ANO VA (2x3x3) EXPERIENCE by Ll-FR andL2-FR Levels  Ill  MANOVA (3x3x2) Contact Motivation by Friendship Levels Post-hoc Results Contact Motivation by Ll-FR andL2-FR (Tukey)  114 115  Table 4.7  MANOVA Ll-USE andL2-USE by Contact Motivation  119  Table 4.8  Post-hoc Results Ll-USE andL2-Use by Contact Motivation (Tukey)  120  Table 4.9  MANOVA Contact Motivation by ATCD  124  Table 4.10  Post-hoc Results Contact Motivation by ATCD (Tukey)  Table 4.11  One-way ANOVA (1x4) ATCD by LR  Table 4.12  Summary of Five Variables and Intercorrelations among them  125 128  130  viii  Table 4.13  Table 4.14  Summary of Multiple Regression Predictors Entered Simultaneously  131  Summary of changes in R Stepwise Regression Four Predictor Variables 2  132  Table 7.1  Demographic Profile - Questionnaire Participants  Table 7.2  Independent Variables in the Research Hypotheses  242  Table 7.3  Dependent Variables in the Analyses of Variance  242  Table 7.4  Significant Differences in the Research Hypotheses ANOVA/MANOVA  244  Non-Significant Differences in Hypotheses ANOVA/MANOVA  244  Table 7.5  Table 7.6  Table 7.7  241  Homogeneity of Variance L1-USE/L2-USE by Friendship Levels  244  Homogeneity of Variance L1-FR/L2-FR by Contact Motivation  244  Table 7.8  Homogeneity of Variance L1-FRJL2-FR by EXPERIENCE  245  Table 7.9  Homogeneity of Variance L2-FR by EXPERIENCE  245  Table 7.10  Homogeneity of Variance L1-USE/L2-USE by Contact Motivation  Table 7.11  Homogeneity of Variance A TCD Scores by Contact Motivation  Table 7.12  Reliability Analysis - Pilot Test- A TCD Scale  Table 7.13  Reliability Analysis Pilot Test- Exploration Motivation Scale Reliability Analysis Pilot Test- Maintenance Motivation Scale  Table 7.14  Table 7.15  245  Reliability Analysis Final Administration - A TCD Scale  245 246  247 247-248  248  ix  Table 7.16  Table 7.17  Reliability Analysis Final Administration - Exploration Motivation Scale  249  Reliability Analysis Final Administration - Maintenance Motivation Scale  249  Table 7.18  CVI- Maintenance Motivation Scale  250  Table 7.19  CVI - Exploration Motivation Scale  250  Table 7.20  CVI - ATCD Scale  Table 7.21  CVI Scale - Interview Participants  Table 7.22  Interview Participants - Questionnaire Data  Table 7.23  Interview Participants- MAINTAIN, EXPLORE, ATCD Scores  250-251 251 251 252  X  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1  Initial Motivations and Early Contact Experiences  Figure 3.2  Initial and Ongoing Contact Experiences and  60  Motivations  62  Figure 3.3  Proposed Model of Intercultural Contact  6$  Figure 3.4  Demographic Overview of Research Sample  68-69  Figure 3.5  Summary of Variables used in the Study  74-77  Figure 4.1  Frequency of L l - U S E by levels of L l - F R & L2-FR  106  Figure 4.2  Frequency of L2-USE by Levels of L l - F R and L2-FR  107  Figure 4.3  LI-FR/L2-FR by EXPLORE Score  116  Figure 4.4  LI-FR/L2-FR by MAINTAIN Scores  117  Figure 4.5  Frequency of LI-USE by Contact Motivation  121  Figure 4.6  Frequency of L2-USE by EXPLORE and MAINTAIN  122  Figure 4.7  ATCD score by Levels of Contact Motivation  126  Figure 5.1  Contact Motivation among Interview Participants  139  Figure 6.1  Questionnaire Example - Reflection and Expectations to a Cross-sectional Questionnaire Design  196  Revised Model of Intercultural Contact  206  Figure 6.2  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A project such as this cannot be completed without the help of others. The many hours spent in this endeavour came at the cost of having fewer to share with my wife Noriko and two young boys Connor and Christopher. Noriko shouldered an extra burden of parenting while her husband carried on this pursuit. Her unending support makes this her project as well. I am indebted to the members of my committee, Stephen Carey, Richard Berwick, and Bernard Mohan for their steady guidance, support, and encouragement. Stephen admirably dealt with the situation of advising a student who was living on the other side of the Pacific. Rick followed me from UBC to Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, and his thoughtful suggestions made a considerable impact on the direction this study has taken. Thus, the study emerges through the liaison of UBC and A P U . On-line technology facilitated the international nature of this collaboration, and it is hoped these efforts represent a guide for many future endeavours involving the two universities. I am further thankful to Martha Tecklenburg and Alan Harper for assisting with data entry and writing out the interview transcripts, and Shoichi Matsumura for advice on the statistical analyses. Jack Kehoe and Megumi Segawa were sources of inspiration and advice early on. Their thoughts are evident in this study. Finally, I am especially grateful to the six students who volunteered to be interviewed, the 140 students who wrote the intercultural questionnaire, the staff at the Y M C A International College in Vancouver, and in particular, the director of the College's programs, Virginia Christopher, each of whom made this study possible.  DEDICATION This study is dedicated to my wife Noriko, and two sons, Connor and Christopher for their understanding and encouragement through all of those nights and weekends when Daddy had to "work on his study."  CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION  1.0 Background and Rationale for the Present Study Acquisition of a second language (L2) requires more than linguistic proficiency. As any language lives within a cultural context, the learning of an L2 requires cultural as well as linguistic competence. While L2 learners work to acquire lexis and syntax, they should also recognize that fluency means developing a comparable ability to use these elements in culturally appropriate ways. One of the most effective and popular methods of realizing the twin goals of cultural and linguistic competence in an L2 is to study in a region where the language is used for everyday communication. Individuals approach time abroad in different ways. For some, it is merely an extended vacation. For others, it is the fulfilment of a dream to live within the precepts of a different language and culture. Some language learners undertake many trips abroad, while others have but a single opportunity to study in an L2 environment. Whether they forgo education and employment opportunities at home, essentially putting their lives on hold for the duration of an educational sojourn, or continue to work and study other interests while abroad, sojourners bring diverse hopes and aspirations into their time away from home. The many facets of the sojourn experience are studied by an eclectic group of researchers. Unique insights have been provided to the field of sojourner research by social psychologists, linguists, communication theorists, multicultural and international educators, and many other authors working between these research foci. Although sojourners have been studied from a variety of perspectives, it appears some aspects of the sojourn experience have not been fully addressed. In particular, issues that overlap  2 the research concerns of two or more of these perspectives are worthy of further study. For example, second language acquisition (SLA) researchers have explored many components of learner motivation for acquiring an 12. However, questions remain about how a sojourner's adaptation to a host culture relates to SLA, and how previous sojourn experiences influence the kind and quality of social interaction to which students are exposed. One question to consider is how different types of motivation for learning an L2 influence the patterns of interaction students establish, and the effect of these patterns on acculturation, not on language learning per se. While acculturation researchers have examined a series of issues involving psychological and social adaptation of sojourners in a new cultural environment, further study is needed to relate these to frequency of first language (LI) or L2 use, student friendship networks, and to attitudes students hold toward cultural different others in a host setting. As well, sojourner reactions to adapting to a new language and culture, termed acculturation attitudes, have not been linked directly to language use and friendship patterns maintained during a sojourn. Theories from multicultural education that have been used to investigate sojourners have also left some intriguing questions unanswered. For example, one of the most successful techniques for enhancing attitudes toward culturally different others in multicultural education is known as a contact strategy. In what is essentially a brief sojourn program, people from different cultures are brought together with the objective of having them work toward some intercultural goal. Despite this similarity, contact strategies have not been tied directly to a language learning sojourn setting. Studying an L2 abroad is likely to have a similar impact on attitudes toward culturally different others as multicultural researchers have found in using contact strategies (See: Culhane &  3 Kehoe, 2000; Culhane, 1995; McGregor, 1993). This is another research perspective that can add to knowledge of sojourner experiences in acquiring an L2 and second culture (C2). This study will develop a framework combining perspectives on sojourner research by integrating theories from acculturation, SLA, and multicultural education. A model is proposed to suggest how interaction patterns students maintain during a sojourn relate to their previous intercultural experience, motivation for connecting with home and host societal groups, and ultimately, how each of these impact on an individual's attitude toward living and working with culturally different others during a sojourn. Collectively these form a measure of an individual's receptiveness to acculturation. Quantitative and qualitative data from the experiences of a group of English as a Second Language (ESL) students at the Y M C A International College in Vancouver, Canada are used to assess descriptive and predictive adequacy of the proposed model. A triangulation of the findings is carried out in the research design through Multivariate A N O V A , Multiple Regression Analysis, and a contrast of these results with qualitative analysis of interview transcripts. The initial task will be to consider areas where previous research can be combined to create a working model of intercultural interaction.  1.1 Studying a Second Language Abroad Students bring with them a variety of goals when they travel to other regions for SLA programs. While they want to develop their L2 ability in a natural setting, they also have other social and personal goals. Some of these outlined in the research include: developing business skills to enhance employability (Ady, 1995; Bochner & Lin, 1984;  4 Segawa, 1998), a desire to have an international life experience (Ady, 1995; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Ritsumeikan - UBC, 1992; Segawa, 1998), hopes of meeting people from different cultural groups (Ady, 1995; Bochner & Lin, 1984; Ritsumeikan - UBC, 1992; Segawa, 1998), and an interest in simply getting away from home for an extended period (Bochner & Lin, 1984; Ritsumeikan - UBC, 1992; Segawa, 1998). Students are likely to have a complex set of motivations for undertaking a study abroad program, including both language acquisition and many socially defined goals. Sojourner research can therefore benefit from a more explicit detailing of the connection between these motivations for undertaking a sojourn and a student's actions during their stay. A great deal is known about motivation in SLA (See: Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner& Clement, 1990; Gardner & Lambert, 1972, 1959). How these motivations translate into the context of an international sojourn is less certain. The objectives a sojourner sets for their time away likely influence the quality and success of their learning in a similar manner to what is found in L2 learners in general. A link can therefore be drawn between SLA research into motivation for learning a language and sojourner integration patterns. One area to consider is whether students with certain types of motivation for acquiring an L2 interact in different ways in a host setting. It should be asked whether students with a greater focus on integrating into a host society show stronger tendencies to establish friendships using the L2, than others with more of an instrumental motivation, exemplified by an overriding concern for acquiring particular skills or vocabulary in the L2 distinct from socio-linguistic competence (Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Lambert, 1972, 1959). Likewise, it should be investigated whether students who report using their LI more frequently show a different motivation for  acquiring the L2. Stronger connections can be made between preferences for using one language (LI or L2) over the other, and to what extent these are replicated in friendship patterns, or are indicative of student attitudes toward the host society and living among culturally different others. If motivations influence the quality and success of student learning, as SLA researchers have established, it makes sense to examine how interaction experiences affect motivation for coming into contact with the L2 and C2 during a sojourn.  1.2 Sojourner Acculturation Acculturation research, the most prominent sphere of sojourner studies, equates an individual's ability to adapt to a new environment to be critical in the acquisition of a L2 and C2 (Cross, 1992; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Segawa, 1998; Smalley, 1963; Ward, 1999, 1996). Acculturation studies show more favourable acculturation attitudes, evidenced by a greater desire to integrate into the language and culture of the host community, result in fewer adaptation difficulties and reduced stress during acculturation (See for example: Berry, 1995; Segawa, 1998; Ward, 1999). Acculturation attitudes have been well defined in the research (See: Berry et al., 1989, 1987a; Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Clement, 1990; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Ward, 1996, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Yet, while a sojourner's response to the social and psychological challenges of acculturation have been shown to have a direct influence on their learning process (Ward, 1996, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1993, 1994), few studies have linked these to language use (Swain, 1985, 1995), friendship patterns (Berry et al., 1989), or attitudes held toward cultural diversity in a sojourn setting. The experiences a  sojourner has with L2-based interactions, and the attitudes they hold toward interacting with individuals from different cultures, can be useful indices of a student's response to overcoming the challenges of acculturation. Successful acculturation will be presented here as a three-fold process, influenced by prior experience, the social context of the current sojourn, and the relationship between an individual's acculturation attitude and the efforts they make to adjust to the host environment. It is believed that sojourner research can benefit from a closer examination of the relationship between attitudes toward acculturation, levels of integration into a host culture, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. This study aims to accomplish this by looking into the relationships to be outlined between L I and L2 use, language use in student friendship patterns, acculturation attitudes, and student attitudes toward culturally different others.  1.3 Learning a Second Language and Culture Many researchers have illustrated the complexity and importance of social variables in SLA (See for example: Byram, 1989; Byram et al., 1990; Byram & Buttjes, 1991; Byram & Escarte-Sarries, 1991; Byram & Fleming, 1998; Ellis, 1994; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Kramsch, 1998; Seelye, 1994). Social variables outlined in the research include: learner attitudes (Baker, 1988; Berry, 1989a, 1989b), social class distinctions (Krashen, 1981, 1985; Preston, 1989), ethnic identity (Berry, 1979; Byram, 1989), and learner motivation (Gardner, 1974, 1983, 1985, 1988; Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). A growing body of research is examining these and other social variables in SLA within the specific context of a sojourn setting (See for example:  7 Berwick, 1999; Berwick & Carey, 2000; Berwick & Whalley, 2000; Byram & Fleming, 1998; Seelye, 1994). The current study intends to continue the assessment of social variables in sojourner SLA by applying them to a culturally diverse student group and host environment. The focus is on how interactions in the host setting influence, or are predicated on the social context of the sojourn, and the cultures included within this environment. In a culturally diverse educational environment sojourners typically experience L2 interaction with not only native L2 speakers, but also with fellow learners from a variety of different cultures, home countries, and LI groups. Looking at attitudes in this context, it is possible to scrutinize the various kinds of social contact that relate to enhancement of positive attitudes toward members of the host culture, as well as to those toward culturally different others in general. Given that intercultural contact takes place naturally in a sojourn setting, the attitudes that arise during this process are likely to be an important factor in the acculturation process and to support or negate a student's motivation for learning the L2. As with acculturation, these motivations are likely to be influenced by previous experience, the demands of the current social context, and the relationship of each to intercultural adaptability. To address this relationship, it will be asked how experiences of students living in a multicultural sojourn environment influence attitudes they hold toward acculturation and intercultural interaction. Sojourners in a multicultural setting are offered a choice between interacting with individuals who share few or many aspects of their native cultures. They can decide their own level of intercultural contact, which is seen as a necessary condition for advanced acquisition of an L2 and C2 (Berwick & Carey, 2000; Berwick & Whalley, 2000;  8 Berwick, 1999; Ellis, 1994; Kramsch, 1998). However, the relationship between student attitudes toward acculturation and the interaction patterns they establish in a sojourn environment has not been established. As well, the role language use plays in student friendship networks during a sojourn requires further investigation. Delving into these issues can add to the understanding of how attitudes toward interacting with others impact on opportunities for SLA and C2 acquisition. The current study addresses these questions by examining student language use in the LI and L2. Two areas should be considered: the frequency of use of both languages and the extent this relates to friendship patterns based on use of the L I or L2. How students acquire a C2 is a recent focus in sojourner studies (See: Berwick, 1999; Berwick & Carey, 2000; Berwick & Whalley, 2000; Byram, 1989; Byram & Fleming, 1998; Kramsch, 1998; Seelye, 1994). Sojourners have expressed a motivation to internationalise in many studies (Ady, 1995; Berwick, & Carey, 2000; Kato, 1992; Klineberg and Hull, 1979; Ritsumeikan - UBC, 1992; Segawa, 1998). Although researchers see interaction with members of a host culture as essential in acquiring a C2 (Berwick, 1999; Berwick & Carey, 2000; Berwick & Whalley, 2000), methods of bringing learners into contact with the C2 have not been effectively combined into an exchange pedagogy (Berwick & Carey, 2000; Berwick & Whalley, 2000; Byram & Fleming, 1998). More research is required to detail the process of sojourners acquiring the cultural-based competencies essential to using an L2 in a culturally appropriate way (Kramsch, 1998; Seelye, 1994). Examining language use, friendship patterns, and attitudes toward interacting with home and host cultural groups can illustrate how interaction opportunities further their SLA and C2 acquisition during a sojourn.  9  1.4 Multicultural Education A final area distinguishing this study from others preceding it concerns establishing educational connections between SLA, acculturation, and multicultural education. One of the more prominent and successful methodologies in multicultural education, mentioned above, is known as a contact strategy. Contact strategies put individuals from disparate cultural groups into unthreatening settings to allow meaningful interaction (See: Amir, 1976; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; McGregor, 1993; McGregor & Ungerleider, 1990). Contact strategies are supported by extensive research but have not been substantively applied to sojourner SLA research. By doing so in this study, it is hoped an approach will be offered for understanding acquisition of the intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for successful language and culture learning. The experiences of sojourners will be portrayed within a working model of a contact strategy, whereby individuals are expected to learn about different cultures, and to become more appreciative of the opportunities for personal growth arising from a deeper understanding of an L2 and C2. Sojourner perceptions of intercultural contact experiences are expected to influence their motivation for further interaction. Thus, student attitudes toward cultural diversity will be contrasted in the study with the motivation they show for interacting with speakers of the L2 and those who speak their L I . The intent is to determine the degree to which attitudes toward cultural diversity impact on the experience of a group of SLA sojourners.  10  1.5 Overview of Upcoming Chapters Chapter Two presents the theoretical foundation for the study. Emphasis is placed on acculturation, acquisition of an L2 and C2, and multicultural education. Operational definitions of key terms are given to provide working definitions for these terms in the qualitative part of the research program, and to give a context for their use in the study. The final section of the chapter considers literature relevant to quantitative and qualitative analyses of data performed in the study. Chapter Three describes the research design and the methodology utilized in implementing this design. The chapter includes the research questions of the study, the procedures for data collection and analysis, and methods for establishing validity and reliability for components of the methodology. An overview is given of the research sample used in the quantitative analysis, as well as procedures for administration of the questionnaire and analysis of its data. The variables used in the study will be outlined, including: length of residence, housing and lifestyle situations, language and cultural backgrounds, educational levels, language use, friendship patterns, attitudes toward cultural diversity, and motivation for interacting with others in the host environment. A discussion of the qualitative analysis follows. This relates the methods used to contrast and extend quantitative results through the interviewing of a small number of students. The proposed model of intercultural interactions is also presented in Chapter Three. This model connects student language use, friendships patterns, and attitudes toward home and host cultural groups, with those toward cultural diversity in a more general sense. It is an underlying purpose of the current study to consider how well this model accounts for the experiences of a group of students.  11  Chapter Four presents the first results of the study. The chapter provides analyses of the quantitative data emerging from the questionnaire, administered to English as a Second Language students at the Y M C A International College in Vancouver, Canada in the fall of 1999. This will be accomplished in two stages. At the outset, results will be presented from each of the research questions outlined in the methodology section. Discussion focuses on whether results from the analyses of variance support the research hypotheses. Results from multiple regression analyses are presented next. Four independent variables were used in the analyses: students' previous intercultural experience, their pre-departure knowledge of the host society, and the attitudes they held toward interaction with home and host cultural groups. The findings from the regression analyses extend those of the analyses of variance by adding the effect of unmeasured variables. In assessing the amount of variance in the dependent variable of attitudes toward cultural diversity accountable by four key predictor variables, the degree to which unmeasured variables are influencing the results is determined. This serves to provide further evaluation of the proposed model of intercultural contact. Chapter Five presents the results of the qualitative interview sessions. Qualitative data was collected in November 1999 among volunteer students in the questionnaire group from Japan, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Colombia. The interview transcripts add detail and provide a context for the sojourn experiences contained in the questionnaire data. Contrasts are made between each student's interview and the responses they gave on the questionnaire. Students give personal accounts of intercultural contact, friendship patterns, and language use in the interviews that allow for a triangulated image of student experiences. To continue the assessment of the proposed model, the experience of each  12  student is applied to one of the paths depicted in the model. Suggestions arise concerning the ability of the model to describe student attitudes and behaviour, and how contact with culturally different others in the host setting influenced whether there was development of more positive attitudes toward cultural diversity. Chapter Six concludes the study by discussing limitations of the analyses, areas for future research, and educational implications arising from the results. An enhanced version of the proposed model is offered in response to the research findings.  13  CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE  2.0 Overview This chapter summarizes literature in the areas of acculturation, motivation in SLA, intercultural contact and interaction, and multicultural education. The discussion will emphasize research providing a framework for the current study, and offer a foundation for the upcoming chapter on methodology. The initial task will be to define a series of key terms that recur in the discussions that inform this study and which reappear in the qualitative analysis. The upcoming chapter on methodology will define these terms as they relate to the quantitative analysis. Following this, attention will turn to the major themes of the study: acculturation, intercultural contact, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. The chapter concludes with research related to the quantitative and qualitative assessment methods employed in the study.  2.1 Definitions of Key Concepts 2.1.1  Culture Culture embodies the way of life of members in a society: codes of manner, dress,  language, rituals, values, morality, norms of behaviour, and systems of belief (Jary & Jary, 1991). Culture enables people to guide their actions and make sense of behaviours of others (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988), and can be broadly defined as anything related to human behaviour that cannot be directly attributed to biology or instinct (Rosenberg et al., 1987). A n early sociological definition of culture remains effective in describing culture as a complex whole including knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, custom, and  14  other capabilities or habits acquired by a person as a result of being a member of a society (Tyler, 1871). While transmitted from generation to generation (Coon, 1954; Dressier & Willis, 1976), culture remains an aspect of our lives often taken for granted; like the air we breathe, we are immersed within it, but notice it only when it is taken away (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994). Culture is socially constructed in interactions with others who share and recognize similar knowledge, attitudes, and values and agree on which cultural elements are believed to be better than others (Brislin, 1997; Cushner & Brislin, 1997). During the current study, culture will be somewhat narrowly defined to include features of each student's experiential and linguistic background that are systematically and typically shared. It is recognized that within any given language group there are a myriad of cultural distinctions and that cultures themselves are dynamic and ever changing. Students from the same L I background are not suggested, therefore, to necessarily share any number of other components of cultural background. Yet, the current study is placed within the realm of acculturation research. Within this perspective, two broad groups are generally used: home culture to depict aspects of a sojourner's native society and culture, and host culture when referring to aspects of the culture being acquired (Berry et al., 1986, 1989; Berry, 1989; Church, 1982; Duthie, 1995; Hull, 1979; Klineberg & Oberg, 1960; Lysgaard, 1955; Segawa, 1998; Ward, 1994, 1999; Whalley, 1995; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). The purpose of acculturation research is to evaluate a process of culture learning from the native to the acquired. Neither of these cultures is static. Yet, to evaluate acculturation, it is necessary to contrast features of an individual's native cultural and  15  linguistic background, with those more characteristic of the host environment. Clearly some sojourners in a given culture will encounter members of the host community who either speak, or are learning the student's L I . The current study addresses language use and acquisition issues, but its focus is on what these say about the motivation students hold for interacting with others in the host setting. Thus, while students who share an L I are not necessarily from the same cultural background, the patterns they establish in choosing to interact in this language do suggest how they are adapting to the host culture and language. The concern is placed on why, when, and how students use their LI to interact during a sojourn. The relative importance students place on maintaining opportunities for using the L I can be tied to their acculturation attitude to portray perspectives on adaptation to the host setting. For the purpose of the study, interactions with fellow sojourners, or members of the host community, with sufficient facility in a student's LI to make LI-based interaction possible will suggest motivation for maintaining aspects of a student's native culture (termed here home culture). These are then contrasted with use of the L2, to suggest a student's motivation for adapting to the acquired culture (termed here host culture). Interaction with students from different LI backgrounds, and also people from the host society with whom the L2 must be spoken, will suggest student motivation for exploring the new society and differing cultures within it.  2.1.2 Intercultural Contact The definition of culture above includes a component of sharing beliefs, values, customs, and the like with others. In contrast to this, Intercultural Contact will be defined as occurring when students interact with people from differing cultural groups.  16  The definition used in the study includes not only the contact itself, but also the reaction of a sojourner to this contact. What follows is a brief discussion of the expectations and possible results of intercultural contact, in order to give context to this definition. To successfully interact in an intercultural situation a person must appreciate differences in how behaviours are understood between people and cultures (Brislin, 1993; Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Collier & Thomas, 1988; Furnham & Bochner, 1986). People from differing cultures may behave in ways that are perfectly appropriate from their cultural frame of reference, yet completely inappropriate within that of the other (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). As people with little experience in intercultural contact are placed in a contact situation, they are likely to have difficulties relating to the less tangible forms of culture, such as values, attitudes, norms of behaviour, and adopted roles. These are aspects of a person's subjective culture (Triandis, 1975). Subjective culture is generally considered to produce the majority of difficulties during crosscultural interactions (Brislin, 1993, 1997; Brislin & Petersen, 1978; Cushner & Brislin, 1997). In comparison, the more tangible evidence of culture, termed objective culture (Triandis, 1975), such as fashion, food, or music styles, is considered to produce less difficulties for a person unfamiliar with intercultural interactions (Cushner & Brislin, 1997; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Triandis, 1975). With insufficient knowledge of the precepts of another person's culture, faulty attributions or inaccurate interpretation of the actions or behaviours of others may arise (Cushner & Brislin, 1997). These may lead to an increasingly ethnocentric perspective, and a tendency to judge others by an inappropriate standard (Brislin & Peterson, 1978; Cushner & Brislin, 1997). In contrast to the experience of a relative newcomer, people  17  with more awareness of the subjective characteristics of another culture give more precise and accurate interpretations of the behaviour of others, and therefore interact more efficiently in intercultural interactions (Brislin & Pedersen, 1978; Cushner & Brislin, 1997). For the purpose of this study, intercultural contact will be defined as interactions between students who do not share the same LI or ethnic background, as exemplified by a need for the L2 to be used to facilitate communication. While it is again recognized that each society and language has within it an array of differing cultures, within the context of a L2 setting, contact between students will be defined as between home or host groups based on the use of first or second languages. Interactions with fellow students from differing language or cultural backgrounds, or with members of the host community with whom the L2 is used as the medium of interaction, are considered intercultural. Interactions within a student's LI will not be defined as being intercultural.  2.1.3 Sojourners and Acculturation Sojourners are defined as people who take up residence in a new cultural environment for a temporary period, with distinct educational or employment related goals (Ady, 1995; Brody, 1970; Klineberg & Hull, 1979). The process of acculturation characterizes an individual's method of developing stable human and social relationships within a host environment (Ady, 1995; Brody, 1970). As sojourners remain in a host environment for a period of months and not years, they are assumed to generally undergo a less complete process of acculturation than other migrants who remain for longer periods (Ady, 1995; Berry, 1979; Church, 1982). Acculturation in the current study will therefore be defined as an incomplete process of adaptation to a new cultural  18  environment among sojourners who bring with them distinct goals for a relatively short period of stay in a host setting.  2.1.4 Contact Motivation Sojourners will be portrayed as entering the host environment with two competing cultural concerns: one based on exploring the new culture they have entered, and the other on maintaining their own cultural identity (Berry, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989; Berry et al, 1986, 1989). These may be held consciously or unconsciously. As discussed above, this follows an often-used method in acculturation research for evaluating adaptation from natively acquired cultural norms {home culture) to those of the culture being acquired (host culture) (See: Ady, 1995; Berry, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989; Berry et al., 1986, 1989; Segawa, 1998; Ward, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Berry uses the contrast between an individual's concerns with maintaining contact with these home and host groups as their acculturation attitude. Berry's system uses four categories to describe a person's acculturation attitude. Resulting from the level of importance placed on interaction with home and host groups, the four categories are: Integrated, Separated, Marginalized, and Assimilated (Berry, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989; Berry et al., 1986, 1989). Acculturation attitudes in the current study follow Berry's approach by evaluating attitudes held toward interacting with home and host groups. However, this study does not use Berry's four categories. Instead, it is believed that attitudes toward interacting with home and host groups can be seen as separate components of a single strategy for interaction in a host environment. This pattern of interaction will be termed an individual's Contact Motivation.  19  Attitudes relating to interaction with members of the host community are depicted within a desire to explore the new cultural environment. Thus, these attitudes are defined as being levels of Exploration Motivation. Maintenance Motivation, in contrast, will be used for the relative importance a sojourner places on interactions with other sojourners and members of the host community who share the same L I , or as defined above, those with sufficient facility in the LI for it to be the medium of interaction.  2.1.5 Multicultural Societies Every society includes a diversity of cultural expression. But a multicultural society goes beyond this. A multicultural society is made up of multiple cultural groups who are different in terms of beliefs and behaviour, some of whom may wish to remain different at least in name, if not always in practice (Fleras & Elliott, 1992). Multiculturalism is based on the assumption of cultural relativism. Under this paradigm, all cultural systems are approached as being equally good and valid, when situated within their own historic and environmental context (Fleras & Elliott, 1992). An understanding of the underlying logic of all cultural practices must, therefore, be derived from the specific context, and, in the absence of absolute standards, equal status must be conferred on all cultural practices (Elliston, 1996; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992). The tolerance generated by cultural relativism is the essence of the multicultural ideology. What is culturally accepted in one context may not be so in another (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992; Furnham & Bochner, 1986), so from the framework of intergroup dynamics, a multicultural society is one in which racial and ethnic minorities compete with central authorities for achievement of certain goals and aspirations, while a political framework justifies and legitimises government initiatives  20 toward managing ethno racial diversity (Bibby, 1987; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992). At an individual level, multiculturalism is experienced through an ability and confidence in relating to others who are culturally different (Ellis, 1990; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992). In the current study, the host society of Vancouver, Canada will be defined as a multicultural society that meets these stated preconditions.  2.1.6 Canadian Multiculturalism Researchers have documented an evolution in public perception toward multiculturalism in Canada, to the level where it is a recognized ingredient of Canadian society (Berry et al, 1977, 1987, 1988; 1989; Bibby, 1987; Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Fleras & Elliott, 1992; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995). Multiculturalism is seen as encompassing a relatively coherent set of ideas and ideals in celebrating diversity as a central and valued component of the Canadian mosaic (Elliott, 1990; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992). Demographic evidence and common sense both support the reality of Canada as a racially and culturally diverse society (Elliott, 1990; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992). As an official policy, Multiculturalism seeks to anticipate the challenges of diversity by securing an accommodative symbolic and social order (Bibby, 1987; Fleras & Elliott, 1992). Three groups, occupying distinct legal status in Canadian society, compose a multicultural reality: aboriginal peoples, native, Metis, and Inuit; colonizing charter groups of English and French derivation; and, racial and ethnic minorities beyond the charter groups, an ever-increasing aspect of Canadian society through immigration (Elliott, 1990; Fleras & Elliott, 1991,1992; Norris, 1990;). During the period 1981 to 1991, over 88% of immigrants to Canada were neither British nor French derivation; 42%  21  were Asiatic (Canada, 1990, 1994). Such immigration flows have unequivocally infused a high level of cultural and racial heterogeneity that has been a salient feature of the Canadian population (Canada, 1994; Fleras & Elliott, 1991, 1992; Passaris, 1996). The 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the first of its kind in the world, officially recognized diversity, in regards to race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society (Passaris, 1996). The Act, Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrines full and equal participation rights for all individuals and communities in all aspects of life (Canada, 1989, 1990, 1994; Elliston, 1996). Official Multiculturalism is an ideal seeking to recognize cultural and racial diversity through core values of liberty and unity. The principle of equity is considered a means for obtaining these, and toward building a promise of prosperity as a realizable outcome (CCMD3, 1992). Some authors suggest Canadian Multiculturalism was an outgrowth of a government program promoting bilingualism and biculturalism, a tactic recognition of the historical founding groups of English and French speakers (Fleras & Elliott, 1992; Norris, 1990). The goals of Canadian Multiculturalism remain to promote the strengths and values of cultural diversity, the rights, and respect for differences, social justice, equal opportunity, and equality in the distribution of power (Gollnick, 1980). It is aimed at enhancing an individual's cultural identification with a particular ethno-cultural group, while still stressing the values held in common between groups (Elliston, 1996; Fleras & Elliott, 1992). Canadian Multiculturalism has been relatively successful in strengthening the public image of ethnic groups, despite an inevitable emphasis on assimilation,  22 accommodation, and integration, and has been attributed with an undeniably increased recognition of the members of various ethnic groups as being significant contributors to Canadian social life (Adam-Moodley, 1992; Dorotitch & Stephan, 1984; Echols & Fisher, 1989; Mallea, 1984; Taylor, 1992). The success of the unique Canadian example has led to its use as a template for other multicultural programs around the world, and as a motivation for students to seek international English-language study programs within Canada. For the purpose of this study, Canada will be defined as a multicultural society, which thereby includes a relatively high degree of cultural diversity, as well as the institutional support for recognition and appreciation of this diversity.  2.1.7 Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity A student's attitude toward cultural diversity will be defined by the extent to which everyday contact with people of differing cultures is perceived as an inherent, necessary, and indeed characteristic feature of living in a multicultural society. The following ingredients will be used to assess attitudes toward cultural diversity: levels of ethnocentric or stereotypical beliefs (Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1984; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995; Seelye, 1994); the ability to recognize the systematicity of other cultures, and to forgo the belief that things happen at random when interacting within a new cultural environment (Berwick & Whalley, 2000); and finally the degree to which a person sees working, studying, and living within a culturally diverse setting as an opportunity for cultural and personal enrichment, despite the challenges of miscommunication or misunderstanding that naturally arise as a result of differences in culture.  23 Ethnocentric beliefs will be defined as the ascription of negative characteristics to members of other cultures as a result of a tendency to judge others by the precepts of one's own culture (Seelye, 1994). Stereotypical beliefs will be defined as seeing people from differing cultures as a collective whole, and generally portraying them in a negative light, as well as failing to recognize individual differences among this group (Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995; Seelye, 1994).  2.2 Themes in the Research Program 2.2.1 Overview In discussing literature forming a theoretical background for the current study, it would be helpful to follow an imaginary sojourner through a stay in a host society. The first consideration is to form a general description of what occurs during the sojourn. An overview of acculturation research will be used to suggest the patterns newcomers form in taking up residence in a new cultural and linguistic environment. This will start with an early, yet influential model of acculturation, Lysgaard's (1955) U-Curve hypothesis. Discussion will include more recent models of acculturation by Furnham & Bochner (1986), Klineberg & Hull (1979), Church (1982), and Schumann (1978, 1986). A sojourner holds attitudes toward the need to acquire the L2 and about members of the host community who use this target language. These are expected to play an important role in how an individual acculturates. Gardner's work (with a series of colleagues) on motivation for L2 acquisition provides a foundation for this part of the current study (Gardner, 1980, 1983, 1985; Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Clement,  24 1990; Gardner, Lalonde, & Rielson, 1983; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972; Gardner & Mclntyre, 1991). The next step in following the process of a sojourner's acculturation it to consider how interactions they engage in within the host setting relate to acculturation. Berry linked interaction with attitudes toward acculturation and motivation for acquiring the L2 in a series of studies (See: Berry, 1970, 1979, 1987, 1989; Berry et al., 1974, 1977, 1989; Sommerlad & Berry, 1970). Other researchers have applied aspects of Berry's model to a variety of sojourner settings (Ward, 1996, 1999; Ward & Kennedy 1994). The current study extends these studies, and Gardner's earlier work, by looking at sojourners acculturating into a culturally diverse setting. The intention is to investigate sojourner motivations for interaction in the host context. Of particular interest are attitudes toward cultural diversity and how these relate to intercultural contact experiences. Theories from acculturation and SLA research will be used to examine the interaction between learners and native speakers of an L2, as well as the influence this has one acquisition of an L2 and C2. Models presented in these earlier studies are used to build a framework for the model proposed in the current study. This model details how attitudes toward interaction in a host setting relates to the opportunities a sojourner has for acquiring cultural-based competencies and appropriate use of a second language. Key figures in this discussion are Canale (1983), Canale & Swain (1980), Gass (1997), Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998), Long (1983, 1985, 1996), and Byram (1989), Byram & Fleming (1998), Byram & Zagrate (1994), Byram et al., (1990). The experience of an international sojourn likely affects an individual's perceptions toward people from different cultures. Theories from Multicultural and Anti-  25  Racist Education provide a context for student attitudes toward cultural diversity in an SLA environment. Theories offered by Triandis (1975), Triandis & Hui (1992), McGregor (1993), McGregor & Ungerleider (1990), Verma & Bagley (1973,1979, 1981), Kehoe (1981, 1984,1994), and Fleras & Elliot (1991, 1992) are integral to the theoretical background of this part of the current study. Finally, the remaining consideration is how to effectively evaluate the many components of a sojourner's experience. To this aim, the concluding section of the literature review will discuss methodological techniques in sojourner research and how these relate to methods adopted for the current study.  2.2.2 Sojourner Acculturation Investigation into the acclimatization of sojourners in a new cultural environment was founded on the work of Lysgaard, who delved into the experiences of Fulbright Scholarship students from Norway in the United States (Lysgaard, 1955). Lysgaard hypothesized a three step U-shaped model for the process sojourners went through. This model holds that an initial period of elation and optimism would give way to pessimism, frustration, depression, and confusion as a sojourn experience moved into its middle stages. A gradual improvement in feelings toward the host society as well as the overall sojourn experience develops toward the end of the sojourn (Adler, 1975; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960). The U-Curve model has been criticized for its linear progression (Silver & Wormian, 1980); for having an uncertain time frame for its stages (Church, 1982); for an inability to generalize its design across a variety of host or home cultures (Church, 1982;  26  Fumham & Bochner, 1986; Kim, 1988); and for a failure to account for personal variation among sojourners (Brody, 1970; Church, 1982; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Kim, 1988). Few longitudinal studies have been carried out which could clarify challenges to Lysgaard on methodological grounds. However, many researchers cite the cross-sectional nature of the Lysgaard data, which were collected in some cases eighteen months after the sojourn experience, as a demonstration of a frequent weakness in acculturation research: the likelihood of a historical effect arising out of the timing of the data collection (Church, 1982; Cross, 1992; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Kim, 1988). The current study adopted a cross-sectional approach to data collection, but this was carried out during the student's stay in the host setting. Further discussion of the rationale for this approach will be undertaken in Chapter Three. Using data collected in interviews long after participants had returned home, the Lysgaard 1955 study is a better description of sojourner impressions of their experience after it is over. Although Lysgaard made only a brief mention of the post-sojourn period, now termed re-adaptation, it has since become a widely researched aspect of sojourner acculturation. This avenue of criticism is but one of many a researcher may follow in challenging Lysgaard. However, despite the abundance of criticism, the U-Curve Hypothesis has remained widely accepted as a broad description of the nature of a sojourn experience. While the current study is not intended as an evaluation of this early model, the assumptions within the Lysgaard study characterize many commonly held assumptions in sojourner research. The suggestion here is that these simply have not been appropriately evaluated. For example, one research question in the current study  27  seeks to re-evaluate the relationship between period of residence and attitudes toward acculturation. Schumann (1978, 1986) outlined a number of variables, both affective and social in nature, which impact on SLA within a focus on acculturation. In one of the more influential works on acculturation, Schumann's acculturation model distinguished between the impact of affective and social variables. Schumann saw affective variables as being essentially concerned with language learning by an individual, while social variables were seen as representing learning within a group framework (Schumann, 1986). The social factors in the Schumann model include integration strategies, length of residency in a host community, attitudes toward the experience, and social dominance patterns (Schumann, 1978, 1986). On the affective side, Schumann (1986) listed motivation, culture shock, what he termed language shock, and the relative strength of an individual's self-identity {ego-permeability). Language shock is an individual's reaction to the challenge of losing traditional linguistic patterns of communication, brought on by the new requirements of the L2. The interplay between these various social and affective variables were combined by Schumann to account for varying degrees of success or failure of an individual in acculturating into an L2 and its inherent socio-cultural pattern. The current study follows Schumann's work, in an effort to add further elements to the social variables in acculturation. Schumann outlined integration strategies, and attitudes toward the experience an acculturating person may have. This study hopes to extend these variables and to further discuss how they may influence interaction patterns in a host setting.  28 Individual differences and attitudes of sojourners toward acculturation have been recent themes in sojourner research. These studies are often limited due to a focus on particular host and home culture contexts, making them difficult to generalize from. Exemplifying this, Cross (1992) looked at a group of undergraduate students from East Asian countries studying at a university in the United States. Cross suggested many of the acculturation difficulties for these students originated in a contrast between collectivist and individualist cultures. Coming from collectivist cultures that promote an interdependent self-image, these students had difficulty adjusting to the context of a North American, comparatively individualist culture (Cross, 1992). These students found demands of active involvement in class discussion, self-promotion in relations with advisors, teachers, and fellow students, and the necessity for a greater degree of independence than they had been accustomed to, to be major elements in their acculturative stress (Cross, 1992). Students exhibiting more independent selfconceptualisations, being more akin to the cultural environment of the host setting, seven months into their studies in the United States demonstrated less acculturative stress than those with more inter-dependent concepts (Cross, 1992). The current study adapts the focus of acculturative difficulties presented by Cross, to the sphere of cultural diversity. Students in the sample for the current study are sojourning in a very culturally diverse society. They may or may not have experienced such diversity in their home society. Successful adaptation into this cultural context, following Cross, will therefore require an adaptation into the intricacies of a multicultural society, within which a degree of tolerance for cultural diversity and an ability to work and live among culturally different others are required on an everyday basis.  29  In a study of Japanese students at a Canadian post-secondary setting, Segawa (1998) detailed acculturation difficulties in a similar context to that of the current study. During interview sessions in her study participants expressed difficulties from being uncertain about how to behave in a variety of educational settings in North America. Many of these students reacted to a series of problems in adapting to the social, linguistic, and educational environment at their Canadian university by forming a Japanesespeaking enclave in their dormitory. While this was created as a support network, it was later blamed by many students for enhancing a sense of alienation from the rest of the campus (Segawa, 1998). A few interviewees further attributed this group to helping tension to increase between the Japanese students and English speakers in the dormitory. Segawa (1998) suggested this feature of their sojourn experience had a lasting impact on how the students perceived the sojourn and members of the host community. Segawa's findings support a frequent finding in sojourner research: satisfaction with a sojourn experience appears to be directly related to the level and nature of contact between a sojourner and members of the host society (Cross, 1992; Cushner, 1994; Cushner & Nieman, 1997; Furnham & Bochner, 1982, 1986; Segawa, 1998). Hull (1981) and Klineberg & Hull (1979) were among the first to theorize a key role for contact between sojourners and members of a host society during acculturation. Hull (1981) perceived satisfaction with a sojourn experience to be directly related to the level and nature of contact between a sojourner and members of the host society. Furnham & Bochner (1982, 1986) separated two aspects of sojourner attitudes toward intercultural contact. The first is a positive view. Intercultural contact is seen as promoting personal growth and insights into the language and culture being studied  30  (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). The second theme is negative. It holds that intercultural contact can be stressful and potentially harmful to a sojourner. Furnham & Bochner (1986) used Oberg's term culture shock to describe negative reactions to intercultural contact. Culture shock has been generally accepted as a feature of most sojourn experiences (Furnham, 1987; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Oberg, 1960; Segawa, 1998). In the current study, strong negative reactions to contact experiences are related to a pattern of interaction reflective of culture shock, with a characteristic pulling away from the host culture. Students with intense negative experiences are expected to show stronger patterns of LI use and LI friendship, and therefore to have a reduced tendency for involvement in interactions involving the L2. Research into sojourner friendship patterns divides friendships in a host setting into three types: monocultural, bicultural, and multicultural groups (Duthie, 1995; Furnham & Bochner, 1982, 1986; Segawa, 1998). In this study, monocultural friendships are referred to as friendships where the LI is the medium of communication. Bicultural (including both home and host cultures) and multicultural groups are termed L2friendships. A number of studies have found interactions between sojourners and members of a host culture are most frequently for instrumental purposes, such as completing everyday tasks or getting assistance (Cushner, 1994; Furnham & Bochner, 1982). It is expected in this study that many sojourners will follow this pattern of interaction, despite hopes of integrating into the host culture. A number of failed interaction attempts are expected to lead to frustrations reflective of those outlined by Furnham & Bochner (1982,1986), the likely outcome of which is a decision to remain predominantly within LI-networks. Essential opportunities for culture learning are  31  thereby lost. This leads the discussion to another important component of the theoretical framework for the current study: the question of what influences the nature and strength of sojourn tendencies to remain within LI-friendship and support networks. Research into motivation in SLA provides the basis for this part of the study.  2.2.3 Contact and Motivation in Second Language Acquisition Research into the role of attitudes and motivation in SLA was founded on the work of Gardner and Lambert. Gardner and Lambert suggest the social and cultural milieu learners are raised in determines the attitudes and motivational orientation they hold toward the target language, its speakers, and its culture (Gardner, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1988; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). These in turn influence the types of learning behaviours learners choose to engage in, and as a result play major roles in learning outcomes (Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). According to Gardner and Lambert, there are five motivational attributes affecting L2 acquisition: the learner's reasons for learning the L2, degree of anomie (dissatisfaction with one's place and role in society), level of ethnocentrism, the degree to which the first culture (CI) is preferred over the second (C2), and attitudes held toward the target language and culture (Gardner, 1979, 1985, 1988; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). An important distinction between two of these five components of motivation for acquiring an L2 offers a building block in this study. Motivation for learning an L2 is divided by Gardner into two components: instrumental and integrative motivation. Instrumental motivation concerns an individual's primary concern for linguistic growth, apart from social goals in SLA  32  (Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). Integrative motivation refers to an individual's willingness and interest in promoting L2 acquisition through social interactions with members of the L2 group (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972; Gardner, 1979,1983, 1988). Instrumental motivation is suggested by Gardner to have a primary role in learning of the L2, while integrative motivation to play a lesser, supporting role (Gardner, 1979, 1983, 1988; Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The current study follows the distinction between these two aspects of motivation for acquiring an L2. It asks whether students are primarily concerned with acquiring the L2 for business or educational purposes (instrumental motivation), or for acquiring the necessary skills for interactions with members of its cultural communities. Within an instrumental pattern of motivation, contact with others requiring use of the L2 may not be perceived to be of particular necessity. Students may feel the educational setting alone is sufficient to accomplish their linguistic goals for the sojourn. However, an individual with a higher degree of a motivation for integration into the host community is likely to make more extensive efforts to form bonds with culturally different others in the host setting as a means of learning the L2 and the cultural skills to appropriately use it. In contrast, a student with less concern for integration may build greater contact with speakers of their LI. Doing so would not be implicitly considered an impediment to acquiring their instrumental goals of linguistic competence. In this way, the level of integration an L2 learner shows would relate to actions engaged in outside of the formal educational setting during a sojourn. Those hoping to gain a deeper connection with the host community, thereby having higher integration motivation, would likely make greater  33 effort to establish friendships with members of the host community. The hope would be to practice the L2 in a lifelike manner, thus affording opportunities for friendships and other social links. Gardner's instrumental motivation is extended in the current study through assessment of a sojourner's perception toward the relative importance of maintaining contact with their home society and L I . While Gardner suggests integration motivation has a secondary role in L2 acquisition to instrumental motivation, other researchers refute this (See: Collier & Thomas, 1988; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). Intercultural communication theorists, in particular, place greater importance on student attitudes toward the target language community than Gardner. Milhouse (1996), following similar findings by Collier & Thomas (1988) and Hammer (1987), linked student attitudes in three domains to the efforts they made in acquiring an L2. All three researchers found a stronger motivation for interaction with a target language group to be positively associated with the frequency of inter-group contact students made (social distance), the degree to which the L2 group was held in a positive regard, and the level of open-mindedness of the language learner. By assessing language use, friendship patterns, and attitudes students hold toward a given host culture in particular, as well as cultural diversity in general, the current study seeks to broaden SLA motivation as depicted by the Gardner model into an ongoing process that is reinforced or changed as students come into contact with its speakers and cultures. A stronger connection is sought between motivation and efforts students make in learning an L2 and C2 during an SLA sojourn.  34  2.2.4 Interaction in SLA: an Analogy for Second Culture Learning As previously discussed, one of the limitations in sojourner research has been a shortage of studies outlining acquisition of a second culture. The field has tended to show a preoccupation with gains in an L2 (Berwick, 1999; Berwick & Carey, 2000). The current study seeks to address this limitation by applying interactionist ideas for SLA research to the analogous situation of acquiring a second culture. Given a lack of pedagogy for enhancement of culture learning in a sojourn environment (Berwick & Whalley, 2000), interaction in SLA can be seen to offer a general framework of how interaction may influence C2 acquisition. While the sharing of interactionist ideas from SLA to C2 acquisition does not offer a wholesale, systematic model to be used in explaining the process, there are important similarities that provide steps in establishing a framework for building such a model. Two areas will be considered in applying SLA interactionist theories to C2 acquisition: the recognition of an inherent link between sociocultural and sociolinguistic competence, and thus a need to delve deeper into the nature of interactions between culture learners and C2 competent others; and the role of feedback from interactions in C2 acquisition. There is a tacit recognition in SLA research that L2 learners do not get far in their ability to speak the L2 without meaningful interaction with L2 speakers (Kramsch, 1998; 1996; Schumann, 1986). Likewise, learners of a C2 are not likely to acquire advanced cultural competence without similar levels of interaction with culturally competent members of the C2 community. If SLA learners acquire an L2 by learning how to communicate in it (Hatch, 1978), C2 acquisition can be seen as a process of learners  35  gaining competency as they use their cultural knowledge in interactions with others more fluent in the target culture. Just as learners develop L2 syntax in a more realistic manner through interaction with speakers of the L2 (Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; WagnerHough & Hatch, 1975), interaction can be seen as leading to the development of a working cultural syntax. The championing by interactionists of this inter-relationship between sociocultural and sociolinguistic competence (See: Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980), supports a similar sharing of L2 methodologies for use in further studies of C2 acquisition, as attempted in the current study. Some authors depict SLA research as being preoccupied with language acquisition as a cognitive rather than social construct (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Liddicoat, 1997). Firth & Wagner (1997) criticize SLA research with developing an impoverished view of interaction that fails to include the sociolinguistic dimensions of language and language acquisition. They suggest there has been an imbalance in favour of approaches that downplay the role of social phenomena. As interaction takes place within social relationships between participants, the production of language, according to this critique, is not constructed by the activities of a single participant, but rather between all participants (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Liddicoat, 1997). In place of a more careful examination of the social context of utterances at the level of the actual relationship between participants, Firth & Wagner argue there has been a preoccupation with categories, such as native speaker, non-native speaker (or learner). They attribute this tendency to researchers focusing their attention on what are quite unnatural language contexts. An example of this context-defined language situation would be eliciting from a non-native speaker an institutional-based speech sample, such  as an interview, or utterances originating in assigned class activities and learning tasks, all of which require the use of typically constrained and unnatural language (Liddicoat, 1997) . Further exemplifying this pattern, Liddicoat (1997) points out that most studies feature learners who are unknown to each other outside the learning situation, and are therefore engaging in institutional tasks, rather than the natural conversation styles occurring in a social context. The lack of a pre-existing relationship is cited by Firth & Wagner (1997) as a severe limitation in many studies of L2 interaction. Without a preexisting relationship between them participants only have the social identities of strangers during these institutional tasks (Firth & Wagner, 1997). A convincing case is made for analyzing interactions in a more diverse, relevant, spontaneous, and realistic communication environment. With this in mind, the current study assesses linguistic aspects of student interactions not with grammatical criteria, but with a suggestion of how they relate to attitudes toward joining the host community instead of remaining a visitor who interacts primarily within the familiar cultural context of an LI network. To build a deeper understanding of how learners acquire a C2, the role feedback from native speakers and others with more familiarity than the sojourning student in the C2 must be considered. Acquisition of syntactic structure is a by-product of negotiation between what a learner hears during interaction with a native speaker, the L2 discourse produced by the learner, and the resulting native speaker feedback (Swain, 1985,1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) . Similarly ^ responses from members of a target culture during interactions can be seen as allowing the culture learner to contrast their perceptions of culturally appropriate behaviours, or use of language, with what others more fluent in a culture display.  37  Feedback has been shown in SLA to help learners reshape inadequate language rules they have patterned (Gass, 1997; Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; White, 1987). These interactional modifications or negotiations are likely to have parallels in culture learning. The influence of negative feedback on learner motivation in SLA is sought in this study from student descriptions of their interaction experiences. Long (1996) and Long et al., (1998) suggest implicit negative feedback plays a facilitating role, drawing the learner's attention to differences in their output and the native speaker input. Other authors have suggested negative feedback can lead to a gradual production of language anxiety, a situation that may result in learners associating the L2 with feelings of apprehension (Gardner, 1988; Gardner et al., 1997; Maclntyre & Gardner, 1991; Maclntyre, 1989). The production of language anxiety has been negatively related with achievement in L2 acquisition in a number of studies (Gardner, 1988; Gardner et al., 1997; Gardner & Maclntyre, 1991). Within the context of C2 acquisition, negative feedback may serve to limit further engagement of the learner in these situations. In the current study, the reactions students have to intercultural interactions are portrayed in just such a light, as furthering desires to build greater patterns of interaction with either LI or L2 groups. This feature of the current study follows analysis by Amir (1976), who established important factors in whether personal experience with members of other groups will lead to increased liking or increased hostility. Positive outcomes are likely when equal status between groups exists, when common goals exist between partners in the contact situation, where participation is voluntary, and when contact becomes more intimate (Amir 1976; Berry, 1991). Negative outcomes are likely when the status  38  between groups or individuals is unequal, competition exists for scarce resources, and interaction in enforced (Amir, 1976; Berry, 1991). Berry has conducted extensive research in the Canadian context of how inter-group relations between culturally different groups relate to acceptance or rejection of other groups, and how these are related to levels of acculturation (Berry, 1979, 1989, 1991; Berry et al., 1977). His work provides an essential link in the theoretical framework for this study in connecting Gardner's two spheres of motivation to attitudes toward acculturation.  2.2.5 Acculturation Attitudes Through a series of studies, Berry and others suggest attitudes toward acculturation have an important impact on the process (Annis, 1974; Berry et al., 1987a, 1989; Berry & Sommerlad, 1970). Initially, two subject groups were featured in most of these research projects: aboriginal peoples in Australia and North America, and immigrant groups predominantly in North American settings. Sommerlad and Berry (1970) used patterns of acculturation among aboriginal Australians to assess levels of cultural assimilation. A five-point Likert scale measured social proximity in attitudes presented by young students between precepts of their aboriginal first cultures and the dominant European-Australian society. Attitudes individuals held toward the relative desirability of integrating into the lager society were found to be significant determinants of the level of acculturation they had attained. These findings are supported in a number of studies within the context of involuntary minority and aboriginal groups in North America (Berry et al., 1986, 1987). The current study seeks to adapt this concept for use in a sojourn SLA context.  39  Berry's work established a relationship between attitudes held toward the perceived importance of maintaining contact with home and host cultural groups, and the levels of acculturation an individual demonstrated. The working model of acculturation attitudes Berry produced features four distinct patterns of acculturation: Integration, Assimilation, Separation, and Marginalisation (Berry et al., 1986, 1987; Berry, Trimble, & Olmeda, 1986). In order to place an individual into one of the four categories, Berry combines items that demonstrate support for either maintenance of the home culture or a desire to integrate into the host culture. Subjects concerned with both maintaining their own cultural identity and extending relations in the host community are considered to have an Integrated acculturation attitude. At the opposite extreme, an individual reporting little concern in either area is seen to be Marginalized. In an Assimilated acculturation attitude an individual shows a greater concern for integrating into the host culture than maintaining their home culture (Berry et al., 1987, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988). The final category, Separation, involves individuals with a greater focus on maintaining elements of the home culture over connecting with the host ones. The current study will use Berry's schema in conjunction with Gardner's work on motivation in SLA to study sojourning L2 learners. The four acculturation attitudes in the Berry model do not at first appear to support Gardner's work on motivation. Berry's focus on attitudes toward home and host cultural groups, however, offers an element that can be added to the Gardner work to create a more inclusive theory of sojourner SLA motivation. Gardner's two spheres of motivation (instrumental and integration) are both paralleled in, and extended by Berry's approach. Greater socio-linguistic proficiency is likely among individuals showing an  40  increased desire for integrating into the host culture. Therefore, sojourners with a stronger integrative motivation (following Gardner's model) would be expected to demonstrate this with a greater concern for contacting members of the host community (as outlined by Berry). Likewise, students with differing motivations, such as a more instrumental-based pattern, may show this in a greater tendency to feel maintenance of a home culture and language are of more importance than interacting with members of the host culture (following Berry's model). To further discuss how Berry's model of acculturation attitudes can be related to Gardner's work on motivation, it is necessary to look closer at this model and adaptations made to it by other researchers. Berry associated each of the four acculturation attitudes with differing levels of acculturative stress and adaptation difficulties (Berry, 1989; Berry et al., 1989). The most negative acculturation stress is described as resulting from Marginalized or Separated attitudes. Individuals with these acculturation attitudes are believed to be more likely to see intercultural experiences as threatening (Berry et al., 1987, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In contrast, an interest in maintaining and extending contact with home and host cultures, an Integrated acculturation attitude, is described as resulting in less acculturative stress (Berry et al., 1987, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988; Ward, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Berry suggests sojourners with Integrated or Assimilated attitudes experience fewer adaptation difficulties because they are likely to see adaptation as a salient and even desirable feature of moving to a host setting (Berry et al., 1987, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988). Table 2.1 shows the four acculturation attitudes in Berry's model.  41  Table 2.1 Berry's Acculturation Attitudes (Berry et al, 1989) - Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural Acculturation Attitudes  i d e n t i t  y  a  n  d  characteristics?  Yes  No  Yes  Integrated  Assimilated  No  Separated  Marginalized  - Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?  Berry's original model of acculturation has been used in studies of acculturation among minority and immigrant groups in culturally plural societies in North America, Hawaii, and Australia. In the Canadian context, many studies have looked at acculturation among members of aboriginal communities across the country using this approach (Berry, 1979; Berry & Annis, 1974; Berry et al., 1986). Consistently positive correlations have been found between measures of Euro-Canadian acculturation, such as years of formal schooling, and levels of Assimilation attitudes (Berry et al., 1977, 1987). The techniques used for determining levels of the four acculturation attitudes do not vary much among studies using Berry's approach. Questionnaires, typically involving Likert scale items, ask subjects to agree or disagree with statements expressing ethnic identification between native and acquired cultures. Tables 2.2 illustrates an example of items from a study of Korean immigrants to Canada.  42  Table 2.2 Acculturation Attitudes - Korean Immigrants in Canada (Berry et al., 1989) Acculturation Attitude Suggested  Friendship Patterns  Separated  -Most of my friends are Koreans, because I feel very comfortable around them, but I don't feel as comfortable with Canadians  - Because we live in Canada, we are always pressured to assimilate to Canadian lifestyle. Thus we must emphasize our distinct Korean identity and restrict our association with Canadian society.  Integrated  -The kinds of relationships that I have with Koreans are valuable while the kinds of relationships I have with Canadians are also worthwhile.  - While living in Canada, we can retain our Korean cultural heritage and lifestyle and yet participate fully in various aspects of Canadian society.  Marginalized °  -These days it s hard to find someone „ you can really relate to and share your . , ,. ' • inner feelings and thoughts.  ~ . .. , ., . - Politicians use national pride to . .. , , . exploit and deceive the public,  Assimilated  - Most of my friends are Canadians, because they are enjoyable and I feel comfortable around them but I don't feel the same way with Koreans.  Canadian Society  J  w  r  - We're living in Canada and that means giving up your traditional way of life and adopting a Canadian lifestyle, thinking and acting like Canadians  Statements in Table 2.2 are representative of the acculturation attitude to their left. Four groups of items are included in most studies. One measures each of the four acculturation attitudes. The current study uses items of the same nature that are simplified for use among students with less ability in the language of the host setting. For example, the above items ask two questions at the same time. First, they ask for answers toward one group, and then a contrast is made with the other group: "I feel comfortable with (my home group), but I don't feel comfortable with (the host group)." For use in an ESL context, questions are simplified to address attitudes toward home and  43 host groups in separate items, rather than in the combined, complex sentences exemplified above. The methodology typically used to assess these responses adds a subject's score on items in four different scales to produce a grouped score. What results is a variable that can be correlated with sociodemographic variables, such as gender, age, language use, years of schooling, ethnic identity, cultural group membership, or achievement variables like standardized test scores (Berry, 1989; Berry et al., 1986, 1989). Concurrent validation of the acculturation attitude scales have shown consistently positive, although somewhat weak correlations between Assimilation and Integration (ranging from +.14 to +.28) (Berry, 1989; Berry et al., 1987, 1989). Stronger negative correlations have been found between Assimilation and Separation (ranging from -.27 to -.69) (Berry, 1989; Berry et al., 1987, 1989). Ward & Kennedy (1994) support Berry's framework in finding that sojourners with Integrated and Assimilated acculturation attitudes demonstrated lower levels of sociocultural difficulties than ones with Separated or Marginalized attitudes. In a study of sociocultural adjustment of New Zealand government employees on sojourn programs, Ward & Kennedy (1994) found strong patterns of association with others from the same language and cultural background related to lower levels of psychological distress, while strong association with members of the host culture correlated to a lower level of sociocultural difficulties. Ward (1999) developed a new instrument to examine the two dimensions of acculturation attitudes used by Berry. Ward (1999) supported the concept of acculturation attitudes in Berry's model, but felt the descriptive power of the model was enhanced if the two spheres of acculturation perspectives (toward home and host  44 groups) were kept distinct. Acculturation attitudes were found to relate to a number of adjustive outcomes. To further illustrate features resulting from these outcomes, Ward's approach stressed a distinction between sociocultural adjustment, characterized by the learning of everyday operational skills within the host environment, and psychological adjustment. Psychological adjustment includes personal well-being and psychological coping within the transitional experience (Ward, 1996, 1999). Sociocultural adaptation was found to be dependent on four features of the sojourn in particular: the cultural proximity between a sojourner's home and host cultures, the amount of contact with host culture group members, the length of residency in the host setting, and a sojourner's ability to use the local language in a socially appropriate way (Ward, 1996, 1999). The current study utilizes one sphere of Ward's approach. Berry's model of acculturation will be adapted to follow Ward's concept of sojourner sociocultural adaptation. Acculturation attitudes are assessed through a series of similar, yet simplified scales, which evaluate sojourner attitudes in relation to home and host cultural groups, as carried out by Ward. These are not portrayed within a four-fold model, but rather within the two spheres of attitudes toward associating with home and host cultures. The methodological reasons for following this approach are outlined in Chapter Three.  2.2.6 Modification of Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity There are three broad educational strategies typically used to enhance or modify attitudes and behaviour towards culturally different people: Anti-Racist education, cultural information presentation, and inter-group contact strategies (Adam-Moodley, 1992; Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; McGregor, 1993). A l l of these methods  •S3  offer benefits for L2 learners. Cultural information techniques seek to limit ethnocentric beliefs by enhancing images of other cultures through accurate portrayals of the language and culture of a people. These should be an inherent feature of effective SLA methodology. Critics may claim this approach leads to only a stereotypical, shallow appreciation of another culture, or a saris, steel-band, and samosa type of multiculturalism (Rattansi, 1992), or has little impact on prejudiced or misconceived views (Parekh, 1986; Rattansi, 1992; Verma & Bagley, 1981). However, it is hard to imagine learning an L2 without some curricular focus on the cultures of people who speak it. Anti-racist education, which deals directly with the issues of exclusion, racism, and attitudes toward those who are culturally different, is a rare feature of language programs. Yet, it need not be. This methodology generally includes an explanation of structural causes of racism, how societies perpetuate institutional forms of discrimination, and a personal questioning of inequities in modern societies (Butt, 1986; Fleras & Elliott, 1992; Kehoe, 1984; Rattansi, 1992; Verma & Bagley, 1979,1981). Racism is likely to be a feature of any society and C2 a learner is acquiring. Thus, addressing how a particular language, culture, or society deals with discrimination is pertinent to a learner gaining a deeper understanding of the systematicity of the cultures using a target language. The third educational methodology for improving attitudes toward cultural difference, mentioned previously, is known as a contact strategy. Contact strategies are widely used in L2 educational programs under a different name: exchange programs. Multicultural educators have found these initiatives to promote more accurate and  46  empathetic attitudes toward people from different cultures (Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976; Lynch, 1989; McGregor, 1993; Rokeach, 1971; Segawa, 1998; Triandis, 1975). The goals of a contact program are to reduce misconceived notions, foster interpersonal relations, and of course to improve the learning and teaching of language and social skills. Within an SLA sojourn, personal contact replaces perceived images of L2 speakers with tangible examples gained from meaningful interaction in the host environment. The present study evaluates the linguistic and cultural nature of contact among SLA sojourners in a host setting. The purpose is to determine how these influence the attitudes sojourners hold toward cultural diversity and members of the host culture and society. The theoretical foundation for contact programs, often called role-play, in multicultural and anti-racist instructional methodologies, emerge from an extension of Social Learning Theory, put forward by Bandura in the 1960's. A three-step procedure is used, including observation, action, and cognitive reaction. Social Learning Theory suggests that socially inappropriate actions can be modified if a trainee witnesses a series of performances featuring more appropriate ones, which are demonstrated by significant others (Bandura, 1962, 1965, 1968a, 1968b, 1969). These others can be peers, authority figures, teachers, or otherwise important strangers. The trainee gradually is placed into situations where the modelled patterns in the performances are attempted in a role-plays. Participants experiment with playing different parts in the scenario, and become more fluent in the techniques being taught. Bandura (1962, 1965) used these socially based training sessions to help individuals overcome fears held toward various animals or social  47  situations. The modelled behaviour repeated by trainees becomes available for them to use in socially appropriate future situations (Bandura, 1962, 1965, 1969). Bandura's work was added to by Stotland (1969) and Rokeach (1971), and eventually adapted into an SLA instructional setting by Triandis (1975) and Triandis & Hui, (1992). Triandis suggests sojourners need to constantly evaluate their actions during intercultural interactions, and to carefully assess how closely these evaluations match those produced by members of a host culture. The techniques used to produce modelling of appropriate responses in Bandura's studies are therefore paralleled in a sojourn experience. Sojourners initially witness performances of language use in culturally appropriate way by others who are fluent in both the language and culture being acquired. Next, they attempt to repeat these patterns. Gradually, language and culture learners adapt these behaviours based on observing hosts during daily interactions, and come to develop enhanced cultural-based competencies. A contact strategy occurs without any intervention of an educational program in an international sojourn setting. Students are involved in role-playing culturally appropriate language use on an everyday basis, acquiring the second culture of the host environment. Impressive results are demonstrated with role-play methodologies in multicultural and anti-discrimination education (See: Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; McGregor, 1993; Triandis, 1975; Triandis & Hui, 1992). The current study sees a utility for this methodology for instruction of both an L2 and C2. McGregor (1993) conducted a meta-analysis of research into teaching strategies designed to lessen discrimination. Thirteen studies using this technique produced an average shift of (+.42 Sd) in subjects undergoing treatment countering racist attitudes (McGregor, 1993). An average student  48  in experimental groups demonstrated less racial prejudice, and more culturally tolerant attitudes, than 64% of subjects not undergoing treatment (McGregor, 1993). Among the more impressive examples of effective use of role-play in the context of anti-racist education, Kehoe & Rogers (1978) found significant positive attitude change toward members of a specific minority group; as well, Culbertson (1957) and Verma & Bagley (1973, 1979, 1981) found reduced levels of social distance between minority and majority group members in a variety of research studies involving the use of contact methodologies. Others have found an increase and strengthening of social bonds between minority and majority cultural group students through intercultural contact (Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976). Conversely, a number of studies have found significant negative impact on student attitudes, evidenced by increasingly intolerant attitudes and behaviours following the use of a contact strategy (Balch & Paulsen, 1978; Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976; Kehoe, 1981; Kehoe & Rogers, 1978; McGregor, 1993; Miller, 1969). It is always possible for contact strategies to lead to an entrenchment of intolerant attitudes, particularly if students garner support for previously held negative perceptions and stereotypes from contact experiences (Balch & Paulsen, 1978; Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976; McGregor, 1993; McGregor & Ungerleider, 1990; Miller, 1969; Verma & Bagley, 1979). The current study seeks to find both patterns contained in the research: students who react with positive or negative impressions of their contact experiences.  49  2.3 2.3.1  Assessment Assessment of Acculturation  Written surveys involving large numbers of sojourn participants and structured interviews of smaller samples are the two most frequently used methods for measuring acculturation (McGregor, 1993). While studies generally follow quantitative methodology (McGregor. 1993), a number of recent projects have used either qualitative analyses, or a combination of both approaches to evaluate results (Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Furnham, 1987;Triandis & Hui, 1992). Generalizability has been a long-standing challenge in cross-cultural research (Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960). Two reasons account for this. First, researchers generally modify instruments for a particular home and host culture match, making it difficult to apply the data to another sojourn setting. Secondly, research rarely involves a longitudinal study, neither following a single subject group over multiple years, nor participants in a given program for an extended period after its completion (Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Klineberg & Hull, 1979). A wide variety of sojourner adaptation factors have been reported through the research, including language proficiency and use (Cross, 1992; Klineberg & Hull, 1979), creation of social networks within a host environment (Cross, 1992; Segawa, 1998; Triandis, 1975), friendship patterns (Duthie, 1995; Segawa, 1998), utilization of . media (Segawa, 1998), and numerous psychological aspects of personal adaptation (Cross, 1992; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Segawa, 1998; Triandis, 1975). Cross-cultural research into acculturation has traditionally followed three streams: ethnic identity, assimilation, and adaptive behaviour (Lam, 1995). Teske & Nelson (1974) exemplified the assimilation perspective in using a variety of quantitative  50  methodologies to assess how values demonstrated by an acculturating individual reflect those widely held in a target culture. They use this comparison to suggest the degree to which an individual has been assimilated (Teske & Nelson, 1974). Reflecting the ethnic identity perspective, Masuda et al. (1970) created a questionnaire involving a number of social components, such a fdial piety, to measure proximity of a subject to particular home and host culture. The degree to which an individual identified with home or host cultural dimensions of these social components is put forth as their relative level of acculturation (Masuda et al., 1970). A series of studies involving acculturation of Hispanic and Mexican-Americans moving to the United States exemplifies the adaptive behaviour stream of cross-cultural research into acculturation (Gonzales & Roll, 1985; Mercer, 1973; Ramirez et al., 1984). Ramirez et al., (1984) measured acculturation of Hispanic Americans by investigating how closely cognitive styles of minority group members reflect those held within the majority culture. Mercer (1973) related socio-cultural characteristics of Hispanic and African-Americans to IQ test scores. Mercer suggested the IQ tests were an acceptable device to measure proximity to Anglo-American cognitive styles. A positive association was drawn between higher test scores and the number of Anglo-American characteristics the subjects possessed (Mercer, 1973). Gonzales and Roll (1985) further demonstrated a positive correlation between performance on standardized intelligence tests and degree of acculturation by linking variations in minority sub-group acculturation of AngloAmerican characteristics with IQ test and other survey results. In short, a diversity of possible variables is used in measurement of acculturation. Socio-economic status, language proficiency, religious affiliation, standardized test  51  scores, friendship patterns, educational levels, and personal value systems are but a sampling of these. Not surprisingly, the abundance of possible variables has resulted in a corresponding array of instruments and procedures (Lam, 1995). While quantitative studies abound, a few disciplines, particularly sociology and anthropology, have shown a predilection for qualitative methods to assess acculturation (Lam, 1995). For example, Polyzoi (1985) used in-depth, unstructured interviews to ascertain levels of perceived strangeness among immigrant groups. As previously discussed, Cross (1992) found East Asian sojourners at an American university who demonstrated a more independent selfimage tended to report less acculturative stress. Cross used a group of variables within two constructs, promotion of self-interest and independent participation in class activities, to depict the level of independence shown in an individual's self-image. A relationship was found between levels of acculturation and independent schema (Cross, 1992). Fletcher & Stren (1992) correlated language skill variables among foreign students at a Canadian university to acculturation levels, in a similar fashion. Quantitative assessment of acculturation involves many types of scales and instruments. Scales used in acculturation research tend to employ close-ended items. Individuals are given choices of how to respond to an item, but cannot respond with a different answer (Lam, 1995). Table 2.3 provides an overview of various scales used to assess acculturation.  52  Table 2.3 Overview ofAcculturation Scales (Lam, 1995) I see myself as: J^gygJ of „ . . „ , Ethnicity Scales J  -French all of the time - French most of the time „ , , _ ,. , „ -French and English equally -English most of the time - English all of the time  Likert Scales  -Agree/disagree statements  Other Likert Scales  -Ratings from continua: poor to above average -Frequency estimation: always to never  Semantic Differential Scales  -Weak-strong, good-bad ratings  Impression Rating Scales  -I feel most comfortable when (any number of variables) -I would be happier if I could (variables)  Guttman Scales  - What language do you prefer to speak? - What language is most often spoken at home? - Do you read in your second language at home?  Likert scales sometimes include questions asking a respondent to suggest how they might behave in a particular situation, in attempt to further their ability to contrast between native and acquired cultures (Lam, 1995). Interviews have also been combined with questionnaires in attempts to form a more complete picture of a particular acculturation situation. The Torres-Matrullo (1987) Acculturation Interview Questionnaire rates responses given by interview participants based on whether they reflect the home or host cultural norms (using the terms traditional and non-traditional for home and host cultures). Projective techniques of assessment of acculturation, involving indirect measurement, are common in psychiatry and medicine  53  (Lam, 1995). One study used preference in skin colour of dolls selected by young subjects during play sessions to classify individuals into differing level of acculturation, while another used the way an individual arranged playing cards with ethnically different names on them (Lam, 1995). One of the most novel instruments created is the Comics Test of Acculturation (Takashima, 1987). Based on the assumption that comprehension of non-native humour demonstrates linguistic and cultural adaptation, the Comics Test asks respondents to interpret events in a sequence. Responses are then evaluated on a five-point scale for the degree to which they show an understanding of the humour, and also for numbers of grammatical errors produced (Takashima, 1987). Many procedures have been used to establish the reliability of acculturation measures. Reliability coefficients are used to demonstrate consistency of responses among items on acculturation questionnaires and scales (Ramirez et al., 1984). Cronbach Alpha coefficients are frequently used to suggest the reliability of items within scales (Cuellar et al., 1980; Hazuda et al., 1988; Mojica, 1992; Szapocznik et al., 1980). Perhaps the most frequently used internal consistency coefficient, the Cronbach Alpha allows a researcher to establish the degree to which items on a scale are addressing the same construct, factor, or variable. This type of reliability assessment proves difficulties, in many acculturation research settings, due to the common practice of adapting instruments that have been used for one home and host group to a different pairing (Lam, 1995). Techniques commonly used to validate acculturation instruments include parallel language forms (Szapocznik et al., 1980), interator reliability correlations (Cueller et al., 1980), and coefficients resulting from factor analysis or principal component analysis  (Szapocznik et al., 1980). Despite the use of these strategies, results from acculturation studies are typically limited in their ability to be generalized to other settings, and often do not present the same level of confidence in research methodology many other scientific disciplines can demonstrate (Lam, 1995).  2.3.2 Evaluating Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity Quantitative techniques for measurement of attitudes toward cultural diversity generally follow two types: semantic differential scales and behavioural interaction measures (McGregor, 1993; McGregor & Ungerleider, 1990). Semantic differential scales involve participants selecting adjectives which best describe their opinion to statements on a questionnaire. Questionnaire items are designed to produce scores that are explicitly related to concepts or constructs the author believes delineate cultural diversity. Scores are often grouped into levels (Ex: Low, Medium, High) for further analysis. The scale used in the current study to assess attitudes toward cultural diversity exemplifies this type of instrument. Originating in the Willingness to Accept Cultural Diversity Scale (Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1984, 1994), the instrument is adapted for use within an ESL setting. It uses a five-point, Likert-type scale including items designed to determine a person's level of tolerance for living within a culturally diverse society. Collectively, the items assess tolerance for different languages, acceptance of cultural difference in interpersonal relations, and an overall willingness to accept cultural diversity on a societal level (Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1994). In trials, the scale has demonstrated a Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of (.736) (Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000), which suggests  55  the items on the scale are sufficiently reliable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The technique for assessing its validity in the current study, again an often used method, is to have a group of people familiar with the host culture assess the questionnaire items for relevance to the constructs being considered. Much more discussion of the reliability and validity of this instrument will take place in the upcoming chapter on methodology. The Sympathy Toward First Nations' Canadians Scale (Kehoe & Segawa, 1995) is a good example of an instrument evaluating attitudes toward culture diversity. This scale follows a similar methodology to the scale used in the current study, but is aimed at discerning attitudes toward one cultural group in particular (in this case, aboriginal Canadians). Many other examples of these types of instruments are found in the literature (See: Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1994; Kehoe & Echols, 1983; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995). Within Anti-Racist and Multicultural Education, scales designed to evaluate attitudes toward cultural diversity are generally given as a pre-test equivalency measure (See: Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995). This was not carried out in the current study, which uses a cross-sectional data collection strategy. Integrating qualitative components into a study of attitudes toward cultural difference presents a series of challenges. First, the nature of data produced through qualitative means makes generalizing the results to other acculturation situations problematic. Far too many threats to validity exist, including history, testing effect, instrumentation, and interator reliability (Lam, 1995). Yet, a degree of generalizability is desired. Evaluating acculturation of multicultural attitudes seems less useful if the results cannot be applied to a comparable context. Sojourners leaving a comparatively homogenous society to a more heterogeneous one, such as that found in Canada, are  56 likely to demonstrate some characteristic patterns of attitudinal adjustment. Secondly, the use of three subjects groups, two of whom do not undertake a sojourn experience, creates many logistical problems if one is attempting to replicate the conditions of testing during qualitative data collection. Interator reliability between assessment techniques within the home and host cultural settings is a further challenge, which can be more easily addressed though a quantitative design, whereby valid results could be produced through administering the same questionnaire to comparable groups on as little as a single opportunity. Generalizability is by its very nature a pursuit of quantitative researchers. Qualitative designs are not organized in a manner that would meet the criteria necessary for validity and reliability laid down for quantitative data collection. Schumacher and McMillan (1993) suggest four different measures for use in evaluating qualitative research design: confirmability, dependability, transferability, and credibility. Confirmability refers to whether the data came from the researcher's own, subjective view, or emerged from the numerous responses given by subjects. Schumacher and McMillan (1993) explain dependability, a more appropriate measure of reliability in qualitative design, as being met through a clear delineation of five aspects of the research design. In order to meet this reliability test, a researcher must enunciate his or her role in the data collection environment, as well as the social context within which the data were collected. The research must also explain the methods used for selection of participants, data collection, and data analysis. The current study chose to use a dual approach with quantitative and qualitative analyses. The rationale for selecting the procedures used takes place in a forthcoming section of Chapter Three.  57  CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN A N D METHODOLOGY  3.0 Introduction The purpose of this chapter will be to provide a description of the research design and the methods used in implementing it. Included in the initial research design section are the assumptions and rationale for the study, discussion of the site selection and participant selection, and description of each of the variables to be used in the analyses. An overview of the instruments used will follow, with discussion of steps undertaken to evaluate their validity and reliability. Next, the five Research Questions and six Hypotheses of the study will be explained, including the procedures used in evaluating them. The final section of the chapter details the qualitative analysis. Procedures for the interviews will be outlined, followed by discussion of the social context and researcher role in the interviews, and the steps used in providing validity to the analysis.  3.1 Assumptions and Rationale The basic assumptions of the study are that experience living and working with people from different cultures builds more positive attitudes toward cultural diversity, produces a greater desire to integrate into a host culture, and leads to increased use of a host language for normal communicative purposes. Bonds with valued others from culturally different backgrounds, which imply more positive attitudes and a greater desire to integrate, are expected to occur naturally, in both home and school settings. Over the sojourn period, positive experiences resulting from these bonds are hypothesized to further enhance preferences for living and working in culturally diverse settings.  58  Data collected in the study are intended to examine opportunities for students to form bonds with others from a variety of language and national backgrounds. This is the paramount reason for selecting the Vancouver Y M C A International College (YMCA) as the research site. Thus, a major assumption of the study is that changes in attitudes toward members of other cultures can be examined more efficiently in a contact-focused setting, as found in a culturally diverse education environment in a multicultural society. The language a sojourner uses and the people they associate with have considerable impact on acquisition of the L2, yet this has not been extensively covered in the previous research, nor put into a testable model. A further assumption is therefore that less positive views toward the host culture will be demonstrated in students continuing to make extensive use of their L I , despite the opportunities for L2 communication with others in the host setting. The inverse assumption also guides the design of the study, namely that students who choose to use the L2 in preference over their L I , are likely to be associated with more positive attitudes toward the host culture. Language use is considered very closely associated with preferences for intercultural contact. A further assumption is that individuals who are oriented toward greater L2 use in a multicultural context are likely to be very good second culture learners. The final assumption in the current study focuses on the connection between language and culture. Within the context of sojourner and acculturation research, cultural distinctions are often drawn with a relatively broad stroke, depicting two cultural groups: home and host (Ady, 1995; Berry, 1979, 1989; Berry et al., 1989; Brody, 1970; Church, 1982; Duthie, 1995; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960; Segawa, 1998; Ward, 1996, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Speaking the same L I does not  59  equate to sharing all elements of a person's cultural background. However, in measuring acculturation it is necessary to specify two cultural groups to evaluate progression from lesser to greater levels of acculturation of the C2. This progression is necessarily defined quite narrowly to only a few key components of the C2, that are used as indices of a larger pattern of acculturation. Assessment of acculturation requires some type of definition of the culture the person is adapting to, generally termed a host culture. In the current study, the focus is on use of LI and L2, in so much as they relate to general patterns of motivation for acculturation. An assumption is made that students making greater use of their L I , whether it be with fellow sojourners or members of the host community, are demonstrating a lesser motivation for acculturating into the host setting. Students making more frequent use of the L2, the operational language of the majority of people in this environment, are suggested to be making greater efforts toward acculturating into the host culture. Language use is therefore connected to the two cultural groups {home and host) used in most sojourner and acculturation studies. The use of the L I is seen as offering an opportunity for the newcomer to interact within a much more familiar cultural and linguistic context than that required for communication in the L2. It is not suggested that all students from the same linguistic background are necessarily from the same cultural background, merely that interactions within this language are likely to be more culturally proximate to their home environment than those within the L2.  60  3.2 A Model of Intercultural Contact Motivation Three diagrams will be used to illustrate the relationships in these assumptions about use of LI and L2, linguistic features of student friendship patterns, motivation students hold for interacting within the host setting, and greater or lesser development in attitudes toward cultural diversity. It has been suggested that participants in international language study programs bring with them attitudes toward relating with others in the host environment, defined in the current study as Contact Motivations. The concept of Contact Motivation has been further divided into the two components of Exploration Motivation (host culture) and Maintenance Motivation (home culture). Figure 3.1 presents the first step in the model, applying to the initial stage of a sojourn. v  —^ Favouring Iixploration  Support  Initial Contact Motivation  Favouring Maintenance Figure 3.1 Initial Contact Motivations and Early Contact Experiences  Students are expected to come into a sojourn with a predisposition favouring one of the two Contact Motivations, labelled above as (A) or (B). The majority of sojourners are likely to begin their experience with at least a modest desire for interacting with members of the L2 and C2 community (Exploration Motivation), (A). It seems unlikely  61  they would undertake such a journey without some desire for such interaction. Few sojourners are expected to favour an initial focus on maintaining aspects of their home culture in the host setting (Maintenance Motivation), (B). However, this is expected to change for a number of sojourners as they have contact experiences with others in the L2 and C2 environment. Early contacts experiences with members of the host community, (C), are expected to either support or challenge the Initial Contact Motivation adopted by the sojourner. Participants with an initial pattern favouring Exploration Motivation are expected to find support for this in positive early contact experiences (D). In contrast, negative contact experiences may lead these sojourners to begin a process of adaptation in favour of a stronger Maintenance Motivation pattern, (G). Participants with an initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation are expected to find negative early contact experiences come to support their initial motivation pattern, (E). Positive contact experiences may, on the other hand, challenge an initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation and lead to a process of adaptation of this pattern toward a higher degree of Exploration Motivation, (F). In general, the model assumes that, 1) experiences during the sojourn will shape the learner's attitudes toward cultural diversity and influence the quality and rate of learning an L2 and C2, and that, 2) learners will come to the sojourn with predispositions that support or undermine opportunities for interaction in the L2. Figure 3.2 extends the model into the ongoing contact period, within which early feelings of elation or relatively pleasant experiences in the host environment (sometimes seen as a "honeymoon period") begin to pass, in favour of a more regular pattern of  62 everyday life in the new environment. This is a critical period for adaptation or reinforcement of initial patterns.  Favouring Exploration  \  POSITIVE ^sN  Initial Contact Motivation  Early Contact  Adapt \  \  < y  Experience ^/s /  Favouring Maintenance  Reinforce  Support  ^7  Adapt  NEGATIVE  NEGATIVE  Support  Reinforce  Figure 3-2 Initial and Ongoing experience and Contact Motivation  When participants with either pattern of Initial Contact Motivation find their ongoing contact experiences continue to contradict their original expectations, a gradual adjustment to a pattern more reflective of the other motivation is expected to take place. This is described in the model as an Adaptation of Motivation, labelled above (K) or (L). A reinforcement of the initial Contact Motivation may also take place. The model suggests ongoing contact experiences that continue to support those from the initial period will reinforce a sojourner's Contact Motivation pattern, (I) or (J). A student with a motivation favouring Exploration, either through their disposition or because of positive contact experiences, is expected to gain reinforcement for this motivation through ongoing positive contact experiences, (I). An initial or adapted Maintenance Motivation pattern, resulting from ongoing negative contact experiences is similarly reinforced, (J). The final point in the model is an Enhanced Contact Motivation. These emerge through a  63 consistent reinforcement of an established pattern of Contact Motivation through interaction experiences. Once established, this pattern provides a framework for language use and friendship patterns that characterizes a sojourner's interaction in the host setting. On the following page, Figure 3.3 presents a complete version of the proposed model of intercultural contact. Continuing from Figure 3.2, the complete model shows adapted or reinforced Contact Motivation patterns, (M) or (N), leading to Enhanced Motivations, (O) or (P). An Initial Contact Motivation favouring Maintenance is followed through early and ongoing contact experiences, and either reinforced or adapted by reactions to these experiences, (M) or (N). Finally, within an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation, (P), students become more deeply entrenched in the use of an L I . They come to be more involved in interactions within the L I and to form more extensive patterns of LI friendship. The opportunities for intercultural contact are thus limited, reducing the learning of both the L2 and C2. Finally, the reduced level of intercultural contact is expected to produce less opportunity or incentive for development of positive attitudes toward cultural diversity. The model also describes the opposite pattern, whereby sojourners come to have an Enhanced Exploration Motivation, (O). The pattern expected for an Enhanced Exploration Motivation shows participants becoming more involved in intercultural contact situations, using the L2 more frequently, and forming increased bonds with culturally different others in the host setting.  65  These participants come to have less involvement with others who share their L I , and less extensive L I friendship patterns. Thus, there is an expansion of opportunities for intercultural contact and greater probability of acquisition of the L2 and C2. Finally, because of a greater level of intercultural contact, this pattern would lead to an increased opportunity and incentive for development of more positive attitudes toward cultural diversity. Three analytical methods will be used to evaluate features of the proposed model. First, links between each Contact Motivation, L1/L2 use, and friendship patterns will be evaluated through analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA). Contact Motivations will then be compared to attitudes toward cultural diversity using the same techniques. The second step will be to use a series of predictor variables, including Contact Motivations, in regression analyses, with attitudes toward cultural diversity as the dependent variable. Finally, qualitative interview data from a small group of participants in the quantitative analysis will be compared to their responses on the questionnaire, in an extension of the model through personal examples of intercultural contact. A more detailed discussion of the variables used and the procedures for these analyses follows consideration of site and participant selection.  3.3 Site Selection The Y M C A International College in Vancouver, Canada (YMCA) was selected as the site for this study because of its unique cultural diversity within a compact environment. In an already multicultural diverse urban setting, the Y M C A offers English Language programs to a similarly culturally varied group of international students.  Students generally enrol in a series of month-long courses at the Y M C A . These include English proficiency certification, business English, TOEFL exam (Test of English as a Foreign Language) preparation, and English for specific purpose classes. Students may select Intensive, Full-time, or Part-time language programs, varying from fifteen to thirty hours of class time per week. Beyond the subject matter of a particular program, students at the Y M C A have opportunities to live and study in a culturally diverse host environment in both residential and educational settings. The cultural diversity of the Y M C A is exemplified in the national and linguistic background groups of the students at the College, including at the time of the research program: Japanese, Korean, Chinese (predominantly from Taiwan or Hong Kong), and large contingents of Spanish speakers (from Colombia and Mexico) and Portuguese speakers from Brazil. The Y M C A is an educational setting that emphasizes a combination of language skills and intercultural learning within a multicultural society, and one that highlights the use of the L2 as a way of life in a manner that may not occur for most newcomers in a host society. The L2 is the medium of communication in this environment; thus, intercultural communication becomes a necessity within the educational setting.  3.4 Participant Selection 3.4.1 Pilot Test Participants Once the Y M C A had been selected as the site for the study, discussion with the co-coordinator of language programs led to a meeting with three instructors of intermediate level classes at the College, for the purpose of administering the pilot study of instruments planned for use in the study. In order to ensure participants would meet  the demands of the English placed upon them by the questionnaire and interview sessions, only instructors with students above a TOEFL score of 475 were contacted. Student language placement scores from the Y M C A grouped these students into "Level IV, " designating upper intermediate and advanced levels of English ability. This meant students were considered to have English levels sufficient to complete the questionnaire in the L2. A l l subjects involved in the final questionnaire administrations were at equivalent or higher levels. There were two pilot test administrations of the questionnaire in order to refine the instruments used in the study (See: the upcoming data screening section of this chapter for the procedures used in these refinements). Shortly after the completion of the second pilot administration, a letter was given to twelve instructors of classes with students at appropriate levels. The letter outlined the study and requested volunteer classes for completing the questionnaire and undergoing interviews. Ten instructors volunteered their classes to be among the group writing the questionnaire. It was explained to instructors that student participation would be voluntary and anonymous. The contact letter is in Appendix A.  3.4.2 Research Program Participants A sample of 140 students from among 250 studying at the Y M C A during the fall term of 1999 participated in writing the questionnaire. Thirty students in the volunteer classes declined participation in the study. Students were briefed on the contents of the questionnaire immediately prior to the administration sessions. A covering letter explaining the research program was attached to the questionnaire (See: Appendix A).  68 The letter assured students of their anonymity in completing the questionnaire, and made a request for volunteers willing to be interviewed to write their telephone numbers on their questionnaires. Students were instructed that completing the questionnaire and handing it to the researcher was considered an acceptance of consent to participate in the research program.  3.5 Demographic Overview of Participants Figure 3.4 provides a demographic overview of the participants in the study. It should be noted that this includes participants in both qualitative and quantitative research programs. The smaller group of students in the interview sample all wrote the questionnaire used in the quantitative analyses. (See: Appendix C for a complete list of variables introduced here). In Figure 3.4, the demographic variable on the left are divided into the values for responses on the questionnaire, to the right. Variable names used in the analyses are written in full capitals. The number below each value represents the number of respondents within each value of the variable. Below this is the percentage of the total number of respondents at each level of the variable. It should be noted that two of the Brazilian nationality students were emigres from Taiwan. They were therefore grouped under the Mandarin, rather than the Portuguese LI group.  Demographic >\ Variable '•' :  i - -i' ' Home Country [ (COUNTRY) !  Values for Variable Mexico  Japan  Tain an  Colombia  Suuih kon.ii  42 (31.3%)  26 (19.4%)  25 (18.7%)  16 (11.9%)  15 (11.2%)  (Continued on next page)  liiazil  Hong ki.nv.  1  3 (2.2%)  (5.2%)  69  (Continued) Spanish  Chinese  Japanese  Kuieun  Portuguese \  58 (43.3%)  30 (22.4%)  26 (19.4%)  15 (11.2%)  • 5 (3.7%)  tPK.UnJer 20  2tila2<  20 (14.9%)  52 (38.8%)  First Language (LI) AGE  •  WMSi  •-'••ovemism  42 (31.3%)  8 • (5.9%)  12 (9.0%)  GENDER  . "*•  Education Level Completed , (EDUCATION) ' Number of Classes CLASSES  IIKII Sellout  28 (20.8%)  . C nlleue  17 (12.7%)  Two Years of^ . Colic,  ,  18 (13.4%) Less than 2 Months  25 (18.7%)  Intercultural '• Experience • ' (EXPERIENCE)  ( i  10 (7.5%)  ' 35 (26.1%)  32 (23.9%)  t l l | V t M )  „,  17 (12.7%)  / K •:> ee  4 (3%)  7no la I-out Months  Four to Six Months  50 (37.3%)  29 (21.6%)  ••  Ih.l. /  r  ni  Mfe*> 20 (14.9%)  12 (9.0%) Six Months to One }'ivi  Mare tlum One lear  9 (6.7%)  21 (15.7%) 45 (33.6)  89 (66.4%)  .•1  .linnet Salliing jtSiSiiliiSH  11 (8.2%)  •iliroivSpjpillil  75 (56%) h,u,T*  One  Period of Residence -," (I-R) . \  Previous Knowledge of Canada (KNOWLEDGE)  57 (42.5%)  77 (57.5%)  35 (26.1%)  81 (60.4%)  hit  7 (5.2%)  Figure 3.4 Demographic overview of the Research Sample The research sample was weighted toward Spanish speakers, split between Mexican students (n = 42; 31.3%) and Colombian (n = 16; 11.9%). Students in the questionnaire sample ranged in age from 19 to 61 years of age (mean = 24.8; Sd. = 4.98). There were twenty more female subjects (n = 77; 57.5%) then male (n = 57; 42.5%). Distribution of participant levels of education (EDUCATION) showed more than 56.0% of students had completed at least two years of college. This agrees with information from instructors at the Y M C A , who said it was typical for their students to have  m  70  completed two-year college programs in their home countries just prior to coming to Canada. This pattern also reflects the time of year when the sample group was attending classes at the Y M C A . During the fall months, the population is typically made up of sojourners who were not currently attending post-secondary programs in their home countries, or those who had recently completed their programs of study. When GENDER and EDUCATION were compared, it was found that male and female groups were quite similar. Among males, 65.0% of participants had either completed some university, two years of college, or an undergraduate degree program. For females, this number was slightly higher, with 67.59% having attained these education levels. Of the 140 students in the final questionnaire sample, it was found that 66.4% had no previous experience in an intercultural setting (EXPERIENCE) before coming to Vancouver (n = 89). As outlined above, this was considered experience living in a different country for a period of a month. In the coding system, students were further separated into groups with having experience in a setting where an L2 was necessary for daily communication. While most of these were English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, others involved study of French, German, and Dutch. Before coming to Canada, the average student knew something about Canada, but not a great deal. On the questionnaire, students were asked to rank their previous knowledge of the host country (KNOWLEDGE) from (1) nothing, to (2) almost nothing, (3) some, and (4) a great deal. The means by LI groups ranged from "almost nothing," to some.  71  Table 3.1 KNOWLEDGE by First Language LI  Mean  N  Std. Deviation  Korean  2.53  17  .834.  Chinese  2.80  32  .664  Spanish  2.52  59  .628  Japanese  2.62  27  .852  Portuguese  3.01  5  1.225  Total  2.62  140  .734  Cross tabulation was performed to determine if any other background variables would show noteworthy information on KNOWLEDGE. It was found that male and female participants were comparable, with 64.8% of males (n = 39) and 63.6% of females (n = 49) having "some," or "a lot" of knowledge of the host environment before departure. LI background showed a contrast in KNOWLEDGE levels. Among Chinese-speaking students, 80% (n = 24) reported either having "some" or "a lot" of information about Canada before coming to the country. A lower percentage of Korean-speakers responded in the same manner, 73.3% (n = 11), while Japanese-speakers were lower again at 65.4% (n = 17) and Spanish-speakers the lowest among the sample, 55.1% (n = 32). Length of Residence (LR), measured in months, was clustered around the period from three to five months, and ranged from one month to 21-months (n = 140; mean = 1.5; Sd. = 3.60). Students were typically taking their third course at the Y M C A (n = 140; mean = 3.68; Sd. = 2.89). Questionnaire administration took place three-weeks into month long programs. This was considered to be one month in the L R calculation. Cross-tabulation was performed to provide further analysis of LR by L I , GENDER, and EDUCATION. No trends were evident. A complete variable table, including  72  frequencies, standard deviation, means, skewness, and kurtosis figures is presented in Appendix C.  3.6 Quantitative Research Design 3.6.1 Data Collection A cross-sectional data collection technique was adopted in this study. Following a group of sojourners through their program, in a longitudinal research design, allows for comparison of individual students with their own responses at different points in the stay, and with those from other sojourners. However, this procedure is also limited by a shrinking sample, which can tend to become increasingly weighted in favour of students that are more successful. Students may be removed from a sample because they miss a single questionnaire or interview session, drop out of a program altogether, or simply refuse to continue involvement at some point. Whatever reason a student is lost from a sample, it is more important to consider what stories have been lost to the data because they are no longer included. Data in the current study include sojourners with positive and negative impressions of the host setting and host culture. It is hoped the cross-sectional design provided a much wider perspective of student experiences than a longitudinal design could furnish. Students who were about to end their stay and return home were not removed from the sample of the current study. It is debateable whether such a wide range of experiences is achievable with a longitudinal study that follows a single group of sojourners over a number of months or years, especially when disgruntled students and those dropping out of the sojourn are likely to be lost to these samples.  73  3.6.2 Instruments The Intercultural Questionnaire was the only questionnaire used in the study. The questionnaire was the source of all data used in the analysis of variance and the regression analyses. It is made up of three sections. The first section includes all of the background items used. The second section contains items in the two Contact Motivation scales. The final section of the questionnaire has the 19 items of the attitudes toward diversity scale. A condensed version of the Intercultural Questionnaire is in Appendix B..  3.6.3 Variables Fifteen background information items were used as variables in the study: A G E , GENDER, COUNTRY, L I , L l - U S E , L I media use (Ll-M), LI-based friendships ( L l FR), L2-USE, use of L2 media sources (L2-M), L2-based friendships (L2-FR), EDUCATION, LR, KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, CLASSES, and motivation for studying at the Y M C A (STUDY). Dependent variables used in the study include: attitudes toward cultural diversity (ATCD), Maintenance Motivation (MAINTAIN), and Exploration Motivation (EXPLORE). It should be noted that the variables EXPLORE and MAINTAIN were also grouped for use as independent variables in some analyses of variance. Likewise, frequency of language use (Ll-USE / L2-USE) scores served as dependent and independent variables, with the use of ordinal and interval scales where appropriate. Figure 3.5 summarizes the variables in the study over the next three pages. This includes their types, categories, levels, and relevant literature sources for each variable. Complete tables for the independent and dependent variables in the study, including frequencies, standard deviations, means, skewness and kurtosis, and  74  homogeneity of variance are found in Appendix D. Discussion of the nature of the variables and techniques used to evaluate each is in the upcoming section on coding.  Source / Use  Categories and Values^  Variable  Type  COUNTRY  Nominal (N)  LI  N  - Fletcher & Stren, 1992; - Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Kellerman & Sharwood Portuguese Smith, 1986  GENDER  N  - Female, Male  - Oberg, 1960; Ramirez et al., 1984; Schumann, 1978; Segawa, 1998  AGE  Continuous / Grouped  - Under 20, 20 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 35, Over 35  - Cross, 1992; Ellis, 1994; Oberg, 1960  - Mexico, Japan, Colombia, Brazil, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea  (Level Completed) EDUCATION  Nominal  CLASSES  Nominal  (Continued on next page)  - High School, One Year of College, Two Years of College, Some University, University Degree  -Adler, 1975; Fletcher & Stren, 1992  -Berry etal., 1988,1989; Berry & Kim, 1988; Ellis, 1994  - One, Two, Three, Four, Five, More than Five  -Berry et al., 1986, 1988, 1989  75  (Continued)  EXPERIENCE  LR  Nominal  - None, Some, LI-based, L2-based  Nominal  - Less than Two months, Two to four months, Four to Six months, Six months to One year, More than One Year  /  Grouped  KNOWLEDGE  Nominal  (1) (2) (3) (4)  Nothing Almost Nothing Some A lot  -Berry etal., 1989; Church, 1982; Seelye, 1994 -; Berry etal., 1989, 1988; Berry & Kim, 1988; Ellis, 1994;Oberg, 1960  - Brislin & Landis, 1993; Cross, 1992  Categories STUDY  Nominal  -  Learn English Live in a new place Meet new people Have an interesting experience To get a better job when I go back home  -Baxter, 1983; Berry et al., 1989; Furnham, 1987; Segawa, 1998  Levels (1) Most Important to (5) Least Important st-. • Frequency ofTosKin Past Week* .•>..»  Ll-USE  Nominal  (Continued on next page)  (1) (2) (3) (4)  Never Sometimes Most of the Time A l l of the time  - Byram & Zagrate, 1994; Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Hazuda et al., 1988; Humber, 1985; Kim, 1988;Kramsch, 1998; Lam, 1995  76  (Continued) Categories Television Telephone Video Radio Newspaper |  "  Magazines Books Letter writing Music Internet  - Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Hazuda et al., 1988;Humber, 1985; Kim, 1988; Lam, 1995  Levels  |  Ranked 1 - 5 : Never to Frequently  Ll-FR  Nominal / Grouped  Categories Friends Close / Best Friends Boyfriend / Girlfriends Levels (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High Frequency of Use in Past Week (1) (2) (3) (4)  L2-USE  -  L2-M  Nominal  . . -  - Byram & Zagrate, 1994; Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Humber, 1985; Kim, 1988; Kramsch, 1998; Lam, 1995  Never Sometimes Most of the Time A l l of the time Categfjibs. - . • Television Telephone Video Radio Newspaper Magazine  -  ;  Books Letter Writing Music The Internet  Levels Ranked 1-5 (Never to Frequently) (Continued on next page)  -Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Hazuda et al., 1988; Humber, 1985; Segawa, 1998  - Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Hazuda et al., 1988; Humber, 1985; > ' >  K i m  1 9 8 8  L a m  1 9 9 5  77  (Continued) Categories.  L2-FR  Nominal Grouped  - Friends - Close / Best Friends - Boyfriend / Girlfriends Levels  -Cross, 1992; Church, 1982; Hazudaetal., 1988; Humber, 1985; Segawa, 1998  (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High  EXPLORE  MAINTAIN  ATCD  Scale Grouped  (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High  -Berry, 1979; Berry et al., 1986,1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988; Ward, 1999  Scale Grouped  (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) High  -Berry, 1979; Berry et al., 1986,1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988; Ward, 1999  (l)Low (2) Moderate ( ) High  - Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1984, 1994; Kehoe & Echols, 1983; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995  r Grouped A  3  Figure 3.5 Summary of Variables used in the study  3.6.4 Coding of Variables Procedures used in coding each of the above variables will be addressed individually. The variables of COUNTRY and L I were not linked in the coding. Responses were coded into separate groups: seven for COUNTRY and five for L I . The variables of EDUCATION and CLASSES were coded into groups based upon the respective educational level and number of classes completed (EDUCATION = 5 groups, CLASSES = 6 groups). Previous Intercultural Experience (EXPERIENCE) resulted from an item in the questionnaire asking whether students had spent a period of more than one  78  month away from home on an occasion, prior to the start of their current sojourn experience. Participants were considered to be in the EXPERIENCE group if they had. Those who had not, made up the "no previous experience" category. Students had been asked on the questionnaire if any experience they had was in an L I or L2 setting. Few students had EXPERIENCE in an L2 setting (n = 8 of 39 with EXPERIENCE). Therefore, there was no distinction made in whether EXPERIENCE was in an L I or L2 environment. Previous Knowledge of Canada (KNOWLEDGE) was coded from a 3point Likert scale item. The resulting values separated participants into three groups in the coding process (None, Some, A Lot). Answers to the item on Length of Resident (LR) from the questionnaire were initially raw data in numbers of months. Five groups were created in order to establish acceptable cell sizes for the analysis of variance. Statistical considerations in this procedure will be addressed in the upcoming discussion of screening procedures. Some of the variables that were initially separate within the questionnaire were combined for the purpose of the analyses of variance and regression. The variable STUDY was made up of five separate items, which were ranked and then used to demonstrate the most significant factors in participant reasons for coming to Vancouver. As dependent variables LI-USE and L2-USE were derived from the combination of an item asking students to rank the frequency of their language use in both languages, with a series of items relating to use of a variety of media sources in both the L I and L2 ( L l - M and L2-M). Language media use items required participants to provide an estimate of the frequency of their use for each media during an average week. The values entered ranged from Never (1) to Frequently (5). As independent variables, student responses to the  79  rating of how frequently they spoke each language were used. These techniques allowed for variables that were appropriate for analysis of variance. An upcoming section on A N O V A / M A N O V A assumptions in the chapter provides a more complete discussion of these issues. L l - F R and L2-FR variables were derived from similar procedures to the language use variables. Initially, three ratings of friendship numbers (none = 0, one = 1, and multiple = 2), in three categories (friends, close or best friends, and boyfriend or girlfriends), were collected by the questionnaire. In order to determine the linguistic nature of the friendships reported, a dummy variable was used for LI and L2 basis for each of the above friendship categories (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Tallies in each of these categories were then summed through a nominal coding system (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). A participant's L l - F R and L2-FR patterns (ranked as Low, Moderate, and High) were arrived at through the addition of the three friendship categories. Participants scoring from between "0" and "2" on the summed score were considered to have Low friendship patterns in the language under consideration. Those with scores from "3" and "4," thereby having at least multiplefriendshipsin one category or friendships in each of the three categories, were considered to have Moderate friendship patterns in a particular language. Those with scores above "4" were considered to have High friendship patterns in the respective language. These values were given to participants for L l - F R and L2-FR for the analyses of variance and regression. The two variables used to evaluate participant Contact Motivation were based on Berry's Level of cultural integration studies among North American immigrant groups (Berry, et al., 1979, 1986,1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1989; Berry & Kim, 1988). As outlined  80  in the previous chapter, attitudes held by students toward maintaining links with their home culture are termed Maintenance Motivation in the current study; those held toward forming bonds with members of the host culture, Exploration Motivation. The system used for analysing these variables follows that laid out by Ward (1999). Within this approach, attitudes to acculturation are looked at within the two spheres of home and host cultural association, but there is no effort made to integrate these into a single acculturation attitude. The variables EXPLORE and MAINTAIN were dealt with in two ways in the coding system. First, as a dependent variable, EXPLORE emerged from a sum of students scores on the ten Likert-type items from the Exploration Motivation Scale in the Intercultural Questionnaire. Participant scores on these items ranged from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (4). The scores for the variable EXPLORE were therefore between "10" and "40" for each participant. Then, in order to allow for EXPLORE to be used as an independent variable, a participant's score was compared with the total of possible scores, following a technique used by (Ward, 1999), to produce Low (10-20), Moderate (20-30), and High (30-40) EXPLORE level groups. The same procedures were followed for the dependent and independent variables of MAINTAIN respectively. Different scores were used to place students in each level for the independent variable MAINTAIN as a result of having twelve items in the scale, compared to ten in the Exploration scale. The following groups were created: Low (1224), Moderate (24-36), and High (36-48). ATCD was assessed through a sub-scale adapted from the Willingness to Accept Cultural Diversity Scale (Culhane, 1995; Culhane & Kehoe, 2000; Kehoe, 1984, 1994;  Kehoe & Echols, 1983; Kehoe & Segawa, 1995). Participant scores on each of the items included in the ATCD scale were summed. There were 19-items, and seven choices on the Likert scale. Therefore, the range of possible scores was between 19 and 133, if all items were answered. The resulting number was used for a student's A T C D score in analysis as a dependent variable. Students were then placed into Low (19-38), Moderate (39-76), and High (77-114) ATCD groups for use as an independent variable for ATCD levels.  3.7 Establishing Validity and Reliability of Quantitative Data 3.7.1 Validity: Source of Variables The initial step in addressing content validity for each of the backgrounds items in the study was to use scales from previous intercultural studies (refer to Figure 3.5 for the source of each variable). The three scales in the Intercultural Questionnaire were instruments used in previous research efforts. To further assess the content validity of the three scales used in the study an expert group was established among six post-secondary teachers of ESL in an international setting. A content validity index (CVI) was created as a rating system for each of the items included in the three scales (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Content relevance for the twelve questions in the Exploration Motivation scale, the ten items in the Maintenance Motivation scale, and the 19 items of the ATCD scale were rated by each of the six experts. The expert group was given the pilot test administration of the questionnaire, including all of the items from the final questionnaire, plus items that were removed during pilot testing, due to low Cronbach Alpha estimates. This was done in order to repeat the procedures used in assessing  82 reliability through other computational methods. The volunteer group was asked to rate items for their relevance to the described study area on the following scale: (1) irrelevant item, (2) somewhat irrelevant item, (3) somewhat relevant item, and (4) relevant item (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). Scale items that did not receive a score of "somewhat relevant" or above from five of the six experts (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993), were removed from the scales. The expert rating group estimates are in Appendix D. Construct validity was assessed for each of the three scales through inter-scale correlation. Orthogonality of the three scales was first considered. Following Berry et al. (1988, 1989) and Ward (1999), it was predicted that the Maintenance Motivation scale items should prove discreet from those on the Exploration Motivation scale. The correlation found between the Maintenance and Exploration scales (r = -.1693) suggested these scales were sufficiently orthogonal (See: Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996 for a complete discussion of these procedures), and supports discriminant validity of the scales. The Maintenance Motivation scale items were then correlated to the A T C D scale. A low negative correlation of (r = -.2154) further supported the orthogonality of the scales (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), as well as discriminant validity of these instruments.  3.7.2 Reliability: Pilot Testing of Instruments Pilot test administrations of the Intercultural Questionnaire were carried out among students at the Y M C A International College in July of 1999. Students involved in the pilot study were in the lowest group, according to Y M C A placement test results, of those who would eventually make up the sample administration. During the pilot administration, students and their instructors were asked to point out particular words or  83  ideas that were confusing or unclear. They were also asked to let the researcher know of any difficulties they encountered in filling out the questionnaire. Students and instructors made a number of comments on particular items, and offered suggestions for improving the questionnaire. Because of these, four items were simplified and three items removed from the questionnaire. A reworked version of the questionnaire was used in the second pilot administration. This version was used in establishing preliminary internal reliability of the two acculturation attitude scales, and the Attitudes Toward Cultural Diversity scale (ATCD) (See: Appendix D). Cronbach Alpha reliability estimates led to the establishment of the final items for each scale on the Intercultural Questionnaire (See: Appendix D). Items not correlating strongly to others within their sub-scale were removed from the final version of the questionnaire (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Two sections originally placed in the pilot questionnaire were also removed to reduce the time needed for completion. As well, a number of items were removed, reworked, or simplified because of comments written on the questionnaire and made to the researcher by students and teachers. Internal reliability estimates were produced both in the pilot testing stage prior to analysis with the final data set. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach Alpha estimates both from the data sets and those from the rating group. The combination of techniques was considered to offer a more complete assessment than any one technique would furnish (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The following Cronbach Alpha estimates were produced for the three scales in the final questionnaire data: Exploration Motivation scale (.7583), Maintenance Motivation scale (.7268), and ATCD scale (.8723). These  84 estimates suggested a moderately high level of internal consistency between items within each scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). A table of complete internal consistency estimates including the CVI results is in Appendix D.  3.8 Quantitative Research Program 3.8.1 Research Hypotheses The Research Hypotheses of the study will be introduced, and related to the Research Questions created to test them as well as the strategy employed in the research design for their evaluation. Following the presentation of these Hypotheses, approaches to statistical analysis of the data will be examined.  Question One: •  What is the relationship between LI-USE, L2-USE, and friendship patterns? Hypothesis la.  Students with greater frequency of LI-USE will show significantly higher L l - F R patterns than those with lower frequency of LI-USE.  lb.  Students with greater frequency of L2-USE will show significantly higher L2-FR than those with lower frequency of L2-USE.  Question Two: •  What is the relationship between EXPERIENCE, language use, and friendship patterns in the host culture? Hypothesis 2  Students with EXPERIENCE will have significantly more frequent L2-USE and significantly higher L2-FR than those with no EXPERIENCE.  85  Question Three: •  What is the relationship between Contact Motivation, language use, and friendship patterns? Hypothesis 3a. 3b.  Hypothesis 4a. 4b.  Students with higher MAINTAIN will have significantly higher L l - U S E than those with lower MAINTAIN. Students with higher MAINTAIN will have significantly higher L l - F R patterns than those with lower MAINTAIN. Students with higher EXPLORE will have significantly higher 12USE than those with lower EXPLORE. Students with higher EXPLORE will have significantly higher 12FR patterns than those with lower EXPLORE.  Question Four: •  What are the relationships between Contact Motivation and attitudes toward cultural diversity? Hypothesis 5a.  5b.  Students with higher MAINTAIN levels will have significantly lower ATCD than those with lower MAINTAIN levels. Students with higher EXPLORE levels will have significantly higher ATCD than those with lower EXPLORE levels.  Question Five: •  What is the relationship between LR and attitudes toward cultural diversity? Hypothesis 6  Students with a longer LR will demonstrate significantly higher ATCD scores than those with shorter LR.  86  3.8.2  Summary and Conditions for Testing Hypotheses Table 3.3 summarizes the conditions for testing the hypotheses in the study,  including the variables, statistical tests, and levels of each variable.  Table 3.2 Summary and Conditions for Testing Hypotheses Research Question  Hypothesis H-la  Ql H-lb  Q2  H-2  Statistical Test  MANOVA (1x3x3x3)  Two-way ANOVA (1x2x2)  H-3a H-3b Q3  H-4a  MANOVA (1x3x3x3)  H-4b H-5a Q4 H-5b  Q5  H-6  Two-way ANOVA (1x3x3) One-way ANOVA (1x3)  Independent Variable  Dependent Variable  Ll-FR (3 - Levels)  LI-USE (Frequency)  L2-FR (3 - Levels)  L2-USE (Frequency)  PIE (2 - Levels) Ll-FR (3 - Levels) L2-FR (3 - Levels) EXPLORE (3 - Levels) MAINTAIN (3 - Levels) MAINTAIN (3 - Levels) EXPLORE (3 - Levels) LR(1-Level)  L2-USE (Frequency) L2-FR (Score) MAINTAIN (Score) EXPLORE (Score) Ll-USE (Frequency) L2-USE (Frequency) ATCD (Raw Score)  ATCD (Raw Score)  87  3.8.3 Questionnaire Administration Following pilot testing and revision, the Intercultural Questionnaire was given in English to volunteers from classes at the Upper Intermediate and Advanced levels at the Y M C A during September, October, and November 1999 terms. Students completed the questionnaire during 45-minutes of class time during one of the three administrations. Instructors assisted in administering the questionnaire. Students who did not wish to take part were given alternative class activities to complete during the questionnaire administration by their instructors. Students from previous administrations, or those involved in the pilot-testing project, were instructed not to complete the questionnaire. The researcher had limited contact with students at the Y M C A before the administration of the questionnaire. A brief introduction was given to assist students with completing the questionnaire before each administration session. This was limited to procedural aspects of filling out the questionnaire. After the completion of each administration session, the researcher remained to answer questions students may have had about the purpose of the research and how the research findings would be used.  3.9 Treatment of the Quantitative Data 3.9.1 Data Entry An undergraduate student entered the data from the questionnaires. A case by variable matrix was created in SPSS for each of the variables in the study. Dummy and recoded item variables were created where necessary. When this was done, the original variables were kept intact for possible future recoding or combination. The data entry was checked by randomly cross-referencing responses on the questionnaire to the  88 developing data matrix. As well, data entry was checked through close analysis of the data matrix printout, and further random comparison with original questionnaires. Data entry was found to be within acceptable limits for accuracy (See: Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996 for a discussion of these limits).  3.9.2 Data Screening Three considerations were looked at in screening the data: the general acceptability of the data for analysis, whether the necessary assumptions were met to carry about A N O V A and M A N O V A analyses, and finally if the assumptions for Multiple Regression has similarly been met. The initial screening of data performed was an evaluation of the questionnaires collected. Because of this screening, four participants were removed from the study. One questionnaire was only partially completed and was not considered sufficient to provide analysis. A second questionnaire was removed because the participant had been in an earlier administration. In this case, the earlier questionnaire was kept in the study. A further participant was removed due to an inappropriate residency period of three years. It was felt this made the data incomparable to the shorter stay experienced by other participants in the study. The fourth participant removed from the study was the only European background person to complete a questionnaire. Following Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), it was decided this student served as an outlier. It was decided to concentrate on the two predominant regional background groups: East Asia and MexicoLatin America. This further led to a reduction of concern of similar LI backgrounds between European Spanish and Portuguese speakers and those from South and Central  89  America, the predominant groups in the current study sample. The screening procedures also led to the removal of a questionnaire item, which asked participants if they felt they were minority group members in their home culture. Only two of 138 respondents replied in the positive. Data entry was through an SPSS editor. Initially, errors in inputting data were addressed through close examination of the responses of each participant through a list wise deletion. Missing values were not included in the analyses. Screening procedures were then carried out for each of the independent variables, as well as for the dependent variables of MAINTAIN, EXPLORE and ATCD. Employing SPSS Frequencies, these included procedures to determine normalcy of distribution, skewness and kurtosis, homogeneity of variance and homoscedasticity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). These findings are presented in Appendix C. Each of the independent variables were plotted to determine normalcy of distribution. SPSS Frequency Plots were used to locate outliers and possible errors in scoring or coding of data. Normalcy plots led to the transformation of LR and CLASSES into grouped variables. Three respondents were found to have inordinately lengthy LR and were considered candidates for removal as possible outliers. However, it was decided that their LR, between 15 and 20-months, could be adequately dealt with through a grouping of LR values into a category including all students with periods beyond 8months. Comparisons between results from analyses with the original variable and grouped variable found negligible impact on the findings, and so grouped variables were kept in the final analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).  90  The dependent variables produced by the two Contact Motivation and the ATCD scales were initially examined for normalcy of distribution on an item-by-item basis within the respective scales. Four items within the ATCD scale were considered as possible outliers, showing a minor negative skew. However, once the summed scales were examined, a normal distribution was found. It was decided scores would not require any transformation and that the negative skew on the individual items did not necessitate transformation (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). The screening procedures were considered to show the data set was acceptable for analysis of variance and regression analysis to be performed. The next step was to make certain the necessary assumptions for these analyses had also been met.  3.9.3  Assumptions of ANOVA & MANOVA There are five assumptions to be met in A N O V A or M A N O V A calculations: the  observations must be independent; categorical variables must be used for independent variables; dependent variables should be continuous or interval; and finally, the variables used must be normally distributed and homoscedastic. The first assumption was met as a result of the use of a cross-sectional data collection. Each student completed the questionnaire only once, making all observations independent. To meet the second assumption, all of the background items used as independent variables in the study were categorical. Dependent variables used, LI-USE, L2-USE, MAINTAIN, EXPLORE, and ATCD were continuous variables. Tests of homogeneity of variance were carried used to determine if this assumption was met. Following Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), bivariate plots were used  91  to ascertain homoscedasticity. The assumption that variability would be about the same at all levels of the grouped discrete variables was evaluated with bivariate plots for each dependent variable. Levene tests were also performed within each A N O V A and M A N O V A operation to assure the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met within each analysis. M A N O V A assumes that each dependent variable will have similar variances for all groups. Levene's test measures this assumption. The null hypothesis that groups have equal variance was rejected when the Levene statistic was not  .  significant to the p. <0.05 level. The Levene statistics for each variable within the analyses are presented in Appendix C.  3.9.4 Assumptions of Multiple Regression The initial assumption of multiple regression is the assumption of linearity. Bivariate plots using SPSS were used to assess whether a serious threat to this assumption was present. The relationships were found to be linear (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Histograms of the residuals were also produced for the variables included in the regression to ascertain if they were normally, independently distributed and that homoscedasticity was satisfied among them (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Serial correlations were not found among the residuals (Durban-Watson = 1.67). The number of subjects is expected to be greater than that of the predictor variables by a substantial ratio. In the case of the current study, the number of the subjects (133) was larger than the predictors (4) by more than 33:1, providing an acceptable cases-to-independent Variables ratio (See: Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996 for further discussion of these limits). The values of tolerances for the predictor variables in the regression analysis were:  92  EXPLORE (.95), MAINTAIN (.95), KNOWLEDGE (.96), EXPERIENCE (.98). Multicollinearity was a concern with the data set, due to the nature of the variables under consideration. Student language use in the LI and L2 were correlated, as were friendship patterns in the L I and L2, and results from the two Contact Motivation scales. Initially, the grouping of language use and friendship pattern variables was considered (following Tabachnick & Fidell; 1996). However, this did not satisfy the assumption of independence of these variables. It was decided to follow the pattern laid out in the proposed model more closely, whereby language use and friendship patterns were related to an Enhanced Maintenance or Exploration Motivation. Therefore, EXPLORE and MAINTAIN scores were used as the first two predictor variables. The second two variables were KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE. These appeared to offer the best fit of being independent of the other two predictors. Inspection of scatter plots and the resulting histograms suggested the residuals were normally distributed, homoscedastic, and that the residuals were not correlated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The Durban-Watson statistic of (1.67) produced suggests there were no serial correlations among the residuals (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The issues of multicollinearity in the initial data screening are discussed above. The dependent variable used in the regression (ATCD) was continuous, normally and independently distributed. Thus the assumptions for a linear regression analysis were considered met (Tabachnick & Fidell; 1996). The distribution statistics for the predictor and dependent variables are in Appendix D. Following the data screening procedures, it was considered that the data matrix was acceptable and the analyses could be conducted.  93  3.9.5 Quantitative Analyses One-way, Two-way, and Multivariate A N O V A was used in the analysis of variance. An Alpha level of 95% was used in determining significance for the analyses. However, a few of the analyses produced greater probability estimates (p<0.001). Posthoc analysis techniques utilized the Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses of variance at the p.<0.05 level of significance. The Tukey test is a frequently utilized post-hoc measure that is considered slightly on the liberal side in determining significant findings (Schumacher, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The rationale for selecting the Tukey HSD was that it was considered a balanced approach. This was an approach that was considered to limit the possibility of a Type I error to a reasonable amount, without raising the likelihood of missing a significant finding, or making a Type II error, as a result of using an overly conservative post-hoc test (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993;Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Pearson Correlation estimates were used in selection of four predictor variables for the regression analysis: EXPLORE and MAINTAIN scores, previous knowledge of Canada (KNOWLEDGE), and intercultural experience (EXPERIENCE). Initially, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with the four predictor variables entered simultaneously. To further investigate how significant the change in R would be when 2  the predictor variables were entered into the equation individually, sequential multiple regression analyses were carried out. Variables were entered into the equation according to their perceived contribution to the variance in A T C D scores, based upon the assumptions of the study: that enhanced Contact Motivation patterns would be characteristic of stronger or weaker levels of positive attitudes toward cultural diversity.  94  3.10 Qualitative Research Program Following Schumacher and McMillan (1993), four aspects of the qualitative research design will be outlined. The first three of these are procedural in nature, including the methods used for selecting interview participants, data collection, and analysing student interview transcripts. Attention will then turn to the researcher role in the social context of the interview process.  3.10.1 Interview Participants The essential purpose of the qualitative analysis is to extend and contrast variables considered in the quantitative analyses. Volunteers for the interview sessions were therefore sought from among the questionnaire group. Students willing to take part in the qualitative program were thus a self-selected group. Although no attempt was made to recruit students from any particular ethnic, gender, age, or length of resident groups for the interview sample, students volunteering to be part of the program may have been substantively different in some way from others studying at the Y M C A at the time. The questionnaire cover letter had asked students willing to participate in the interviews to write theirfirstname and phone number on the top of the questionnaire. Eight of the 140 students did so; six of whom agreed to take part when contacted on the telephone. Demographically, this group was reflective of the questionnaire sample. However, it is not known if they were special in any other sense. Comparison of their interview data with that from their questionnaire responses shows a varied set of Contact Motivation patterns. Yet, the very act of their volunteering for the interview sessions implies an interest in the research program apparently not shown by most fellow students.  95  Following Schumacher & McMillan (1993), self-selection in qualitative designs is best approached through consideration of any special features the sample group may have that distinguish them from other populations, in this case the larger questionnaire sample. Table 3.2 provides an overview of the demographic background of students in the interview sample. From this data, it does not appear that they were different from other students writing the questionnaire. A more comprehensive description of each participant, including details of their study abroad experiences and language study background, is made before discussion of the interview transcripts in Chapter Five.  Table 3.3 Demographic Backgrounds ofInterview Participants Name  Age  Gender  Home Country  Previous Intercultural Experience  First Language  Living Situation  Period of Residency (LR) 6 Months  - 4-months in France - Trips to the United States  Ana  25  Female  Mexico  Spanish  Homestay - then Shared Apartment  Mariana  19  Female  Mexico  Spanish  Shared Apartment  4 Months  - Brief stay in Paris  Betty  19  Female  Hong Kong  Chinese Cantonese  Shared Apartment  11 Months  - Previous visits to Vancouver  8 Months  - None  Olga  34  Female  Colombia  Spanish  Homestay - then Shared Apartment  Jack  21  Male.  Colombia  Spanish  Shared Apartment  3 Months  - Brief stays in United States  Tadashi  21  Male  Japan  Japanese  Homestay  7 Months  - One month visit to Canada  96  3.10.2 Data Collection: Interview Procedures  As the interviews were conducted after all of the quantitative data collection sessions were complete, the researcher related to interview participants as an educator who had also experienced living and studying abroad. Interest was expressed in learning about the social and cultural aspects of their current stay. It was believed that this approach would result in the opening of a channel for a frank and honest discussion of positive and negative student impressions. During initial telephone contact, students were made aware that their interviews would be linked to their questionnaire responses. Participants were assured that any linking would use the pseudonyms they provided. A time for each interview was arranged during the initial telephone contact. A private conference room at the Y M C A was used for the interviews after classes had finished, on a single day in November 1999. Participants were not aware of other students involved in the interviews, as sufficient time between interviews was given to let each participant leave the facility before the next participant arrived. A second cover letter was given to interview participants. Students gave their consent by signing the bottom of the letter, after being briefed on procedures for the interview. The consent forms also explained the anonymous nature of the information given and provided an overview of the purpose of the research (See: Appendix A). Any questions students had were answered, and participants were then asked to select a pseudonym for the purposes of the interview. Once this had been chosen, they were asked to sign the consent form and were given a copy (See: Appendix A). The pseudonyms were later written onto each student's questionnaire to allow for the  97  comparison of the transcript with questionnaire responses. The phone numbers used for initial contact were then blacked out. An interview protocol form was used as a general format for the interview sessions (See: Appendix B). However, the researcher followed a semi-structured interview process. An allowance was made for a more natural conversational style during the interviews. The Interview Protocol served as a script, but each interview featured individual follow-up questions stimulated by participant responses. All of the interviews were conducted in English and lasted about 40-minutes. This time included a series of background questions and the interview itself. When each interview was completed, the researcher thanked the participant for taking part, and walked them to the exit of the facility. Shortly after, the next student was met in the Y M C A Staff/Student lounge area.  3.10.3 Data Analysis: Interview Transcripts The interviews were recorded on audiocassettes. Notes were also taken by the researcher during each interview to backup and augment the recordings. This information was helpful in presenting an overview of how each interview had gone, included in discussion of student transcripts in Chapter Five. A volunteer undergraduate student transcribed the interview sessions from the audio recordings. Excerpts from the interview transcripts were sampled based on their applicability to the results of variance, and for their ability to present further details on the nature of the contact experiences of participants, particularly in reference to language use and friendship patterns. Areas of significant difference in the quantitative analysis were traced through corresponding  98  questions when applicable to the interviews in an effort to evaluate the proposed model of intercultural contact. The transcripts are verbatim copies of the interview sessions. However, some utterances were clarified through minor grammatical changes.  3.10.4 Researcher Role: Social Context of the Qualitative Data A researcher takes on a different role in qualitative data collection from quantitative methodologies. A researcher's personal, cultural, and social attributes have a relationship to the qualitative findings that cannot be completely understood or evaluated (Le Compte & Preissle, 1993; Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). A qualitative researcher needs to clarify personal background and biases as they may have a bearing on the research findings (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). The first step in this task is to consider what role the researcher adopted during data collection. Following, Hammersley & Atkinson (1983, 1995), the researcher adopted the role of an observer during qualitative data collection in this study. Within this role, the researcher purposely maintains distance from the participants in order to establish a minimal amount of familiarity (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1993). While it is impossible for a researcher to have no impact on qualitative findings, the intent was to limit this impact where possible. Before interview sessions, only a minimal amount of contact was made between researcher and participants. Details of the purpose of the interviews, the questions to be asked, and the relationship between quantitative and qualitative data were kept deliberately brief. Students were informed in covering letters used during questionnaire and interview administrations that responses between each would be linked. However, the researcher's assumptions about the sojourn experience, the intercultural contact model being assessed, and the methodological  99  purpose for the interviews were not discussed with participants. Even without discussion with the participants, these assumptions are still certain to influence student responses during interviews to some extent. The reader of a study is the best evaluator of a qualitative researcher's subjectivity (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). The reader should have sufficient details of the researcher's possible biases in data collection, as well as an overview of how the cultural and personal background of the researcher may relate to student responses during interview sessions. It should first be stated that the researcher was a member of the L2 and C2 groups in the host community. Although older than the participants, the researcher shared an important aspect of their background, as a veteran of a number of previous SLA sojourns. Thus, the researcher had certain assumptions about the nature of an SLA sojourn experience that need to be addressed in this discussion. These should be approached from two perspectives in recognizing that, although they are a limitation to the subjectivity of the findings, they are also an integral feature informing the study's design. The researcher has spent varying periods as an SLA sojourner in a number of previous L2 settings and has worked for more than a decade as a second language educator. Insights gained from these experiences have left a lasting impression that underpins the current study. During periods abroad, the researcher perceived the language use and friendship patterns that are now underlying concepts put forth in the model of intercultural contact suggested in this study, and its construct of Contact Motivation. The researcher saw attitudes among fellow sojourners and language students alike toward interacting with speakers of the L2 they were acquiring, and felt these  100  reflected those held toward relating to culturally different others beyond this context. This is the impetus for applying multicultural and anti-discrimination research methodologies to an SLA sojourn setting in the current study. During the time spent in host environments, it appeared to the researcher that fellow sojourners were adapting to the challenges of acculturation in one of two fundamental manners. A large group, perhaps even the majority, were turning away from the host community, and adopting what seemed to be a vacationer mindset. This was reflected in a focus on re-establishing LI and CI features in the host setting. Sojourners in this group maintained a series of LI-based friendships, sought out aspects of their CI such as food, media, and social activities, and in many ways behaved as if they were no longer in a host environment. A second group of sojourners did not seem to need these CI and LI connections on a regular basis. They appeared to be socially, linguistically, and psychologically more capable and motivated to adapting to the new context. These sojourners showed a desire to operate within the cultures of the new place, to adopt the L2 for most interactions, and to extend their everyday experiences to a pattern reflecting those of their hosts. Sojourn experiences of the researcher have been augmented by more than a decade teaching in SLA situations including students of English, French, and Japanese. Patterns depicted in the model of intercultural contact presented in this study also appeared to be exemplified in student reactions to acculturation and L2 acquisition in these SLA settings. As an educational research effort, the current study looks for empirical evidence of the two sojourner groups defined by the researcher as working realities in a particular SLA sojourn context. In searching for patterns during qualitative data collection, the role  101  of a researcher is to use their previous experience to form hunches and assist in organizing the information received (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993). As an observer who has shared the experience of being an international SLA sojourner, the researcher sought patterns in the data from the qualitative analysis of the current study using categories informed by these personal experiences. Categories used in the qualitative analysis have thus been formed within the researcher's previous experience, the model of intercultural contact presented, and the techniques used to quantitatively evaluate it in the study. The key question is whether student intercultural contact experiences reflect one of the two fundamental patterns of interaction and association in the host setting outlined. The qualitative research program of the current study is not intended as a distinct analysis with its own set of interests and concerns. Rather, it is the third component in a triangulated evaluation of the proposed model of intercultural contact. The interviews were conducted within this narrow frame of reference, with the intent of contrasting preexisting variables within the quantitative design with direct questions given to interview participants.  102  CHAPTER FOUR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A  4.0 Overview Analysis of the data will be conducted in two phases. Initially, results from A N O V A and M A N O V A (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) will be used to evaluate the five Research Questions and six Hypotheses of the study. Discussion will focus on how these findings support, or fail to support, each research Hypothesis. The second phase entails regression analyses to evaluate how Enhanced Contact Motivations, experience in a sojourn environment, and previous knowledge of the host setting relate to attitudes toward cultural diversity. This analysis extends the examination of attitudes toward cultural diversity beyond hypothesis testing in further evaluating the proposed model by assessing the impact of both measured and unmeasured variables.  4.1 Analysis of Variance - Research Hypotheses One-way, Two-way, and Multivariate A N O V A were used in examining the Hypotheses in the study. Within each Research Question, results are presented in an F distribution table that includes significant and non-significant findings. These are followed by post-hoc analysis. Only results significant at the p.<0.05 level will be displayed. Plots will then be used to graphically illustrate relationships suggested by the findings.  103  4.2 Research Question #1 •  What is the relationship between LI and L2 use and friendship patterns? Hypothesis la.  lb.  Students with greater frequency of LI-USE will show significantly higher L l - F R patterns than those with lower frequency of Ll-USE. Students with greater frequency of L2-USE will show significantly higher L2-FR than those with lower frequency of L2-USE.  Support for both Hypothesis la and lb were found in the M A N O V A results. The  .  frequency of L l - U S E was significantly different between levels of L l - F R (F =. 14.66 (2,134),/><0.001), providing support for Hypothesis la (Table 4.1). The findings showed that student friendship patterns in L2 were also significantly different between frequencies of speaking LI (F= 6.39 (2,134),p<0.002).  Table 4.1 MANOVA Ll-FR, L2-FR by Ll-USE, L2-USE Source  Dependent Variable  TypeUI Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  F  Sig.  L l - F R Levels  Ll-USE  7.72  2  3.86  14.66  .001  L2-USE  4.35  2  2.17  6.39  .002  Ll-USE  3.52  2  1.76  6.67  .002  L2-USE  2.13  2  1.57  5.66  .028  Ll-USE  1.91  4  .476  1.81  .131  L2-USE  1.87  4  .468  1.38  .246  Ll-USE  777.00  134  L2-USE  1018.00  134  L2-FR Levels  Intercept LI and L2 FR  Total  104  Significant difference in L2-USE was also found between levels of L2-FR, supporting Hypothesis lb (F= 5.66 (2,134),/?<0.028). As with Ll-FR, significant difference was further found in L2-FR pattern between levels of L l - U S E (F = 6.67 (2,134),/?<0.002). Table 4.2 presents the results of the post-hoc analysis (Tukey). The mean scores in the table correspond to frequency levels of language use: (1) Never, (2) Sometimes, (3) Most of the Time, and (4) All of the time. Initially, L l - U S E and L2-USE are presented where significant difference was found in comparison between the three levels of Ll-FR.  Table 4.2 Friendship Levels by Language Use - Tukey Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable (X = mean)  (I) Ll-FR  (J) Ll-FR  Ll-USE  Low (X= 1.97)  L2- USE  Low (X = 2.97)  Mean Difference (I-J)  Std. Error  Sig.  Moderate (X = 2.39)  +.42  .1040  .001  High (X = 2.69)  +.72  .1313  .002  Moderate (X = 2.59)  -.38  .1182  .004  High (X = 2.53)  -.44  .1313  .010  Dependent Variable  (I) L2-FR  (J) L2-FR  L2- USE  Low (X = 2.55)  High (X = 2.86)  +.31  .1223  .035  Ll-USE  Low (X = 2.47)  Moderate (X = 2.21)  -.26  .1086  .049  105  The post-hoc results show L l - U S E increasing to a significant degree at higher L l FR levels. Students with Low L l - F R (X = 1.97) used their LI significantly less frequently than students who had Moderate L l - F R (X = 2.39, +42,p.<0.001), and High Ll-FR (X = 2.69, +.43,/?.<0.002). The post-hoc analysis also shows significant difference in frequency of L2-USE among increasing levels of Ll-FR.  Students with  Low L l - F R (X = 2.97) reported speaking English significantly more often than students with Moderate (X = 2.59, -38,/>.<0.004) and High L l - F R levels (X = 2.53, -.43, /7.<0.010). This suggests a significant relationship between L l - F R and both LI and L2USE. The bottom half of Table 4.2 shows the post-hoc results of LI and L2-USE among levels of L2-FR. Significant differences in LI and L2-USE are found in comparison of Low to Moderate L2-FR groups. Support for Hypothesis lb is seen, as students with Low L2-FR (X = 2.55) report significantly less frequently L2-USE than those with High L2-FR (X = 2.86, +.30, p.<0.035). As with Ll-FR, L2-FR also appears j  to affect use of LI, as students with Low L2-FR (X = 2.46) report significantly more frequent use of their LI than those with Moderate levels of L2-FR (Mean = 2.21, -.26,  p.<M9). Two figures illustrate the relationship between language use and friendship patterns in the M A N O V A findings. Figure 4.1 plots the relationship between LI use, L l FR, and L2-FR. Students with the highest frequency of L l - U S E are at the top right. This group has Low L2-FR (as designated by the hatched line), and High L l - F R levels (along the X-axis).  106  L2-FR Level  Low Moderate D  Low  Moderate  High  High  L l - F R Level Figure 4.1 Frequency of L l - U S E by levels of L l - F R & L2-FR  By moving down the High L l - F R side of the graph (to the far right), it can be seen that Moderate (dotted line) and High (solid line) L2-FR are associated with reduced frequency of Ll-USE. Next, it can be seen that as the level of L l - F R decreases (moving to the left on the X-axis), students are shown to generally make less frequent use of their LI. When L l - F R is Low (the far left of the X-axis), all three levels of L2-FR show their lowest frequency of Ll-USE. Figure 4.2 plots the relationship between L2-USE and friendship patterns within the LI and L2. As with the previous graph, dotted, thatched, and solid lines are used to designate increasing levels of friendship, in this case the variable L2-FR.  107  T  Low  1 Moderate  I  High  L l - F R Level Figure 4.2 Frequency of L2-USE by Levels of L l - F R and L2-FR  Students making the greatest use of the L2 are seen (at the top left of the graph) to have High L2-FR (the solid line) and Low L l - F R (the X-axis). Moderate and then Low L2-FR groups reflect this pattern, showing their highest frequency of L2-USE within Low L l - F R levels. Moving to the right, greater levels of L l - F R are displayed as being related to a reduced frequency of L2-USE. The dotted line, representing students with Moderate L2-FR, supports this tendency, albeit with a less severe drop in L2-USE among students with Moderate and High Ll-FR. Students with Moderate and Low levels of L2FR show less frequent use of the L2, and also reflect a trend toward lower L2-USE as level of L l - F R increases. The solid line shows students with High L2-FR appear to make more use of the L2 when they maintain at least Moderate Ll-FR, and to make much less use of the L2 when they maintain High L l - F R patterns.  108  Discussion: The results provide support for Hypothesis la by suggesting students who used their LI much of the time had greater levels of LI friendships than those who made less frequent use. This is a fundamental finding in that it provides support for the reliability of the data derived from the questionnaire, and makes it possible to continue the analysis along the lines of the assumptions articulated in Chapter Three. If students are making greater use of the LI, they must also be making greater contact with others who share this language, and are therefore likely to have higher patterns of LI-based friendships. However, the extent of this relationship has not been clearly enunciated in earlier research in a sojourn setting. While Berry's model attributes a greater degree of acculturation to a reduced perception of the relative importance of contact with home culture groups, it does not connect this with resulting changes in friendship patterns based in the LI, nor with reported frequency of LI use as these findings have done. The variable used in the analysis of friendship patterns here is based upon not only number of LI friendship, but also on relative intimacy of this contact. Again, the analysis is focusing on the quality of input from within interactions, rather than mere frequency. These findings are therefore seen to extend Berry's model. The results provide empirical evidence of how a concern for maintaining contact with home culture group members in a sojourn environment relates to LI use and the level and intimacy of LI-based friendships. Connections with others from the same LI background have been found to assist sojourners in coping with acculturation stress through a provision of a source of support in the new environment (Berry et al., 1988,1989; Segawa, 1998; Ward, 1999). However,  109  the results here suggest they may also serve to limit the opportunities for connecting with others from the L2 community, as student use of the L2 was significantly lower among higher levels of Ll-FR. The results also support Hypothesis lb in suggesting students who used the L2 more frequently had greater levels of friendships within this language than those who used it less often. The connection between friendship patterns and frequency of LI as well as L2-USE suggested in these findings may prove essential in that it establishes a link between engagement with others in the host setting and language use. Students who used their LI more frequently maintained significantly more LI friendships and fewer L2 friendships. They were thereby likely to limit their opportunities for L2 contact. In contrast, students who reported more L2-FR describe their frequency of L2-USE to be significantly higher. It is unclear whether friendship patterns per se predict or follow actual language use. However if levels of language use and friendship patterns are connected to the degree suggested in these results, the importance of establishing contact opportunities in the L2 may be seen as an essential part in successful SLA and C2 acquisition in a sojourn setting. The issue of tautological findings should be addressed in consideration of these results. As with the LI findings, it is a precondition of greater use of the L2 that a student would need to have a greater level of contact with L2 speakers to realize a higher frequency of L2 use. Yet, it must also be reiterated that these findings provide support for the validity of the research instrument, empirical evidence for widely assumed, patterns, and also a measure of the extent and complexity of the relationship between these variables. Moreover, the findings provide an important link between the interaction  110  of LI and L2 use and how this relates to friendship patterns within both languages. It will be necessary to examine motivation for making these contacts before any further suggestions of how these issues apply to the acquisition process can be made.  4.3 Research Question #2 •  What is the relationship between previous intercultural experience (EXPERIENCE), language use, and friendship patterns in the host culture? Hypothesis 2a  2b  Students with EXPERIENCE will make significantly more frequent L2-USE than those with no EXPERIENCE. Students with EXPERIENCE will have significantly higher L2-FR than those with no EXPERIENCE.  Results from Two-Way A N O V A failed to support either Hypothesis 2a or 2b. There were no significant differences between group means of L l - U S E or L2-USE use among students with or without EXPERIENCE, failing to support Hypothesis 2a ( L l USE: F= .652 (2, 126),/?.<0.523), (L2-USE: F = .117 (2, 126) p <0.889). Table 4.3 presents the A N O V A results.  Table 4.3 Two-way ANOVA (2x3x3) EXPERIENCE by Ll-USE  andL2-USE  Variable  TypeDJ Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  F  Sig.  Ll-USE  .303  2  .152  .652  .523  L2-USE  5.45  2  2.72  .117  .889  Intercept  .471  3  .157  .676  .569  Total  45.00  134  Ill  Students with EXPERIENCE did not have significantly different scores in levels of L l - F R or L2-FR (Ll-FR, F= .2.567 (2,134),/>.<0.082), (L2-FR, F = .507 (2,134) ), /?.<0.108 (Table 4.4). These results do not support Hypothesis 2b. Post-hoc analysis was not performed.  Table 4.4 Two-way ANOVA (2x3x3) EXPERIENCE by Ll-FR andL2-FR Scores  Source  TypeUI Sum of Squares  Ll-FR  f  Mean Square  F  Sig.  1.14  2  .572  2.57  .082  L2-FR  1.01  2  .507  2.28  .108  Intercept  .298  4  7.45  .334  .854  Total  45.00  134  -  d  Discussion: While the findings failed to support Hypothesis 2a or 2b, they do not contradict the general nature of interaction within the sojourn environment depicted in the study. The assumptions of the study are that a sojourner's motivation for contact in the host environment, and how this is reinforced or adapted as a result of contact experiences, relates directly to how frequently the LI or L2 are spoken, and the nature of friendship patterns established during the period of residence. While experience in a different cultural setting may assist a student in adapting to the current situation, it appears to be insufficient to correspond to differences in behaviour on a group-wide basis. Moreover, the model of intercultural contact presented includes adaptations to initial patterns of  112  Contact Motivation. This may also be a factor in the results. While a sojourner with previous experience may indeed carry differing motivation into a current sojourn, an adaptation of this pattern resulting from contact experiences would mask this original pattern.  .  (  The majority of students who had spent time in a different country (31 of 39 students) had done so within an LI environment. As a result, it could be suggested that students with or without EXPERIENCE were in some ways the same vis-a-vis their previous sojourn experience, in that neither group (save for 8 of 140 students) had spent a period beyond a month in a setting where everyday use of an L2 was necessary. In this way, both groups could be seen as having similar preparation for the current sojourn and as being essentially indistinguishable in regards to the assumptions underscoring Hypothesis 2: that experience in an intercultural sojourn setting would result in different behaviours during the current stay. Students with LI-based previous intercultural experience may be repeating patterns established in previous sojourns. Given the context of essentially Ll-based previous sojourn experiences in this sample, it is likely that students with this background would not show significantly different behaviours in language use or friendship patterns in the current host environment when compared to those without this background. Previous Ll-based sojourn experience may make establishing friendships in the L2 more difficult, due to a tendency toward engagement with speakers of the LI established in these previous sojourns. Although the impact of Ll-based previous sojourn experiences on the current sojourn is uncertain, the findings suggest experience may be of lesser importance to other aspects that impact on interaction patterns and language use in the host environment. Put  113  another way, the desire to make and maintain L2 friendships may be associated with factors other than mere presence in the second culture, such as whether an individual's predisposition toward interaction favours a home br host culture, or, as defined in the current study, a particular pattern of Contact Motivation. Whether an individual's Contact Motivation proves to be a better indicator of interaction tendencies will be taken up within the next Research Question.  4.4 Research Question #3 •  What is the relationship between Contact Motivation (MAINTAIN/EXPLORE), language use, and friendship patterns? • Hypothesis 3a.  3b.  Hypothesis 4a.  4b.  Students with higher MAINTAIN scores will have significantly higher L l - F R patterns than those with lower MAINTAIN scores. Students with higher EXPLORE scores will have significantly higher L2-FR patterns than those with lower EXPLORE scores. Students with higher MAINTAIN scores will have significantly higher L l - U S E than those with lower MAINTAIN scores. Students with higher EXPLORE scores will have significantly higher L2-USE than those with lower EXPLORE scores.  M A N O V A was used to evaluate the relationship between LI and L2-based friendship patterns and scores from the dependent variables resulting from the two Contact Motivation scales (MAINTAIN and EXPLORE). Each of the three levels of L l FR and L2-FR (Low, Moderate, and High) were compared to MAINTAIN and EXPLORE scores. Support for Hypothesis 3a and 3b was found in the M A N O V A results. In support of Hypothesis 3a, significant differences in scores of MAINTAIN were found between L l - F R levels (F= 7.233, (2,133),/?<0.001). Table 4.5 contains the  114  M A N O V A findings. MAINTAIN scores were also found to be significantly different among levels of L2-FR (F= 3.870, (2,133),p<0.023).  Table 4.5 MANOVA (3x3x2) Contact Motivation by Friendship Levels Independent Variable  Dependent Variable  TypeUI Sum of Squares  df  Mean . Square  Ll-FR  MAINTAIN Score  271.66  2  EXPLORE Score  18.84 .  MAINTAIN Score  L2-FR  Total  F  Sig.  135.83  7.23  .001  2  9.42  .852  .429  145.37  2  72.68  3.87  .023  EXPLORE Score  120.13  2  60.07  5.43  .005  MAINTAIN Score  2887.58  133  EXPLORE Score  1591.82  133  Support for Hypothesis 3b was also found, with significant difference found in EXPLORE scores when levels of L2-FR are compared (F= 5.430 (2,133),/?.<0.005). Post-hoc analysis further explained the relationship between Contact Motivation and friendship patterns. Table 4.6 shows comparison of L l - F R and L2-FR for the two Contact Motivations. The mean scores relate to those on the Contact Motivation scales.  115  Table 4.6 Post-hoc Results Contact Motivation by Ll-FR andL2-FR (Tukey)  Dependent Variable (X=mean)  MAINTAIN Score  Independent Variable  Independent Variable  (I) Ll-FR  (J) Ll-FR  Low (X=23.94)  Mean Difference (I-J)  Std. Error  Sig.  Moderate (X=28.03)  +4.09  .9187  .001  High (X=27.17)  +3.24  1.111  .010  (I) L2-FR  (J) L2-FR  MAINTAIN Score  Low (X=28.13)  High (X=24.87)  -3.26  .891  .001  EXPLORE Score  Low (X=29.43)  High (X=32.10)  +2.67  .684  .001  The post-hoc results show significantly higher MAINTAIN scores in comparison of Low and Moderate Ll-FR groups (X = + 4.09, p. O.001), and Low to High L l - F R levels (X = +3.24,p. <0.010). These results suggest increased LI friendship among students with higher MAINTAIN scores. Further details of the relationship between EXPLORE scores and levels of L l - F R and L2-FR are also presented in the post-hoc results. Supporting Hypothesis 3b, significant differences in EXPLORE scores are seen between Low and High L2-FR groups (X = +2.67, p. O.001). MAINTAIN scores were significantly lower among students with High L2-FR (X=24.87) than those with Low L2-FR (X= -3.26,/?. <0.001).  116  Two figures illustrate the relationship between LI and L2 friendship patterns and Contact Motivation scores. Figure 4.3 plots L l - F R and L2-FR with EXPLORE scores. 33  1  n  1  Low  1  Moderate  1  High  Ll-FR Level Figure 4.3 L l - F R / L2-FR by EXPLORE Scores  Figure 4.3 shows EXPLORE scores significantly higher (moving up the Y-axis) as L2-FR levels increase from Low to Moderate, and then to High levels. The levels of Ll-FR have a more difficult pattern to discern. Students with Moderate L2-FR show significantly higher EXPLORE scores when L l - F R levels are high. This may support Berry's findings, whereby some sojourners (termed Integrated in his model) report similarly high contact patterns within both home and host cultural groups. Figure 4.4 plots MAINTAIN scores for LI and L2 friendship levels. The significant difference in MAESfTAfN scores as L l - F R increases in the M A N O V A results  117  can also be seen. In contrast, L2-FR levels are seen to relate to the opposite trend, whereby increasing L2-FR levels show significantly lower MAINTAIN scores. 30  1  T  Low  Moderate  High  Ll-FR Level Figure 4.4 L l - F R and L2-FR levels by MAINTAIN Scores Discussion: The results have students with higher MAINTAIN scores showing significantly higher L l - F R patterns. This suggests that attitudes held by students toward maintaining relations with members of their own cultural group play a significant role in their friendship patterns. The tendency for students with increased Maintenance Motivation to establish stronger LI friendship patterns in the findings provides support for Hypothesis 4a. This is extended by the results of Hypothesis 4b to suggest that a tendency for relying on friendships based on the LI may significantly limit opportunities for contact within the L2. The results show L2 friendship patterns increasing significantly as EXPLORE  118  levels rise. Moreover, these fell within each EXPLORE level as MAINTAIN scores increased. The results suggest, just as L2-USE is associated with L2-FR, learners' willingness to make contact with others in the L2 and C2 is similarly related to levels of friendship students hold within L2-based groups. This motivation - friendship relationship makes it possible to understand why some learners who spend time in a culture appear to become more actively engaged in this culture, and are therefore more likely to acculturate more successfully than others. Whether these patterns are repeated for students'use of language is next to be addressed.  Hypothesis 4a.  4b.  Students with higher MAINTAIN levels will have significantly higher L l - U S E than those with lower MAINTAIN scores. Students with higher EXPLORE levels will have significantly higher L2-USE than those with lower EXPLORE scores.  The dependent variables of MAPNTAIN and EXPLORE used to evaluate Hypotheses 4a and 4b were made from grouped scores from the two scales in Low, Moderate, and High levels. Support for Hypothesis 4a was found in the M A N O V A findings, as a significant difference was found in L l - U S E when compared to MAINTAIN levels (F= 13.45 (2, 134),p. <0.00T) (Table 4.7). Significant difference in L2-USE by levels of EXPLORE was also found in the M A N O V A results {F= 11.59, (2,134) p. <0.001), supporting Hypothesis 4b.  119 Table 4.7 MANOVA Ll-USE andL2-USE by Contact Motivation  Source  Dependent Variable  Type III Sum of Squares  df  F  Sig.  MAINTAIN Level  Ll-USE (Frequency)  5.36  2  13.46  .001  L2-USE  9.11  2  .229  .796  Ll-USE (Frequency)  .653  2  1.34  .266  L2-USE  11.59  2  23.76  .001  Ll-USE  569.13  1  2857.29  .001-  L2-USE  837.50  1  3432.86  .002  Ll-USE  791.00  134  L2-USE  1004.00  134  EXPLORE Level  Intercept  Total  Post-hoc results show the source of the significant difference (Table 4.8). L l USE was significantly different among students with Low to High MAINTAIN (X = +.50,p. O.001), as well as between Moderate to High MAINTAIN (X = +.363,/?. <0.001).  120  Table 4.8 Post-hoc Results Ll-USE andL2-USE by Contact Motivation (Tukey) Dependent Variable (X = Mean)  (I) MAINTAIN Level  (J) MAINTAIN Level  Mean Difference (I-J)  Std. Error  Sig.  Ll-USE (Frequency)  Low (X = 2.10)  High (X = 2.60)  +.50  9.74  .001  Moderate (X = 2.24)  High (X = 2.60)  +.36  9.11  .001  Low (X = 3.16)  Moderate (X = 2.60)  -.56  .1195  .021  High (X = 2.34)  -.82  .1078  .001  +.35  .1012  .001  L2-USE (Frequency)  Dependent Variable  (I) EXPLORE Level  (J) EXPLORE Level  L2-USE (Frequency)  Low (X = 2.52)  High (X = 2.87)  Significant difference was also found between L2-USE at Low and Moderate MAINTAIN levels. Students with Moderate MAINTAIN levels had significantly higher frequency of L2-USE (X = +.32,/?. O.021) than students with Low MAINTAIN. The post-hoc results show students with Low EXPLORE made significantly less frequent use of the L2 (X = -.35,/>. <0.001) than students with High EXPLORE levels. Figure 4.5, plotting L l - U S E by levels of EXPLORE, is the first of two graphs illustrating the relationship between language use and Contact Motivation.  121  EXPLORE Level • • •i  •  Low Moderate High  Low  Moderate  High  MAINTAIN Level  Figure 4.5 Frequency of LI-USE by Contact Motivation  The frequency of L l - U S E (along the Y-axis) is seen to increase in relation to MAINTAIN levels (along the X-axis). Portraying the pattern in the M A N O V A results, EXPLORE levels do not differ significantly among frequencies of L l - U S E . The contrast between the impact of EXPLORE and MAINTAIN on frequency of L l - U S E is evident. Levels of MAINTAIN decline significantly (along the X-axis) with lowered frequency of Ll-USE. Figure 4.6 plots the relationship between L2-USE and the three levels of each Contact Motivation. Frequencies of L2-USE are highest among the levels of EXPLORE when they are related to Low MAINTAIN scores.  122  EXPLORE Level i ••t  a i  D  Moderate  1  D  Low  Moderate  H i  9  Low  High  h  MAINTAIN Levels Figure 4.6 Frequency of L2-USE by EXPLORE and MAINTAIN  Displaying the post-hoc findings, the three levels of EXPLORE follow similar patterns, with lower MAINTAIN levels being associated with increased L2-USE.  Discussion: The results suggest students with higher EXPLORE scores made more frequent use of the L2 than those with lower levels of this Contact Motivation, supporting Hypothesis 4b. These findings suggest a link between levels of Exploration Motivation and frequency of speaking the L2 that supports the general trend of a positive relationship between these variables. In contrast, students who are highly motivated to maintain their culture in the face of opportunities to engage others in the second culture, displayed in higher MAINTAIN levels, make significantly more frequent use of their LI, supporting Hypothesis 4a.  123  This forms the final component in the analysis of Research Question #3. The results offer empirical support for the general working model of intercultural contact in Figure 3.1 above, in illustrating an inter-relationship between Contact Motivation, friendship patterns, and language use among students. The findings suggest that motivation toward exploring the new culture, as well as maintaining the student's own culture are related to language use, namely greater use of the LI among students with higher Maintenance Motivation, and greater use of L2 for those with higher Exploration Motivation. Similarly, the link between Contact Motivation and friendship patterns also follows this relationship, whereby students who report greater levels of LI friendship had significantly higher MAINTAIN scores, while students with more L2 friendships had significantly higher EXPLORE scores. As friendship patterns and language use patterns are assumed to take a period of time to be established, this offers some support for the process of enhancement of an Initial Contact Motivation outlined in Figure 3.2. The results of Research Question #3, whereby friendship and language patterns reflect a student's motivation for engagement within the host setting, suggests these patterns have come to typify interaction tendencies along the lines of an Enhanced Contact Motivation. How Contact Motivation relates to attitudes toward cultural diversity will be analysed in Research Question #4.  124  4.5 Research Question #4 •  What are the relationships between Contact Motivation and attitudes toward cultural diversity? Hypothesis 5a.  5b.  Students with higher MAINTAIN levels will have significantly lower ATCD than those with lower MAINTAIN levels. Students with higher EXPLORE levels will have significantly higher A T C D than those with lower EXPLORE levels.  Significant difference was found in mean scores between A T C D and levels of MAINTAIN (F = 3.85 (2,132), j?.<0.042), thus supporting Hypothesis 5a (Table 4.9).  Table 4.9 MANOVA Contact Motivations by A TCD Source  Type III Sum of Squares  df  F  Sig.  MAINTAIN Level  4.20  2  3.85  .042  EXPLORE Level  6.81  2  5.12  .007  Intercept  5.99  2.25  .068  Error  82.58  124  Total  106.81  132  4  Support for Hypothesis 5b was also found, as significant difference in A T C D was found between levels of EXPLORE (F= 5.12 (2,132), p.<0.007).  125  Post-hoc results found students with Low MAINTAIN had significantly higher A T C D (X = +8.64, p. <0.002) than those with High MAINTAIN (Table 4.10).  Table 4.10 Post-hoc Results Contact Motivation by ATCD (Tukey) Dependent Variable (X = Mean)  (I) EXPLORE Level  (J) EXPLORE Level  Mean Difference (I-J)  Std. Error  Sig.  ATCD Score  Low (X = 93.57)  Moderate (X= 101.44)  +7.87  2.7020  .010  High (X= 104.72)  +11.15  2.5774  .001  -8.64  .1801  .002  ATCD  (I) MAINTAIN  (J) MAINTAIN  Low (X= 104.32)  High (X = 95.68)  Significant difference is also seen between Low to Moderate EXPLORE levels (X = + 7.87, p. <0.010), and Low to High EXPLORE levels (X = +11.15, p. <0.001). The results suggest higher A T C D is associated with greater levels of EXPLORE. Figure 4.6 plots the ATCD scores for each level of the two Contact Motivations. The lowest mean score of A T C D is among students with Low EXPLORE and High MAINTAIN (at the bottom left of the graph). Moving up the Y-axis, we see students with Moderate and High EXPLORE levels have higher A T C D scores. Students with Low MAINTAIN, but High EXPLORE are seen to have significantly higher means of A T C D (at the top left).  126  EXPLORE Levels D  Low  Moderate  Low  Q  Moderate  D  High  High  MAINTAIN Levels  Figure 4.7 A T C D score by Levels of Contact Motivation At the top right of the diagram, it can be seen that students with High levels of EXPLORE also have High ATCD scores, irrespective of the level of MAINTAIN they have. An intriguing relationship between the High EXPLORE level, whereby A T C D scores rise along with increasing MAENfTAIN levels, is also evident. This will be raised in the forthcoming discussion.  Discussion: The results provide support for Hypothesis 5 a, in that students with higher levels of EXPLORE have higher A T C D scores. This finding offers empirical support for the heretofore commonly held notion of acculturation, namely that sojourners that have a wide tolerance for cultural diversity are likely to explore more in the host culture than those with less tolerant attitudes. The reliability of this finding is reaffirmed in the results  127  of Hypothesis 5b, whereby students with High MAINTAIN had significantly lower means A T C D scores than students with Low MAINTAIN. A complex relationship between the two components of Contact Motivation and A T C D has been shown. While a significant positive relationship between EXPLORE and A T C D was found, the affect MAINTAIN levels had on A T C D was less clear. Students with higher MAINTAIN levels were found to have significantly lower A T C D scores than those with lower levels, yet students with High MAINTAIN and EXPLORE levels also showed high A T C D scores. This suggests students who are motivated to interact with both home and host cultures to a high degree have more positive attitudes toward living within a culturally diverse society. This reflects Berry's model of acculturation, which holds that integrated individuals (those who have extensive connections with both home and host cultural groups) have the most positive attitudes toward the acculturation process, and report the least amount of acculturative stress. These students may be more gregarious or, following Gardner, may possess a higher level of Integration Motivation. Irrespective, their A T C D score suggests they hold attitudes which afford extensive language use and friendship opportunities within the host setting, making learning of the L2 and C2 more likely. If A T C D scores are related to the motivation for contact a students holds within the context of the host cultural setting, the common sense notion that longer periods of residence in a host culture equate directly to greater levels of acculturation may not stand up empirically. Research Question #5 seeks to evaluate this link.  128  4.6 Research Question #5 •  What is the relationship between LR and attitudes toward cultural diversity?  Hypothesis 6  Students with a longer LR will demonstrate significantly higher A T C D scores than those with shorter LR.  Results did not show significant difference between students with longer or shorter LR in mean A T C D scores (F=.555 (3,128), p<0.643). Support for Hypothesis 6 was therefore not found in the A N O V A results. Table 4.11 presents the A N O V A findings. Post-hoc analysis was not done, as there were no significant differences between groups to detail by such analysis.  Table 4.11 One-way ANOVA (1x4) ATCD by LR Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  F  Sig.  Between Groups  22.39  3  7.46  .559  .643  Within Groups  1708.24  128  13.35  Total  1730.63  131  Discussion: While findings fail to support Hypothesis 6, they do support a number of findings in other studies, as well as previous Hypotheses in the current study. Byram and Fleming (1998) found extended periods of residence in a host community might serve to reinforce stereotypes and negative attitudes toward different cultures. Results from Hypothesis 2a  129  and 2b from Research Question #2 in the current study suggest that attitudes toward a number of features within the experience of a sojourner are better indicators of L2 use and interaction with others from the host culture, than mere duration of stay. Thus, these findings suggest the quality of contact within the host setting may be a more important factor in determining the direction and speed of acculturation than the period of residence, supporting the general theme of the current study.  4.7 Regression Analyses - Overview The analyses of variance established that LI and L2 use are significantly related to friendship patterns and Contact Motivation. In a further attempt to validate the model of intercultural contact presented, multiple regression was performed to assess the impact of a number of key variables on attitudes toward cultural diversity. A T C D scores are connected to Enhanced Maintenance or Exploration Motivation in the model. Patterns of language use, friendship, and Contact Motivation are suggested in the model to make development in attitudes toward cultural diversity more or less likely. Regression analysis was used in evaluating the effect of four predictor variables on the dependent variable of ATCD. As language use and friendship patterns were significantly related in the analysis of variance findings, multicollinearity was a concern among possible predictor variables. To address this, Pearson Correlation estimates were used to select predictor variables that were discrete, yet correlated to the dependent variable (See: Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The following four predictor variables were chosen: EXPLORE and MAINTAIN scores, previous knowledge of Canada  130  (KNOWLEDGE), and intercultural experience (EXPERIENCE). Table 4.12 summarizes the five variables and their intercorrelations.  Table 4.12 Summary of Five Variables and Intercorrelations among them KNOWLEDGE EXPERIENCE (X4) (X )  ATCD (Y)  EXPLORE (Xi)  MAINTAIN (X )  M  98.57  30.56  26.89  2.62  .3383  SD  13.82  3.43  4.66  .71  .47  N  133  133  133  133  133  ATCD  -  .439  -.305  .185  .138  EXPLORE  .439  -  -.160  .149  .022  MAINTAIN  -.305  -.160  -  -.124  .088  KNOWLEDGE  .185  .149  -.124  -  .043  EXPERIENCE  .138  .022  .088  .043  -  2  3  Initially, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with the four predictor variables entered simultaneously. Scatter plots and histograms were then produced to ensure homoscedasticity, and that the variables were normally, independently distributed. It was then investigated whether the residuals and predictors were correlated. No serial correlations were found among the residuals (Durban-Watson = 1. 67). The number of the subjects (133) was larger than the predictors (4), providing an acceptable cases-toIndependent Variables ratio (See: Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996 for a discussion of these limits). The following tolerance values were found: (.95) EXPLORE, (.95) MAINTAIN, (.96) KNOWLEDGE, (.98) EXPERIENCE. High tolerance values were expected, due to  131  a relatively low value of R (R = .281), and low Standard Error for /?(See: Cohen & 2  2  Cohen, 1983). The dependent variable (ATCD) was a continuous variable and was normally, independently distributed (See: Appendix D). The assumptions for a linear regression analysis were therefore considered met. Table 4.13 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis.  Table 4.13 Summary of Multiple Regression - Predictors Entered Simultaneously Variable  B  SEB  P  r  sr  Sr  Pr  pr  t  EXPLORE  1.546  .309  .383  0.164  .375  .140  .404  .163  5.00  MAINTAIN  -.727  .227  -.246  0.074  .240  .058  .272  .074  -3.20  KNOWLEDGE  1.767  1.487  .091  0.013  .090  .008  .105  .011  1.17  EXPERIENCE  4.291  2.193  .148  0.029  .147  .022  .170  .029  1.96  2  2  Note: n = 133, R =, .281 F(4, 128) = 12.49, p. <0.001; Adjusted R 2  2  2 =  .258.  The results from the simultaneous regression analysis showed that the four predictor variables as a whole explained a modest portion of the variable A T C D (Adjusted R = .258). The only significant variables in the equation were the variables 2  EXPLORE (sr = . 140) and MAINTAIN (sr = .058). 2  2  To further investigate how significant the change in R would be when the 2  predictor variables were entered into the equation individually, sequential multiple regression analyses were carried out. Variables were entered into the equation according to their perceived contribution to the variance in A T C D scores, based upon the assumptions of the study: that enhanced Contact Motivation patterns would be  132  characteristic of stronger or weaker levels of positive attitudes toward cultural diversity. Table 4.14 summarizes the changes in R . 2  Table 4.14 Summary of changes in R - Stepwise Regression - Four Predictor Variables R  R Square  Change Statistics  Adjusted R Square Change  R Square Change  Sig.F Change  F  Model  .439  .193  .187  31.36  .193  .001  EXPLORE MAINTAIN  .500  .250  .238  9.81  .057  .002  3 EXPLORE MAINTAIN EXPERIENCE  .522  .273  .256  4.06  .023  .046  1 EXPLORE  2  The results in Table 4.14 suggest that R increased significantly when EXPLORE 2  (p.< 0.001) MAINTAIN (p.< 0.001), and finally EXPERIENCE (p. <0.046) predictor variables were added to the equation. The variable KNOWLEDGE was removed from the equation.  Discussion: The results from the regression analyses suggest there are unmeasured variables that account for the majority of the variance in attitudes toward cultural diversity. EXPLORE (R = .193) and MAESfTAESf (R = .057) scores together account for 2  2  approximately 24% of the variance, and with the addition of EXPERIENCE collectively  133  account for some 26% of the variance in ATCD. The fourth predictor in the equation (KNOWLEDGE) only added marginally to the equation and was therefore dropped from the sequential analysis. An important finding is that the four variables in the equation were independent from each other, which suggests they are relevant to evaluating variance in A T C D scores and are therefore an important step in both validating the model and also suggesting areas where it can be improved. This is consistent with the purpose of the current study: to evaluate a proposed model, and in so doing, to search for areas where it can be enhanced through future research efforts. Three of the four predictor variables in the regression analyses (EXPLORE, MAINTAIN, and EXPERIENCE) appear to belong in a model of intercultural contact, while previous knowledge of a host society (KNOWLEDGE) does not seem to be a useful predictor. This suggests a number of areas where the model can be enhanced, which will be discussed in the concluding chapter of the study, following the results of the qualitative analysis.  134  CHAPTER  FrVE  QUALITITATTVE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIPTS  5.0 Overview The purpose of the current chapter will be to extend the quantitative methods of the previous chapter by looking at contact experiences in the words of the participants themselves. After presenting an overview of each participant's answers on the questionnaire, and some information about their personal background, transcript excerpts will be used to further illustrate student language use, friendship patterns, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. The evaluation will consider how closely students exemplify patterns included in the model. A context is given for each student's questionnaire data by comparing these with the contact experiences related in their interview.  5.1 Discussion of the Transcripts The transcripts are verbatim excerpts from the interview sessions except where changed have been made to clarify the meaning of comments. When this has been done, square brackets are used to denote editorial comment or clarifications offered. For example, at one point a participant referred to "some Korea people." An "n" was added to make it clear he was referring to "Korea [«]" background people in the school. Excerpts from the transcripts are listed by the participant's name, followed by a number that places the excerpt in chronological order in their transcript. For example, the fourth comment in Mariana's transcript is, "(Mariana-4)." Most excerpts have been quoted directly. However, when paraphrasing has been used, references to the transcript and utterance are made after the paraphrase. For example, comments from a participant  135  named Ana are paraphrased like this: "Ana felt other Spanish speakers in the school probably didn't like her very much because she made a point of avoiding them  (Ana-8)."  The names used in the interviews are pseudonyms chosen by participants. Other than the use of pseudonyms, the information given to describe each participant's cultural background, hometown, age, length of residence, and program of study are factual.  5.2 The Model and the Interview Transcripts A brief overview of the proposed model might be helpful at this point. First, it would be useful to review the use of the term Contact Motivation. Student experiences with others in the host environment are seen to fit into one of two types: with others from a variety of cultures with whom the L2 is the medium of interaction, or with people from cultural backgrounds sharing the sojourner's LI. In the current study, the degree to which a student seeks interactions with people with whom the L2 must be spoken is described as a level of Exploration Motivation. The desire for contact within the LI is described as a level of Maintenance Motivation. The model describes each student as favouring one of these patterns, Maintenance or Exploration Motivation when they start their sojourn. This is referred to as their Initial Contact Motivation. An overview is presented for participants before discussion of their interview. This includes how they responded on the questionnaire to items pertaining to language use and friendship patterns, as well as their levels of each Contact Motivation and their A T C D score. These responses relate to student attitudes and behaviours during their sojourn. The first task in relating student experiences to the proposed model of intercultural contact will be to look in the interview for suggestions of each student's Initial Contact Motivation. A student's described reasons for travelling to Vancouver, the  136  expectations they hold for their stay, and their previous intercultural experiences will be used to suggest a pattern of Initial Contact Motivation, which will be compared to the student's questionnaire data. The second step in the model of intercultural contact, and thus the qualitative analysis, examines student contact experiences within the host environment. At this point, interview data were more directly compared with that from the questionnaire, connecting depictions of actual experiences to the attitudes students express at the time they wrote the questionnaire. The focus is on intercultural interactions where the L2 is the medium of communication. It is expected these interaction experiences will have either supported or challenged a student's Initial Contact Motivation. The perception a student holds toward contact experiences is presented in the model as being essential in the contact pattern they establish. Contact experiences that are perceived to be negative are depicted as providing support for Maintenance Motivation, in that they come to further student tendencies toward forming greater bonds within their own language and cultural communities. In contrast, the model holds experiences that are perceived to be essentially positive will provide support for engaging others outside of the LI community, thus supporting Exploration Motivation. Therefore, the task will be to determine how experiences related by the participants seem to have affected an Initial Contact Motivation. The model describes an adaptation of an initial motivation occurring because of experiences that contradict the motivation. This is termed an Adaptation of Motivation. For example, negative L2 contact experiences may challenge an initial pattern of Exploration Motivation, and lead to an adaptation because of a reduction in further L2  137  contact. Likewise, students with an Initial Contact Motivation favouring Maintenance may find that positive contact experiences challenge this pattern of less frequent or intimate contact, thereby providing an impetus for an adaptation toward greater levels of Exploration Motivation. Discussion of the transcripts considers whether contact experiences have served to support the Initial Contact Motivation, or to bring about an adaptation of this pattern into one favouring an alternate position. In situations where an Initial Contact Motivation appears to have been supported by the contact experiences, evidence for a gradual pattern of reinforcement of the initial motivation will be sought from within the transcript. In situations where the Initial Contact Motivation appears to be in opposition to the contact experiences, discussion of the transcript will focus on whether these appear to have had an impact on the pattern of Contact Motivation, and secondly whether this helped to further an adaptation of the motivation. A student's questionnaire results serve as a baseline for this comparison, as they provide a measure of student attitudes at a mid-point of the sojourn, which can be contrasted with the information provided about the hopes, goals, and plans for the current stay a student held before it began, and during its early stages. The final product in the proposed model of intercultural contact is the establishment of a reinforced pattern of Contact Motivation, described as either an Enhanced Exploration or Maintenance Motivation. The establishment of one of the two Enhanced Contact Motivation patterns is described in the model as a culmination of a series of contact experiences and student reactions to these experiences. Questionnaire  138  data initially describes an Enhanced Contact Motivation for each participant. Evidence of this pattern will then be presented from within the interview transcript. There are three features in an Enhanced Contact Motivation: particular patterns of LI or L2 use, linguistic and cultural aspects of friendship patterns, and a depiction of how this pattern relates to development in tolerance for cultural diversity. Results from the questionnaire give details of these aspects of each participant's sojourn experience. The discussion of interview transcripts considers how responses from the interview support one of the two Enhanced Motivations originating in responses on the questionnaire. Student transcripts provide details of LI and L2 use, linguistic features of friendship patterns in the host setting, and further suggest attitudes toward cultural diversity in this setting. The issues under consideration occur within a broad frame of reference: within the school, host community, and residential settings. As the final link to an Enhanced Contact Motivation, the general attitude a student appears to hold toward the challenges and opportunities of living within a culturally diverse environment will be used to suggest whether they have a broad acceptance of other cultures. Figure 5.1 shows how the experiences of each interview participants have been applied to one of the paths in the model of intercultural contact. The figure shows how each student is seen to fit into one of the two patterns favouring an Initial Contact Motivation. Four of the participants are shown to have this pattern reinforced through contact experiences, while two others to have undergone a process of adaptation to this Initial Contact Motivation. Finally, the Enhanced Contact Motivation pattern suggested . in the combined data from interviews and questionnaire results is outlined.  139  Ana, Tadashi, Olga Favouring  ^  Ana, Tadashi •  SU  PP  ORT  •  Enhanced Lxploration Motivation  R E I N F O R C E  • Greater 12 Contact • Higher L2 Use • Increased L2 Friendships  Enhanced Maintenance Motivation • Greater LI Contact • Higher LI Use • Increased LI Friendships  > Betty, Jack, Mariana ! I  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1  L  Betty, Jack, Olga  Figure 5.1 Contact Motivation among Interview Participants  5.3 Student Experiences 5.3.1 Enhanced Maintenance Motivation People leaving their own country for an extended SLA program are likely to hold a relatively high opinion of speakers of the L2 being studied. It would be assumed that they hope for many opportunities to interact with native speakers while living in this novel cultural environment. While the stories related by four of the six interview participants follow these assumptions, those by two others do not. These two students gave quite different perspectives: ones that favoured maintaining their own culture within the new environment over desires to learn and experience the new one, apparently even at the very earliest points in their journey. The participants, Betty and Jack, both show an initial desire to connect with their LI and cultural communities that appeared to outweigh their interest in reaching out for L2-based contact within the host community. The model describes these attitudes as Contact Motivation patterns favouring Maintenance  140  Motivation. Their responses on the questionnaire expressed this pattern, which was further in evidence in their transcripts. Betty and Jack's interviews detail a reinforcement of this Initial Contact Motivation though ongoing contact experience, to the point where elements of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation have been established.  Betty Betty was a 19-year-old student from Kowloon district of Hong Kong. She arrived in Vancouver in January of 1999 and had been there for eleven months at the time of the interview. Even though Betty had been to Vancouver on three previous trips, this was her first extended stay in Canada. She was also in her first session at the Y M C A , taking a TOEFL preparation class. Betty seemed very comfortable with the interview process. She answered questions frankly and without hesitation. Her interview was shorter than most others, perhaps due to a tendency for quick responses. Betty reported speaking her LI "Most of the time" in the questionnaire. Her frequency of L2 use was "Sometimes." Similar patterns were reflected in her responses to LI (High) and L2 (Low) friendship patterns. She was in the 98 percentile of students th  in her Maintain score (32.00); yet only in the 12 percentile of students in Exploration th  score (26.00). These suggest an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. In further evidence of this, she was in the 26 percentile (90.50) in her ATCD scores, showing a relatively th  less tolerant attitude toward cultural diversity. The questionnaire responses Betty gave were given life during her interview. First, she expressed a strong desire to use her LI and to interact with other people from her native Hong Kong, in evidence of an initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation. Descriptions of her pre-departure actions support this. During previous  141  visits to Vancouver, Betty had been introduced to a number of relatives who had earlier moved from Hong Kong. She had also made friends among a group of Cantonesespeaking young people. Before leaving Hong Kong for the current trip to Vancouver, Betty went through what she described as considerable effort to seek out these relatives and friends (Betty-13). She said the hope was to meet them upon her arrival in Canada. Betty contacted friends and family through e-mail and telephone, because she said it was important to have Cantonese-speaking friends to help her in Vancouver, and that she wanted to ensure an opportunity to go out with friends from Hong Kong (Betty-14). During her interview, Betty said having the chance to use her own language made Vancouver an attractive place to study English (Betty-1). This concern for setting up contacts within her LI and among other young people from Hong Kong exemplifies Betty's initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation. Betty said she expected to encounter difficulties in making friends while in Vancouver; she hoped to limit these difficulties by having some connections already made with her LI and CI community before departing Hong Kong (Betty-14). Interacting as much as possible within the new language and culture of the host environment did not appear to be as important at this point in Betty's experience. While having LI friends may have helped her in adjusting to life in Vancouver, it should be pointed out that Betty was not planning to immigrate to Canada (Betty-2). Within the limitations of a relatively short sojourn experience (Betty planned to stay less than a year) such an emphasis on contacting others in the host community with the same LI, who shared many aspects of her cultural background, contrasts with Betty's stated goals of wanting to improve her English while in Vancouver (Betty-1). Her efforts to make links within her LI would affect her ability to build  142  relationships with others outside of this group, in the larger host language and cultural communities. Betty also gave indication for an initial Maintenance Motivation in her actions early into her stay in Vancouver. She moved into an apartment with two friends from Hong Kong, and was enjoying the chance to speak Cantonese at home (Betty-6). Evidence of the durability of Betty's pattern of initial Maintenance Motivation is offered in her description of a number of failed attempts to meet English speakers outside of the school (Betty-4). A follow-up question during the interview asked why she felt it was important to have Cantonese-speaking friends in Vancouver. Her response offered negative experiences that likely came to support her initial pattern of motivation. Betty spoke of having many difficulties in making friends among English speakers during previous trips to Canada (Betty-5). She expressed frustration in using English and having people understand her, but said her efforts in making ties within the Hong Kong community in Vancouver on this occasion was making things go much better, (Betty-5): "Last time, I didn't know anyone...I felt very lonely, very helpless, and that was very difficult. Now, it is easy, because I do know somebody.  Somebody who can  talk to me [in the LI]" When asked about these people, Betty said they were from Hong Kong, either former residents who had emigrated to Canada or fellow sojourners studying English at the Y M C A (Betty-2). Betty's interview supports the general direction laid out in the model of an initial Maintenance Motivation being reinforced by negative contact experiences in the host environment. However, the strength of her initial motivation suggests further  143  consideration should be given in the model to the source of a sojourner's Initial Contact Motivation. As outlined above, Betty's questionnaire responses suggested an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. This was exemplified not only in her language use and friendship patterns, but also in her levels of each Contact Motivation. She showed a strong focus on Maintenance Motivation (in the 92 percentile), and a relatively weak nd  level of Exploration Motivation (in the 12 percentile). Moreover, she was in the lowest th  quarter of students writing the questionnaire in A T C D scores (25 percentile), reflecting th  a relatively low level of tolerance for cultural diversity in comparison to other students. Her interview also gives ample evidence of these patterns. She generally spoke Chinese outside of school, and said that all of her friends were fellow Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong (Betty-2). Her L2 experiences within the school setting were in stark contrast to the enjoyment Betty related in regards to her LI friends. Betty gave an impression of having increasing difficulty working with students from other cultural and language backgrounds at school. When asked what it was like to study with people from other countries, Betty complained about differences in the way these students approached their studies. Betty believed students from one country in particular were holding up the class because they were not giving enough effort, (Betty-10): "It is strange for me. Why do they come here? I think people have to work harder here. They sleep in class.. .and sometimes they don't come to class. I don't think that is good. Sometimes, Mexican students don't do any work in class."  144  Betty was frustrated about what she felt was a lack of effort in schoolwork by students from Mexico, and Spanish speakers in general. Rather than attributing differences to age, or individual personality traits, Betty defined them in a cultural context. She showed an ethnocentric tendency in using negative stereotypes when referring to these students, while saving more positive attributes to refer to people from her own background, (Betty-11): "In Hong Kong everybody does their best. We work hard. I don't know why these Mexicans and Spanish people come here and don't work. I don't understand that. Maybe we should have classes for people who want to study.. .and different ones for people like them who only play." Betty follows up these comments in a manner that illustrates further negative reactions to her L2 contact experiences. When asked what advice she would offer to friends from Hong Kong thinking of coming to Vancouver to study at the Y M C A , Betty said, (Betty-13): "I would tell them that some people don't try hard. That is important, because it is a problem for me and my friends." Despite admitting to having only LI friends and speaking her LI virtually all of the time, Betty went on to criticize students from these groups as not making sufficient effort to speak English, (Betty-14): "I know the Mexican and Spanish speaking people don't [make enough effort]. I never see them speak  145  English. People from other places.. .maybe sometimes speak English. I try hard [to speak English with them], but really.. .most of those people speak their own languages all the time." Betty had been going to school in a very multicultural setting at the Y M C A . Yet, rather than adapting to this reality, her interview suggests her dealings with culturally different others on an everyday basis were not becoming any easier. Betty relates contact experiences that are largely with other L2 learners and not L2 native speakers. The cultural diversity is a prevalent feature of this particular host environment. In her difficulty working with other L2 learners at school, Betty suggests a lack of tolerance for this diversity. Betty's reactions to different approaches among these students to their work at school imply stereotypical attitudes and a degree of ethnocentricity. An important assumption in the current study is that students react to working and living within a culturally diverse society in ways that impact on the nature of their language use and friendship patterns during their sojourn. Betty's experience supports this assumption in providing an example of high LI use, strong tendencies toward L l based friendships, and relatively intolerant attitudes towards cultural diversity. All of these support data from her questionnaire. Her story exemplifies a connection between the people she chooses to interact with and the attitudes she holds toward culturally different others. Betty's situation, wherein most intercultural contact experiences are with fellow L2 learners, may typify the experiences of most sojourners in a multicultural learning environment such as the Y M C A . If this is the case, it further emphases a critical role for attitudes students hold toward working in a culturally diverse setting in helping to  146  support or further an adaptation to their Contact Motivation. Betty's attitudes toward other students during the interview suggest intolerance for cultural diversity in the school, reflecting her responses on the A T C D scale items in the questionnaire. The rating group supported this as well, rating her interview excerpts as evidence for an intolerant attitude (mean rating = 1.01 out of 5, from tolerant to intolerant). The Contact Motivation that Betty established at the outset of her stay in Vancouver appears to have been a continuation of patterns formed in her previous visits to Canada. Betty's willingness to engage in predominantly LI-based friendship networks seems to have been planned prior to leaving Hong Kong. Thus, knowledge of a sojourner's previous intercultural experiences can clarify their perspective on contact within the second culture and attest to reasons for initial degrees of Maintenance or Exploration Motivation. Put another way, the more complete an assessment of previous sojourn experiences of the students is, the deeper the insight provided into the pattern of Initial Contact Motivation brought into a sojourn experience. Thus, if intercultural contact experiences are viewed within the lens of the Initial Contact Motivation, strongly held attitudes formed by sojourners in previous experiences may have a demonstrable impact on whether they succeed or fail in language acquisition or other goals during their current program. . The experiences related by Jack mirror those presented by Betty in many ways. Jack also shows an Initial Contact Motivation that reflects a stronger emphasis on Maintenance Motivation. As with Betty, Jack appears to be repeating a pattern established in previous sojourn setting, toward high levels of LI use and strong connections with others in his LI. These reflect Jack's responses on the questionnaire.  147  Unfortunately, Jack's transcript did not include sufficient evidence of his level of tolerance for cultural diversity, and was therefore not seen as exemplifying this component of the model's Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. This follows his results on all three scales of the questionnaire, which were not indicative of particularly strong patterns in any direction. There were suggestions in Jack's interview of some discomfort in dealing with culturally different others, but there was insufficient material in his responses to make an assessment.  Jack Jack was a 21-year-old student from a large city in central Mexico. He had not studied English beyond secondary school before departing for Vancouver. While this was his first trip to Canada, Jack had made a number of earlier trips to visit members of his family who had immigrated to the United States. Jack's interview occurred three months after his arrival from Mexico in September of 1999. He was enrolled in a conversation class at the Y M C A at the time. Jack previously completed two intensive business programs at the College. In keeping with his program of study, Jack was quite business-like during the interview process. His responses were relatively brief and offered with no apparent hesitation or reflection. He did not ask any information about the research program when given the opportunity after the session, yet did not seem displeased or uncomfortable during the interview. Jack may, however, have had some concern with his use of English during the session, as he remarked at the end of the interview that he thought he had not spoken well.  148  Jack's questionnaire answers gave a somewhat unclear picture. He showed high LI friendship patterns and reported speaking his LI "Most of the time," while reporting low L2 friendships and L2 use as "Sometimes." Jack's scale scores, however, were not indicative of a strong pattern in either Contact Motivation. He had an average level of Exploration Motivation (52 percentile), a moderately strong Maintenance Motivation nd  level (63 percentile) and a similarly moderate score on the attitudes toward cultural rd  diversity scale (61 percentile). st  Like Betty, Jack appeared to be pleased during his interview with the number of fellow LI speakers he could connect with, both in Vancouver and at the Y M C A . He said it was surprisingly easy to make LI friends, and that this was something he enjoyed about studying at the Y M C A . Also repeating a pattern displayed in Betty's transcript, Jack said he didn't have much success in meeting English speakers during earlier trips to an English environment, in his case in the United States. He said it wasn't necessary for him to speak English during these previous trips because of supportfromEnglish-speaking family members (Jack-3). A similar level of LI support seems to have been established by Jack during his current stay in Vancouver. Jack said the friends he had made in Vancouver were mostly fellow Mexican students enrolled at the Y M C A , except for a few other Spanish speakers from Colombia (Jack-26). He admitted to generally speaking his first language,  .  ,  (Jack-22): "I am speaking Spanish all of the time, unless.. .1 need for to go to the market or the bank.. .then I speak English. Trying to [only] speak English with my  149 like an impossible thing, just because everyone thinks they want to speak English. It's very difficult." Jack told of his experience during a school fieldtrip to another ESL college in Vancouver in a way that exemplified an Initial Contact Motivation favouring Maintenance. Jack enjoyed the trip because he had made three friends at the other school who werefromthe same province in Mexico (Jack-26). In choosing to use his LI more frequently, and suggesting he was pleased to be able to do so upon arriving in Vancouver, Jack's Initial Contact Motivation shows a favouring of maintenance of his language and culture. As with Betty, Jack's Initial Contact Motivation can be seen as being reinforced through negative contact experiences with classmates from differing language backgrounds. Jack had troubles making connections with native English speakers outside of school (Jack 19). He expressed frustration over not having enough native English speakers in classes at the Y M C A (Jack-6), and went on to suggest a negative reaction to experiences he was having with L2 interactions, (Jack-7): "I thought that I was going to know a lot of Canadians.. .but I have only known the Mexican guys.. .so it is different to the thing that I thought it was. I don't find Canadian people. They are not in school." Jack perceives a mismatch between his expectations and the reality he faces every day. He appears to be reacting negatively to being immersed in a more multicultural environment than he expected. Jack was shocked to see many Asian background students at the Y M C A (Jack-15). A relatively limited opportunity to meet native English speakers  150  within the school environment added to Jack's frustration over unsuccessful attempts to make L2 connections outside of the Y M C A . This may have furthered Jack's negative perceptions of L2 contact experiences, in contrast to his experiences in making LI friends. Jack expressed pleasure on a number of occasions during his interview at the number of fellow Spanish speakers he had met at school. The initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation suggested in Jack's frustrating experiences with L2 interactions is supported by the glowing impressions Jack relates of interactions in his LI. A reinforced pattern of Maintenance Motivation is found in Jack's responses on the questionnaire regarding language use and friendship patterns, however, his Contact Motivation scores were essentially the same, which would not support either enhanced pattern. In fact, it is difficult to connect Jack's interview or questionnaire data with an established pattern of Enhanced Maintenance Motivation along the lines depicted in the model. Jack provides details of frequent LI use and predominantly LI-based friendship patterns in both qualitative and quantitative results, yet only a moderately strong Maintenance Motivation score. To follow the structure of the model, Jack should also present evidence for a relatively less tolerant attitude toward cultural diversity. However, this was not found. His score of (102.50) on the ATCD scale (in the 61 percentile) does st  not reflect the type of attitudes suggested in the model to be associated with an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. The suggestions of less positive attitudes toward diversity in his interview contradict this somewhat, further complicating attempts to place Jack's experiences into a path in the model.  151  Jack, as all sojourners must, had an image of what the people would look like where he was going to study. This image, however, was not being reflected in what Jack saw everyday in Vancouver. His initial image of what a Canadian should be clashed with the multicultural nature of Canadian society, (Jack-16): " I never think how there was going to be so many people here... [pauses].. .Korea[»] people...Japanese people...many...[/]" Rather than adapting his model of what a Canadian was, Jack apparently chose to continue with his idea, in spite of the conflicting information. In evidence of this, Jack appears unable to see people who were not LI speakers of English as "Canadians," (Jack-19): "It's kind of hard to tell.. .but, a Canadian is somebody who came here fifty years ago.. .something like that." Jack suggests an inability to adapt his vision of a Canadian to the differing reality he is facing. Perhaps in other regions of the country his image might be more accurate. But, in the given context of Vancouver, as he himself notes, the cultural milieu seem to be quite different from what he expected. Jack offers a hint of intolerance for the diversity he sees. While understanding that a contradiction between his model and the working reality of Vancouver exists, he does not adapt his ideas. Rather, he seems to choose to ignore the dissonance he experiences. Jack's contact experiences depict a progression following the model of an Initial Contact Motivation becoming reinforced. Yet, his interview transcript cannot be used to directly tie this to a less tolerant attitude toward cultural diversity. He does not appear to  152  have accepted fully that Canada is a more culturally diverse place than he had imagined before coming, but it is unclear whether this is evidence for overall less tolerant attitudes. The relatively high score on the ATCD scale he presents contrasts with the attitudes demonstrated in many parts of his interview. Although Jack shows attitudes that are more moderate in his questionnaire responses than during the interview, it is not clear why this was the case. This discrepancy may suggest ambivalence, a difference in mood on the day of either data collection session, or an attempt to make his attitudes appear more socially appropriate during the questionnaire writing. A shortage of interview excerpts pertaining directly to his attitudes toward cultural diversity makes it difficult to extend Jack's questionnaire attitudes to the interview. Some possible reasons for insufficient evidence of these attitudes are considered in an upcoming discussion of limitations of the qualitative analysis in Chapter Six.  5.3.2 Adaptation to Maintenance Motivation Jack and Betty appear to have arrived in Vancouver with a focus on maintaining their language and culture. The next participant to be discussed, Olga, shows an adaptation from an initial pattern favouring more exploration of the host community, to one that reflects a similar enhanced pattern of Maintenance Motivation. Olga relates contact experiences that seem to have become increasingly negative as her time in Vancouver progressed. Her responses on the questionnaire show high use of LI and moderate use of the L2, high LI friendship patterns and low L2 friendships. These provide evidence of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation, which is supported by a strong Maintenance Motivation score and a much weaker Exploration Motivation score.  153  Olga also had a low score on the attitudes toward cultural diversity score, reflective of relatively less tolerant attitudes and an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. The combination of questionnaire data and interview transcript suggest a Contact Motivation that contradicts Olga's description of her original goals and desires for her stay in Vancouver. Overall, her story presents a good example of an adaptation of an Initial Exploration Motivation to an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation.  Olga Olga, a 34-year-old from the Colombian capital of Bogota, had been in Vancouver for nine months at the time of the interview. With no previous experience in other countries before coming to Canada, Olga had taken seven classes altogether at the Y M C A , after having some extremely negative experiences at a different language school in the Vancouver area. Olga was brushing up on her conversation skills at the time of the interview, attending an intensive program at the Y M C A . Olga gave open and extended answers to questions during her interview. Some of her answers took a minute or two, which made for quite a lengthy session. Her relative comfort with the interview process and facility with the language, however, belied what appeared to be a growing level of difficulty with acculturating into the host environment. While she presents an initial desire to meet Canadians and to further her spoken English through making friends within the L2 community, she also discussed a number of negative experiences she had in Vancouver. She characterizes these in a way that implies they were instrumental in her pulling away from the host community, in favour of spending most of her time with people from her cultural and linguistic background. Her experiences provide an example of a student presenting an Initial Contact Motivation  154  favouring Exploration that becomes adapted to a pattern of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. As discussed above, Olga's questionnaire supported a depiction of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. She had a High LI friendship pattern and a Low L2 pattern. Her scores on the two Contact Motivation sales further support this position. Olga was in the 92 percentile of students on her Maintenance score (32.00), contrasting with a much nd  lower Exploration score, in the 26 percentile (28.00). Olga's score of (80.00) on the th  A T C D scale, ranking her in the 11 percentile, gave a strong suggestion of less tolerant th  attitudes toward cultural diversity. Olga outlined her reasons for coming to Vancouver in a way that suggested a very different initial interest in making contacts with people from differing cultures. She said a friend had told her very good things about Canada, (Olga-3): "A friend told me Canada was.. .a very good situation for the immigrants.. .for learning. She said they welcome people.. .and that it is full of interesting people.. .from many places also." Olga was excited to come to Canada. She expected Canada to be an easier place to study than the United States, because she felt people would be warmer, and would welcome her as a guest (Olga-3). She thought it would be interesting to live in a society filled with so many different cultures, (Olga-9): "These people, everybody really.. .lives together and gets to know everybody from other places and languages. How do you call that, "metropolitan?"  155  This focus on interacting with people from many cultures while in Vancouver suggests an initial Exploration Motivation. Olga also refers to this in her reactions to contact experiences. Unhappy with the way she was treated by some key people in the early parts of her stay, Olga shows displeasure from unmet expectations. Her discussion of these experiences gives a telling explanation for the negative impressions given in her questionnaire answers. The first of a number of negative contact experiences she relates occurred in her homestay setting, (Olga-19): "Ah, I think it was very hard, the homestay. Ah.. .in the homestay, [usually] people who offered to have a student in their house are really kind people, because they want to help them speak English and learn about Canada. But.. .some homestay [referring to her own] is where people only think about the money. They need the money, so they don't care if you are speaking good or not. They don't really care. It was not nice. They try to understand you, but they don't try and correct you. So to me, the time I was in homestay, it was lost." Olga expected to be welcomed by her homestay family; to be treated like a new member of the family. Instead, she felt they treated her like a paying tenant (Olga-20). Adding to an unhappy homestay experience, Olga was very disappointed with treatment by staff at a language school she studied at before coming to the Y M C A . Olga's criticism of thisfirstschool suggested another reason for adapting her Contact Motivation. The classes were too big, the emphasis was on grammar rather than  156  conversation, and she did not feel recognized for what she felt was a stronger level of English than other students in the class (Olga-5). When asked to explain what had happened, Olga said staff at the school was inflexible, rude, and not interested in student concerns, (Olga-12): "They think students are stupid. It is the worst school in Vancouver. I think they think people who are learning English are stupid. They like to assign people to a level, and if you ask: Why am I in this level? Why do I have to take the same level again? And they say, 'ah, it's because the other class is full.' And I said,'if I pay a lot of money, I don't care if it is full.. .1 want a right course for me ... The combination of negative experiences in the school and homestay appeared to have given Olga the impression that people in Vancouver were cold, indifferent, and uninterested in relating to her desire to join the community. After raising her concerns at the previous school, particularly those related to being placed in a lower class simply because the higher-level one was full, she felt the school showed a callous indifference. Olga's expectations of a warm cultural environment, one where people from different places would be welcomed, were just not being met. Her homestay family did not share her desire for an intimate setting; her initial school furthered this perception by providing more examples of people in the host community that did not seem to care. Olga gave a strong sense of displeasure over the progress she had made in learning English in Vancouver (Olga-5; Olga 12; Olga 18). She relates her experiences at  157  school and in the homestay within a context of desires to improve her English. Olga had praise for the staff and programs at the Y M C A , but showed concerns similar to those expressed by Jack and Betty about other students at school. She was unhappy with having students of differing ages in the classes, as she thought younger students were not as conscientious about their studies, (Olga-6): "I think the younger students are here only because their parents are doing something for them. It is not important to speak English all of the time. And they speak Spanish or whatever, everywhere, and don't understand the language [English] much." Collectively, Olga's reactions to her homestay and earlier school experiences express the type of frustration one would expect to result in a rethinking of her goals and desires for interaction with others. As the negative experiences began to mount, it appears Olga found support by reaching out to other Spanish-speaking students at the Y M C A . This contrasts with her original hopes of living in a multicultural place where she could meet many people from very different backgrounds. Instead, she found friends who spoke her LI and were much closer to her age. She moved in with a Colombian friend from the Y M C A and began living in a Spanish-speaking environment (Olga-12). A transition from her earlier interest in connecting with English speakers, such as members of her homestay family, is seen in Olga's thoughts about her Spanish-speaking friends, whom she describes as a new type of family,  (Olga-20): "You can meet very brilliant best friends. Because you don't have any fears. The person who is your friend, real friend, is the person who becomes your family." Whereas Olga originally spoke of wanting to be a part of a Canadian family and being welcomed into a new cultural community, in an ironic contrast, she now uses the same familial terms when speaking about her Colombian roommate. This characterizes an adaptation from the Exploration Motivation she described when referring to the start of her sojourn, to the one favouring Maintenance Motivation found in her questionnaire responses. Olga describes a process of self-reflection during her stay in Vancouver that provides further evidence of an adaptation of her Initial Contact Motivation. She said her time away from home had helped her to reconsider her own culture. It had allowed her to think about the type of person she wanted to be when she returned home, (Olga-20): "It is a good time to understand, to learn about yourself, to really also learn about your own culture. It is a time when you are alone very often. You can think about many things.. .maybe who you are going to be when you go home." Olga suggests a growing focus on her home culture in these reflections. She raises some interesting ideas about how her experiences will be interpreted after they are over. These are in a perspective reflecting an emphasis on her home culture and language not in the discussion of her early hopes for the time in Vancouver. She was now living in an LI environment, and admitted to not having any friends who weren't Ll-speakers (Olga-13).  159  This contrasts directly with her stated desire of becoming a member of a "Canadian family," but supports her reactions to her homestay experience. As the interview progressed, Olga gave more features suggestive of the establishment of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation. Olga's interview provided a fascinating look at how contact experiences can bring about an adapted pattern of interaction. She showed a perception of how she might perceive the sojourn when it was over. When asked what advice she would offer a friend considering a trip to Vancouver to study English, Olga gave insight into a sense of disappointment. She recommended the person not study in such a large city, saying it would be advisable to choose a smaller community where it would be much harder to come across other Spanish speakers, (Olga-14): "I would say, I think you have to find another place, a small town.. .where they are going to really speak English. You won't have a chance to speak Spanish, because here, they are speaking Spanish.. .on the bus.. .everywhere. You can't leave Spanish." Olga said that her stay in Vancouver had not worked out how she had hoped (Olga-17). She showed regret for not meeting some of her goals during this opportunity to improve language skills, and an awareness that her behaviour may have limited her success. The first step in linking her experiences to an adaptation toward Maintenance Motivation is seen in her altered perception of the need to interact with members of the host community. While she gave evidence of an initial Exploration Motivation, negative impressions from her interaction experiences appear to have led to an adaptation of this  160  pattern. Next, high levels of LI use and LI friendship patterns were seen in her transcript and reported on her questionnaire. Examples of a change from her earlier ideas, to what were now less tolerant attitudes toward cultural diversity were also found in her interview. Olga's low score on the ATCD score (11 percentile) is also exemplified in her th  interview. The transcript includes numerous examples of an ethnocentric perspective. She speaks of having difficulties dealing with culturally different others at the Y M C A . Olga did not like to share the same desk with students from Asian countries, (Olga-11): "other cultures.. .say like Asian people.. .they take a shower at night, not day. They sometimes smell [grimaces] during the day, and maybe you feel a little uneasy if you sit with them in class or something." Like Betty and Jack, Olga was unhappy about the mix of cultures at the Y M C A , in that it made for almost no contact with "Canadians." She said there were too many people at the school who didn't speak English (Olga-19), and this was limiting her chance to improve her pronunciation skills, (Olga-15): "I think it is not a good place to study, because for example, you have to do exercises in class with people who don't do good pronunciation. The people who are learning English [also] are not good." A further suggestion of intolerant, ethnocentric attitudes was given when Olga answered questions about working with students from various countries in class,  161  (Olga-19): "We're different. I don't know what [to] say. Like if we have Chinese or Korean or Japanese something [people in class], they never talk or like do games or our class exercises. Sometimes you get mad. I don't think we should have many...too many in the class. You know? They don't want to learn. If you talk to them.. .they are not saying anything."  *  When asked about what types of activities she was referring to, Olga said that oral exercises and group projects did not work well if there were "Asians" in the group (Olga20). The strongest suggestion of less tolerant attitudes toward cultural diversity came from a lengthy response Olga gave when asked about the differences between her home country and her perception of what she had seen in Canada, (Olga-23): "I don't know.. .but.. .maybe sometimes it's like.. .not good. In.. .ah, Colombia, maybe we are similar. Here.. .everyone is different. Sometimes this is no|7] good thing.  [Researcher asks her to explain what she means] (Olga-24): "Ah well.. .maybe my friends are like me. We do same things. You know what I mean? We eat same food things.. .do a lot of stuff together. For me, in Colombia, I know my friends are same. Maybe sometimes it is good to be same. Here everybody is not same. I don't  162  know why they came? Why not stay in their home place? This is.. .1 think.. .very different here. People in my country like to stay together because we are same. Here, you don't see people together. I think Canadian people are cold.. .they are not nice like Colombian. You don't know who you are.. .everyone is different. It is better if you know who they are.. .but these are Japanese.. .Korean or something...not many Canadians here." Olga was asked if this made it harder to study at the Y M C A , (Olga-22): "For me.. .yes. This is hard. I came to Canada. I think I came to Canada. I wanted to be with Canadian people and make better English.. .1 mean to get better. But it is not good. Everyone is from other places.. .and you can't find Canadian people. Everyone is Chinese or something... I just think I wanted to come to Canada.. .maybe if I wanted to meet more of these people, I can go to their place, but Canada is English place." Olga's transcript suggests a growing level of discomfort with the cultural diversity within the Y M C A and host setting that supports her low score on the Exploration scale (26 percentile) and ATCD scale (11 percentile). She gave evidence th  th  that her reaction had led to a belief that it was better if cultures do not mix as much as they did in this setting (Olga-24). Moreover, this has been related to frustrations in making connections with others in the host community (Olga-22), which suggests she  163  may blame some of her difficulties on this cultural diversity. Within the school, her belief that insufficient contact exists with native English speakers is evident. This is further linked to an idea that Canada was simply not the place she thought it would be (Olga-24). These aspects of her transcript collectively attest to intolerant attitudes toward the cultural diversity she has encountered. Thus, she has linked her experiences to the final aspect of an Enhanced Maintenance Motivation, and provided a fairly exhaustive example of an adapted Contact Motivation pattern from her initial one favouring Exploration to the new position that was expressed in her questionnaire responses.  5.3.3 Enhanced Exploration Motivation A positive attitude toward interacting with members of the host culture and making extensive use of the L2 would be expected by most sojourners at the outset of their stay in a host culture. The experiences of two students in the interview sessions (Ana and Tadashi) exemplify these attitudes, in presenting an initial pattern favouring Exploration Motivation. Questionnaire responses and transcripts from their interviews suggest a pattern of initial Exploration Motivation that develops into an Enhanced Exploration Motivation through a series of positive contact experiences during their sojourns. In contrast, while the final participant in the interview sessions (Mariana) relates what appears to have been an initial pattern favouring Maintenance Motivation, this position is not found in her questionnaire results or interview. In her transcript Mariana provide an example of an initial Maintenance Motivation that appears to be adapted into an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. Discussion of each of these stories equate to the establishment of strong patterns of L2 use and L2-based friendships with  164  generally positive attitudes toward cultural diversity, as described in the model as evidence for an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. The results provide support for the descriptive power of this aspect in the proposed model of intercultural contact. Realistic aspects of students actively engaged in interacting with members of the host culture and target language communities are provided, which serve to add personal examples for this progression in the theoretical model that are also supported in each student's responses on the questionnaire.  Ana Ana's hometown was a small village near Guanajuato, Mexico. She was 25 years old at the time of the interview and had been in Vancouver for six months. Currently enrolled in her third session at the Y M C A , Ana had taken a couple of months off to work at a shoe store in downtown Vancouver, after earlier studying for two months at the College. She had considerable previous experience living in other countries, including time spent in distinct L2 study programs in France and the United States. She was attending a part time conversation class at the Y M C A when she was interviewed. Anna's questionnaire responses attest to a strong Exploration Motivation (93  rd  percentile), a low Maintenance Motivation (10 percentile), and one of the highest th  ATCD scores among students writing the questionnaire (121.00 / 97 percentile). She th  described her LI use as "Sometimes" and L2 use as "Most of the time." Ana showed High L2-based friendship patterns and Moderate LI-friendships. Her answers suggest an Enhanced Exploration Motivation.  165 Ana spent her first two months in Canada in a homestay, but had left the homestay by the time she was interviewed and was sharing an apartment with two native English-speaking friends. She left the homestay to be with people closer to her age, to live closer to the Y M C A , and to save money. Ana felt it was important to make good friends with people who couldn't speak her LI. Living with her Canadian friends, she was enjoying an opportunity to make close relationships with her hosts. Ana was an experienced sojourner. Her transcript details how experience gained in previous sojourns left her wanting to make the most of this opportunity to improve language skills, and also to meet many different people. She hoped to return home with a much stronger speaking ability after making many new friends in Vancouver. There are numerous features of Ana's interview showing a desire to reach out to people outside of her language and cultural groups. Many of these relate to a previous experience in France, during which she had been homesick and had sought fellow Spanish speakers for friendship and support. Upon arriving back to Mexico, Ana had felt a sense of regret at not taking full advantage of the opportunity to develop her French language skills, or to build true friendships with French speakers. On the current trip, Ana was making a conscious effort not to do so again, (Ana-7): "I was very homesick [in France].. .1 now know that I will be home again. That is what I am trying to do now. In my last experience I did not know this. So this time, that is exactly what I am trying to do.. .to say, T know it will be a short time you have to do your best, get away from Spanish speakers'.. .and stuff."  166  Ana brought what appears to be a strong Exploration Motivation into this sojourn. She shows this continued as her stay progressed in deciding to change residences in order to build more L2 friendships. Ana was originally planning to stay in a homestay for all of her time in Vancouver. She spoke highly of the experience, and said she really enjoyed the time spent in a homestay. Yet, Ana said living with two people closer to her age gave many opportunities not found in the homestay. She enjoyed the chance to live with a Canadian family in the homestay, as this not available in her French experience, but had difficulty meeting other young people and did not share many interests with her homestay family, (Ana-26): "The homestay was very good. They didn't speak Spanish. We spoke English very often. But.. .with people like me... younger people.. .we can [do] a lot of other things together." Since she had moved in to the apartment setting, Ana said she had been seeing a lot more of the city, going to movies, and doing many other activities, (Ana-26): "We do a lot of things together. We can have a video, or walk or something. Or, you know.. .go do things with my other Canadian friends. It is great." A concern for creating an L2 environment is shown in Ana's interview. This is evidence both in her discussion of the homestay and in her decision to move in with English-speaking friends. Her initial Exploration Motivation was supported by positive . contact experiences in the homestay and now with these new friends. Moreover, Ana's initial concern for making the most of her time in Canada (by not spending time with  167  Spanish speakers (Ana-5)) seems to have resulted in a series of actions to make L2-based contact more likely. Ana said she was being careful to avoid spending much time with other Spanish speakers at the Y M C A , (Ana-6): "I don't have many friends, but I don't like to know too many Mexican students. I try to avoid them. It sounds odd, but I think it is best. I know Spanish. I didn't come here to learn that. My stay here is short, and if I spend my time.. .like my friend told me,'if you have Mexican friends there isn't any reason to be here.'" Ana explained that not being more involved with Spanish speakers at the Y M C A had caused some friction between herself and the Spanish speaking group, particularly among other Mexican students, whom Ana said probably felt she was an unfriendly person, (Ana-8): "You have to be rude. Maybe some of my Mexican friends say...'maybe she is racist,' or something... 'maybe she doesn't like to be with us.' But, I am mostly thinking of me. It is not them. They are different. Iam here for me, not them." Ana often reflected on her experiences in France and the actions she was taking during the current stay in Vancouver to keep from repeating them. She learned on her previous trip that it would be difficult to make friends in Vancouver, so she planned to do whatever she could to make this easier at first by living in a homestay, then by moving in with her two friends,  168  (Ana-12): "At the beginning is when it is most hard. You have to learn so much before you can make friends.. .about culture and language and just how they do things in that place. I just keep trying.. .it does happen [meeting  people]." Previous sojourn experiences may be important in setting a pattern a sojourner wishes to establish during a current stay, and Ana's transcript exemplifies this. Choices she was making about where to live, with whom to spend time, and which language to speak, appear to have been made on the basis of how much each would further opportunities to speak English. All of these appear to have been made with her previous experience firmly in mind. Ana's interview suggests a reinforcement of a pattern favouring Exploration Motivation through positive experiences in meeting new people at the Y M C A . These suggest a reinforcement of her initial pattern favouring Exploration Motivation. While she said it was hard at first to understand differing accents among students from other countries, this grew into a fascinating aspect of studying in Vancouver, (Ana-10): "We...I think it is good to have people from other places. It is very good to know another culture. Sometimes it is hard to understand the different accents, but that is good, because it is good to know about other cultures and things."  169  Ana shows a similar awareness of differences between her home country of Mexico and the host Canadian environment to that described by other students, but presents a very different attitude to these, (Ana-17): "There are many people here [from many cultures].. .but they seem to come together. I know there are many people who visit.. .maybe like me.. .they stay a long time. I know we don't really know about this in my home country." She went on to describe the opportunity to make friends with people from many parts of the world as one of the best features of the Y M C A , and moreover, an essential reason for her to study an L2, (Ana-22): "You see that is what learning another language is for. I want to have things different or new. If you want everything the same.. .you stay in Mexico." Ana felt many students from her LI did not agree with her. While she loved her country as much as they did, she was aware of "not being there now" (Ana-23). Having students from many places and language backgrounds seems to have been accepted and even appreciated by Ana. She said it was a fascinating part of studying in Vancouver and at the Y M C A (Ana-23). In general, Ana's experiences with people from other cultures appear to be positive. The reactions given in the interview support her high ATCD score in expressing a high tolerance for cultural diversity, as well as an awareness of individual differences within any cultural group,  170 (Ana-18): "You know sometimes we talk too much [about] these things. Imean...cultureisdifferent...surethatis true. But.. .you know people are people. Sometimes you have to forget about this or that.. .or I am from like Korea or something. You just be friends, or do something like school.. .it is the same. Maybe this is Canadian way of things. When somebody comes to the Y M C A they don't know this. I like this. Maybe this is YMCA['s] here's culture..." There is a developing awareness of differing cultural perspectives in Ana's interview that supports the positive attitudes toward cultural diversity in her questionnaire results, and completes the connection of Ana's transcript to an Enhanced Exploration Motivation as described in the model. The next interviewee to be discussed, Tadashi, also reflects a pattern of an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. He shows a fascination with differing perspectives on immigration, working within a culturally diverse setting, and discrepancies in the roles newcomers play in his native country of Japan and the host Canada.  Tadashi Tadashi was a 24-year-old student from the largest city in Niigata prefecture in central Japan. He had studied English extensively in Japan, both in public schools, and at a variety of extra-curricular language schools. In Vancouver for seven months at the time of the interview, Tadashi was taking a TOEFL preparation course at the Y M C A . He had  171  already taken four other courses, including business English and conversation classes. Tadashi was having a very enjoyable experience in a homestay. He had no plans to stay anywhere else while in Vancouver. Tadashi was extremely interested in discussing his experiences with learning English, both at the Y M C A and outside of school. Intrigued by differences he found between Japan and Canada, he wanted to delve deeper into how these played out in everyday life in this new setting. Tadashi demonstrated not only an understanding of his own frame of reference as a sojourner, but also a more international perspective that considers issues not addressed by other interviewees. Tadashi's questionnaire showed an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. He reported L2 use as "Most of the time," had High L2 friendship levels, a relatively high Exploration score (74 percentile), and a high th  A T C D score (114.00 / 90 percentile). Reflecting this motivation, he reported moderate th  LI use and friendship patterns. Tadashi originally came to Canada to improve his listening and conversational skills in order to raise his TOEFL score when he returned to Japan. He felt it necessary to spend at least a year in Canada or the United States if he was going to make the improvement desired in English (Tadashi-1). Tadashi expected studying at the Y M C A to be quite different from Japan, but was still surprised to be working with so many people from different countries and language backgrounds (Tadashi-2). This was something he hoped for before coming, and was now enjoying, (Tadashi-2): "There are people here from many places... it is very interesting for me. In Japan, maybe you know, we don't get that. It's not like that.. .for me [in Japan]. I like  172  the way it is in Canada. In my class.. .people speak Spanish, Korean, Chinese... and English." Tadashi described a focus on improving his speaking and listening skills in English before coming to Canada. The particular interest in interacting with many native English speakers this would suggest was found both in his questionnaire responses and interview transcript. Tadashi was pleased with his homestay family, not only because they lacked Japanese and therefore had to use English in all situations with him, but also because he felt they were kind people who truly cared how much he learned (Tadashi-3). The eldest son in his homestay family was just a few years younger than Tadashi. The two had become good friends. Tadashi said he was going out to do many things with his new friend, (Tadashi-4): "In my case, in my house, in the homestay, [I have] a good family. Now I have very [good] friends.. .who only speak English. I have to speak with them in English. That is what Canada is like. A Japanese guy who speaks English.. .and.. .1 sometimes teach them some Japanese [/]." Tadashi's transcript suggests his Initial Contact Motivation favoured exploration of the new culture he was living in. The contact experiences he relates show positive reactions and a sense he was realizing the goals behind his decision to come to Canada. He was indeed getting regular practice with speaking and listening to English. Moreover, he was getting the chance to live in an apparently supportive and welcoming environment.  173  In rurther evidence of a focus on Exploration Motivation, Tadashi showed little concern for having opportunities to speak his LI. In fact, he expressed surprise at finding elements of his CI, such as fine Japanese cuisine, in Vancouver, (Tadashi-5): "I was very surprised when I came here, there is very good Japanese food in Vancouver. The rice, sorry to say, is not so good.. .not like in Japan.. .not Niigata, but others Japanese food is good. I think people here really  ..........  like this food [Japanese cuisine]." Tadashi gives many examples of positive contact experiences in his interview. He found a supportive environment in his homestay. His comments about people in Vancouver liking Japanese food carried a sense of being welcomed by the host community in a broader level. He also expressed motivation to explore the host culture in his friendship with his homestay "brother"(Tadashi-4). Following the model of intercultural contact, Tadashi's interview contains evidence of a process whereby this initial Exploration Motivation is reinforced. He relates a number of positive contact experiences that reflect his questionnaire results. These appear to have further strengthened his pattern of interaction into an Enhanced Exploration Motivation during his time in Vancouver. Tadashi was very satisfied with learning at the Y M C A , a place he described as providing numerous good experiences and opportunities for learning, (Tadashi-6): "The teachers are very good. We did a lot of things for getting better on TOEFL in Japan. But.. .this is not the same here. I always had trouble with listening  174  things, but now my teacher at the Y M C A has really helped me. I think I will be improved next time. She is very nice... a good teacher." Tadashi details the high L2-use and friendship patterns reported on the questionnaire in speaking glowingly about friends at school and home during his interview (Tadashi-4; 7). The next step to connecting his experiences to an Enhanced Exploration Motivation is to examine the attitudes he shows toward cultural diversity. Tadashi appears to have reacted well to studying within a more diverse student group than he was accustomed to; one that includes differing ages, language backgrounds, and interests. This reflects his answers on the questionnaire, where he had a high ATCD score (90 percentile). In contrast to other interview participants, th  particularly Betty, Jack, and Olga, he shows a higher level of understanding and acceptance of this range of differences when discussing his class at the Y M C A , (Tadashi-8): "Sometimes we talk too much, I think. It is hard to say this, but some days everybody is talking and talking and talking.. .the teacher doesn't say anything. This is different for me. Usually, for me.. .the teacher speaks and I listen. It is new and I like to see this new idea... .with everybody else talking so much. I like to go to school with these people [from different countries]."  [The Researcher asks about whether students have different approaches to their work] (Tadashi-9): "Ah.. .maybe some young guys.. .some people are here only for fun. I want to practice to English, but  175  some other people...well...they do not. But that is OK. Everybody pays... right? You do what you want. If they don't talk English, I don't understand them [laughs]." While the same differences in the school setting seem to be sources of frustration for some other sojourners, Tadashi accepts them, and even considers them thought provoking. He suggests they are part of the difference between Vancouver and his home in Niigata that are helping to make his stay more interesting.. He responds to a question about living in a very culturally diverse setting by citing this diversity as one of the reasons he chose to study in Vancouver, (Tadashi-10): "That is maybe the second reason to come here. Japan needs more new people to come. Herein Canada.. .maybe in Vancouver only? I do not know. There are many interesting people. We do not know if you are from here of where.. .nobody knows. In Japan, everybody knows if you are not from Japan. In Vancouver, I like.. .that is different." Rather than pulling away from the cultural diversity he finds, Tadashi sees himself as part of it. His reaction suggests a growing interest in how this environment differs from that of his home. Tadashi's comments about use of his LI in Vancouver reflect this. Tadashi said during the interview he felt using his LI on occasion was only natural, and further provided him with a chance to learn more about Canada, (Tadashi-14): "It is a strange thing to speak English to a Japanese friend. Maybe teachers do that.. .but I don't think  176  other people do that! [said with strong emphasis]. Probably most people speak their own language. When Japanese guys meet.. .we speak Japanese. You need that sometime." Tadashi did not dwell on whether use of his LI would be a distraction to his goals of improving his English. Instead, he saw it as a chance to share experiences with friends from home, and part of living in a culturally diverse society, (Tadashi-14-cont.): "Everybody at the Y M C A speaks their language.. .and this is nice to hear. We are learning English, but we are also learning about Canada. Maybe if you go into the street in Vancouver, you will hear Japanese.. .Korean.. .Chinese.. .French.. .also. Too much at school? I don't know if this is a big thing. It is problem for some people? Yes." A suggestion is given in Tadashi's transcript of a growing awareness and appreciation for the nature of a multicultural society. He appears to take comfort from working within a culturally diverse environment, perhaps because it makes it easier for a newcomer like himself to fit in, looking like "a local" (Tadashi-15). He responds to a question about the differences for visitors to Japan and Canada, (Tadashi-4): "Well...I mean that you have to change more . there [in Japan]. Like, the way you do things in Canada, is not very different from Japan, or Korea.. .just everybody does things their own way.. .a little. A little Korean way is OK. A little different way if you want to... is no problem  177  here. In Japan, we have kind of one way. Here.. .you find if you have a lot of people that you know before, their lifestyle is similar to yours.. .you can live together. You can find that." Tadashi continued the theme of cultural differences between his home and host settings in clarifying the role he saw for an LI in the host environment. He showed a fascination with cultural aspects of his adaptation to living in Canada, which was exemplified by his perceptions of interactions with Japanese-Canadian friends he made. Rather than seeing these interactions as a chance to talk about "home," Tadashi appeared to use them to learn more about his host setting. He seemed to be seeking a deeper understanding of what it meant to be a Japanese person in this altered cultural context, (Tadashi-10): "I have a friend, Toshi, he is from Vancouver. He speaks very good Japanese, but he is Canadian. I think he is Japanese...but he is Canadian. He is kind of both! That is very interesting to me. In Japan.. .we never have that. What is he.. .1 say. He says.. .he is Toshi. That is funny to me [laughs]" Even the connections Tadashi has made in the host environment which involve the use of LI, such as his friendship with Toshi, appear to be used to develop an understanding of the different society he was living in. While recognizing cultural components of both his home and host society, Tadashi seems to be taking the learning , process further to consider how these relate to his own process of discovery,  (Tadashi-11): "Oh.. .there are many differences [between Japan and Canada]. Maybe, this is the most interesting one. I like to learn from other countries and other county's people. We don't know enough in Japan.. .that is maybe our big problem. Like speaking English, we study very hard in Japan.. .from very young.. .but nobody speaks OK! You say.. .something about dogs and tricks.. .what is that?  [The researcher explains the idiom -'you can't teach an old dog a new trick"] Yes that's it.. .so, that is like me. I am that old dog. But, I think you see we old dogs.. .we can do some new trick[.s]. I am learning these things." Tadashi seems to have synthesized differences in perspectives he has perceived during his experiences in Canada into his own working model of a cultural system, (Tadashi-13): "Canada, like any country, has...[to] way of doing these. In Japan, we are not a place for people to go and to live. That means, people can stay in Japan, but to not become Japanese. In Canada, we were talking [in his YMCA class] that people can do this.. .be Canadian. One day that is for me? [laughs] It is good when a country can do this. We were talking about Canada has two languages... like French. If you have two languages... or .. .more, you must know more about each other.. .more study and learn about the world...."  179  There is a heightened sense of cultural awareness evident in Tadashi's interview that supports the Enhanced pattern of Exploration Motivation expressed in his questionnaire responses. Even when he spends time in an LI setting, he remains focused on strengthening his understanding of what it means to live in this L2 environment, this altered cultural reality. Given the opportunity to speak his LI, Tadashi remains in the mindset of a culture learner, by asking questions and seeking deeper answers to how this new environment works, and what it means to be a Japanese background person in Canadian society. The friendships he maintains are predominantly within the L2, or otherwise appear to reflect a concern to continue a process of discovery of the L2 and C2. All of these features in his transcript support an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. Finally, Tadashi has shown more than an acceptance of cultural diversity, he appears to be fascinated by it. Tadashi has an interest in exploring the cultural difference he can see around him, and an appreciation for how some aspects of this new cultural environment reflect a society that is markedly different from his own. Even when he is with people who share aspects of his background, such as his LI, he continues to search for a deeper understanding of the host society. Tadashi's experiences in his homestay, the educational setting of the Y M C A , and the larger host community all appear to have been essentially positive and have apparently reinforced his initial desire to explore the host environment into an Enhanced Exploration Motivation.  180  5.3.4 Adapted Exploration Motivation The final component of the proposed model of intercultural contact to be discussed relates to an adaptation of an Initial Contact Motivation from Maintenance to one favouring Exploration. The model suggests students with a relatively weak desire to make connections in the L2 and C2 community may adapt this position, should they find these are contradicted by positive contact experiences. One participant in the interview sessions, Mariana, appears to present an example of just such a pattern. She gave evidence for an Enhanced Exploration Motivation in her questionnaire, but shows how this initial pattern may have been adapted as a result of positive contact experiences during the interview.  Mariana Mariana was a 23-year-old student from the Mexican province of Chihuahua. She had been in Canada for eight months at the time of the interview, after coming in May of 1999. Mariana was the second student in the interview group that had undertaken a previous sojourn to France. She spent three weeks on a language exchange in Paris. Mariana was enrolled in her fourth consecutive month-long, part-time session in business English at the Y M C A . Mariana reported all of the features of an Enhanced Exploration Motivation on the questionnaire. She expressed a stronger preference for L2 use ("Most of the time") and L2 friendship (High), in comparison to LI use ("Sometimes") and Low LI friendship patterns. Mariana gave clear evidence of favouring Exploration Motivation with a top score of (38.00) on the Exploration scale (100 percentile), in comparison to a very low th  181  Maintenance score of only (16.00; in the 5 percentile). Her A T C D score further th  suggested positive attitudes toward diversity (115.00; 91 percentile). st  In contrast to her questionnaire results, Mariana said she was not particularly interested in meeting English speakers when she first came to Vancouver (Mariana-1). She said her attention was focused on going to school and learning what she could while at school. Mariana was surprised to find as many Spanish speakers as she did at the Y M C A , but initially felt this was a pleasant feature, (Mariana-3): "There were a lot of people {fellow Spanish speakers)... I guess we were happy here.. .because there are many friends and many from my country. I guess, because of this I was happy to be in Canada. The most difficult thing was the Canadian culture.. .getting friends with them. I am.. .urn, I think Mexican people are more friendly than Canadian. Canadian people were cold to me.. .1 saw that. I tried to meet them.. .we are more friendly.. .my friends  [thought]." A suggestion of an Initial Contact Motivation favouring Maintenance can also be seen in Mariana's reaction to living with a fellow Spanish speaker. After a few weeks in a homestay setting, Mariana decided to move in with a Spanish-speaking friend she met at the Y M C A . For the first month or so, Mariana says she did not think about the fact that she was speaking Spanish all of the time with her new roommate, (Mariana-4): "She had a high level of English, but we were lazy.. .she spoke to me with Spanish. You don't think  182  about English with another Mexican or Colombian or something [Spanish speaker].". .  .  When Mariana was asked about her motivation for studying English in Vancouver, she said it was not really connected to meeting other people or practicing her conversation skills. Rather, she wanted to improve her English grammar and writing to help raise her test scores on government exams back home, (Mariana-1): "Well, when Ifinishschool...there will be an exam in English. All the English I know is from the school, primary and secondary. I brought many magazines and books and I use these to get better. I didn't really think about learning English with people. Maybe I like to do things by me.. .1 mean.. .you say, by yourself?" Mariana said all of her friends during herfirstfew months were Spanish speakers, and that she did not think this was a problem at the time (Mariana-4). However, this appears to have started to change near the mid-point of her sojourn in what reflects a process of adaptation of her initial Maintenance Motivation toward the one favouring Exploration provided in her questionnaire responses. About three months into her eight months in Vancouver, Mariana said she began, to think about what her English would be like upon returning home to Mexico. Mariana felt that she was not making enough progress at that time, (Mariana-7): "I think thefirstor second week, everything is new, and you start to learn a lot. After three months you are going down, and it changes. Your English is going the  183  same way, you are learning a lot, and then after that you are . not seeing that you are learning. And you feel the session is almost finished, and you start to think, oh my god.. .the time is gone.. .almost done. You go.. .wow.. .1 better to learn more English.. .and do more work." Mariana decided to look for a new roommate. She answered an add posted on the bulletin board at the Y M C A and moved in with a German-speaking student from school, whom she had not previously met (Mariana-7). The shift in residence appears to have symbolized a change in the way Mariana approached her stay in Vancouver. The recognition that she might feel her time in Canada was wasted appeared to have an impact on her behaviour, (Mariana-4): "In that other place, I didn't care. I was new.. .a new place.. .it was nice to have Spanish friend. For me to my English.. ..I thought I should change this. She was not [a] nice person, but I was thinking about trying to meet new people too. Now, I like [living] with a friend who can't speak Spanish, so I have to speak English at home." When the topic of conversation switched from the early part of her stay to her experiences at the time of the interview, Mariana related quite a different attitude toward her language use in both LI and L2. Her opinion had changed about the impact spending a great deal of time with Spanish-speakers might have on her improvement in English,  184  (Mariana-6): "I know people from Mexico at this school, but now, I usually only meet them at lunch time. We speak English most of the time.. .but all of the other people I know don't speak Spanish. It is good, because I live in Vancouver.. .so I need my English." Mariana had come to believe the language pattern she created during her stay would probably have a lot to do with how much English she would learn,  • • -  (Mariana-4): "It is most difficult if you want to speak in English, and someone speaks Spanish. It doesn't work well. Of course, you have to speak in English if you are speaking to a Japanese or what [ever].. .that is better and easier. So.. .my friends are different people now [not Spanish speakers] because I work on my English a lot." In further evidence of a shifting pattern of Contact Motivation, Mariana relates different views toward the cultural diversity at the Y M C A , from when she first arrived to those felt when she was interviewed. Her questionnaire showed very positive attitudes toward cultural diversity (91 percentile), yet Mariana says her initial reactions to the st  cultural diversity she found in Canada was one of shock, (Mariana-12): "Well.. .1 didn't know that here, I would find a lot of people from countries. A lot of Japanese people and Korean people. It was not a Canadian for me. I mean it is a place where you can find different people, different  185  countries'...but that is not from here... for my idea of Canada." Working with many people from different languages and cultures at the Y M C A had progressed from something she apparently did not consider, to a pleasurable experience for Mariana. Her earlier image of what a Canadian would be (reflecting that held by Jack) did not include Asian background people. However, her perception of this appeared to change during the sojourn, to the point where cultural diversity had proven to be an interesting, rather than problematic part of the new cultural environment. While she admits that she was initially shocked atfindingmany Asian background students at the Y M C A and in Vancouver, Mariana answered definitively that she had become much more comfortable with this feature of the city and school, (Mariana-13): "OH.. .no.. .1 like now. That I like! [smiles] Um.. .for example, when Ifirstcame here, my goal was only to learn English. But now, I am learning about new cultures, new lives. Ah.. .to me it is amazing, the Japanese people, I have never seen them before. They are very kind.. .no I don't have any problems with new people, it is joyful." .. Mariana shows a positive impression of the cultural diversity she found at the Y M C A . Although she was somewhat shocked initially to find that Canadians were a more diverse group than she had expected, she seems to have settled into this new environment and altered her original ideas to reflect the reality she witnessed. She felt this cultural diversity made for a community that welcomed newcomers,  (Mariana-2): "Yes, there are a lot of people who speak in other languages, the Japanese or Korean guys. But, I think here in Vancouver, I think if you have to go to some place, Vancouver is a good place. Here you can find all, and you won't feel so strange or alone. In many places the people are more harsh with you.. .you have to make more changes . in how you do things than here." Mariana discusses her experiences with an awareness of two different perspectives she has held. In her questionnaire responses, she showed an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. In the interview transcript, she relates how this came out of her experiences interacting with others in the host setting. This shed lights on an apparently quite different set of goals and attitudes held when Marianafirstarrived. The interview details how and why this process took place. Many features of her transcript support an initial Maintenance Motivation that was simply not evident in her questionnaire responses. As her interview progresses, her responses on the questionnaire are given a context and linked to her earlier perceptions. Her story supports the model's depiction of a change in motivation toward interaction in the host setting as a result of positive contact experiences. Mariana adds a new feature to the discussion in conveying how an imagined postsojourn assessment can add perspective to a current experience, and may affect current attitudes and behaviours. Such a process of self-assessment seemed to be an important factor in Mariana's adaptation during her stay. It appears to have driven the changes in LI use and friendship patterns in the host setting that provided evidence of adaptations to  187  her Initial Contact Motivation. The suggestion offered of how changes in sojourner attitudes toward interaction can result from a process of self-reflection raises an intriguing area for future research. Mariana's motivation for contact seemed to change because of processes within her own perception that were supported by her contact experiences, and that resulted in altered contact patterns. When put together, these appear to have led to the pattern found in her questionnaire responses of an Enhanced Exploration Motivation. This feature of her interview is used in enhancing the proposed model of intercultural contact, to be discussed in the forthcoming chapter. .  188  CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION  6.0 Chapter Overview This chapter concludes the current study of intercultural contact in an international SLA setting. The major points made during the course of the study will be • summarized. Questions related to the findings will be discussed, with implications considered for their use in other educational settings. Recommendations for future research, limitations of the study, and areas where altering interpretations of the findings may arise will also be addressed.  6.1 Summary of the Study The study used a triangulated approach to examine patterns of self-reported language use, friendship, motivation for interaction in the host setting, and attitudes toward cultural diversity among sojourner SLA students. Multivariate analyses of variance were used as initial steps in assessing whether questionnaire data supported the patterns depicted in a model of intercultural contact proposed in the study. Regression analyses further evaluated the model by suggesting how well key variables in its design predicted student attitude toward cultural diversity scores. Finally, personal experiences of a group of students given during interview sessions were related to the empirical assessment of the model. The findings of the qualitative component of the research design exemplified features in the model, but also raised a number of questions in areas .  where it could be refined. The multifaceted approach appears to have resulted in a comprehensive study that offers an overall assessment of the proposed model. A summary of the study will consider quantitative and then qualitative aspects of its findings. Limitations of these analyses will be discussed. An enhanced version of the model of intercultural contact, resulting from the findings of the study, will then be given. This is followed by implications of the research findings for both educational practice and future research efforts, and some concluding remarks to end the study.. •- • .  6.1.1 Quantitative Analysis Collectively, the findings of the study both provide a validation of the basic structures and progression outlined in the model of intercultural contact put forth, and point to areas to enhance it. Results from the analyses of variance supported the general trend suggested in the proposed model, whereby increased frequency of LI and L2 use was linked to stronger friendship patterns in each language. Significant relationships were found in the M A N O V A results between reported frequency of LI use and LI friendship levels, as well as between frequency of L2 use and L2-based friendships. The results provide empirical evidence of how a concern for maintaining contact with home cultural group members in a sojourn setting relates to frequency of LI use and the level of intimacy of LI-based friendships. In a similar manner, the link in the findings between L2 use and L2 friendships empirically connects engagement with others in the host setting with use of the L2. Students who used their LI more frequently were found to maintain significantly higher levels of LI friendships, and fewer L2 friendships, than  190  those with less frequent use, and were therefore seen to be limiting their opportunities for acquiring an L2 and C2 through interaction in the host setting. Following an approach originally used by Berry (See: Berry et. al., 1989), acculturation attitudes held by students (termed here Contact Motivations) were considered within the spheres of those toward interacting with home and host cultural groups. Attitudes toward maintaining relations with members of a student's own cultural group were found to relate to the frequency of LI use, and the level of Ll-based friendships maintained. Likewise, attitudes toward interacting with members of host cultural groups were found to relate to the frequency of L2 use and the level of L2-based friendships students maintained. These patterns were then extended to attitudes students gave toward interacting with culturally different others in a broader sense. The findings offer empirical support for the heretofore commonly held assumption of acculturation, that sojourners with a wide tolerance for cultural diversity are likely to explore more in a host culture, than those with less tolerant attitudes. The study had a measure of success in adapting research tools from other areas for use in a multicultural sojourn SLA setting. As discussed above, two aspects of Berry's conceptual framework for acculturation attitudes were used to evaluate attitudes toward home and host groups within a student's Contact Motivation. Berry's model appears to have applied well to student attitudes in a sojourn SLA setting, where a variety of interaction opportunities are present featuring both home and host societal groups. The current study also combined perspectives from sojourner research with others from multicultural education. Student attitudes toward cultural diversity were measured with a scale adapted for the context of a sojourn program from multicultural research. The  191  instrument was found to be a valid and reliable tool for assessing student attitudes toward culturally different others in a sojourn setting. One suggestion emerging from the study is that sojourner research can be extended beyond a traditional concern on home and host groups with this methodology, to offer a deeper understanding of how sojourn SLA experiences impact on attitudes toward members of different cultures in a more general sense. The findings suggest instruments from multicultural education can be used to evaluate attitudes toward cultural diversity among prospective sojourners before departure, as a means of selecting program participants, or to enhance pre-program orientation efforts. Evaluation of the proposed model was continued with regression analyses. These results clarified the impact of a number of key variables on student attitudes toward cultural diversity, and brought the impact of unobserved variables into the discussion. Contact Motivation levels were found to account for a somewhat modest amount of the variance of student scores on the ATCD scale (slightly over 26%). This suggests that attitudes toward interacting with home and host cultural groups, the variables used to assess Contact Motivation in this study, belong in a model of intercultural contact in a sojourn setting. However, there are additional variables that need to be added to the model. The current study appears to have taken a step toward developing a working model for connecting student attitudes toward interaction with home and host cultural groups with those held toward living and working with people of differing cultures during an SLA sojourn.  192  6.1.2 Qualitative Analysis Findings from the qualitative aspect of the study supported the quantitative findings and laid out areas where further research needs to be carried out. The interview participants gave expressions reflecting the quantitative data in general, and their own responses on the questionnaire in particular. For example, students described robust LI use and Ll-based friendship networks at work within the educational environment, the  '  host city, and many student residential settings. This was evident in the questionnaire data as well. Some participants saw this as a drawback in their efforts to learn the L2, while others felt it was an active support structure making their stay easier. In the case of Tadashi's interview, this was perceived as an opportunity to learn more about the host culture and language from others with more knowledge of both. The transcripts showed some students were undergoing remarkable personal growth through their experiences interacting with people of differing cultures in the host setting. A context for the questionnaire data was provided by the interviews that gave life to the student experiences. Students gave glimpses into how their attitudes were changing during the sojourn. As with other parts of the research design, adaptations to student Contact Motivation in the model were supported in the stories told, but new ingredients were also raised that need to be added to this facet of the model. An important finding in the qualitative analysis is the individual nature of each sojourn experience. While student experiences reflect many aspects of the proposed model of intercultural contact, personal journeys were also shown that do not fit precisely into the model. Students presented living and working within a culturally diverse host setting with a depth and individuality in the interviews not possible through quantitative  193  data alone. Both positive and negative interaction experiences were described in detail, giving light to student reactions to these experiences and insight into each student's everyday pattern of language use and friendship. Students also explained reasons for the attitudes evident in their questionnaire responses in discussing interaction experiences with home and host cultural groups in a way that supported the paths laid out in the model. The qualitative findings suggest students perceived working in a culturally diverse school environment as a challenge and an opportunity. Interestingly, cultural difference in the host setting was generally defined within interactions at school. This appeared to be the setting where students encountered the most frequent need to interact with culturally different others. Experiences in homestays, with L2-based friendships, and in other interactions in the host setting generally reflected what was occurring in the school setting, as students were comfortable to a similar extent with cultural diversity in their classrooms as in the host setting in general. A clear educational implication of this 'hothouse' form of acculturation arises. Learners may need to be given as many tools as possible to help their adaptation into a culturally-diverse educational environment, as this appears to be a key indicator of how well they will be able to cope with acculturating beyond this setting. Most student L2 interactions appear to be within the school setting, despite the fact they were living in an L2 community. Thus, the model's emphasis on LI or L2-based interactions appears to be appropriately placed. Students reacted to interactions with fellow sojourners from different cultural backgrounds in ways that reflected their experiences beyond the educational setting. These sojourners showed fewer opportunities to interact with L2 native speakers than expected. The consideration  194  of how these interactions relate to each of the two Contact Motivation spheres in the model is supported in the findings. The qualitative analysis suggested two areas for improving the model of intercultural contact. First, student pre-sojourn experiences appear to have had a greater impact on student attitudes than the model assumes. These experiences have been shown to be important in setting an Initial Contact Motivation, as suggested in the model. However, they also appear to impact on Contact Motivation on an ongoing basis. Three students describe a process of reflection during their interviews that was happening in the sojourn. They were comparing their pre-sojourn expectations with what was actually happening. Students imagined how they might perceive the current experience after it was over, and were using this to evaluate whether goals set for the sojourn were being met. While adaptations to Contact Motivations are included in the model, these results suggest the model can be improved by adding student impression of their own performance during a sojourn. A refined version of the model of intercultural contact, including the above suggestions, is presented later in this chapter.  6.2 Limitations of the Study Before discussion of what the current study offers for educational practice and areas for future research, it would be useful to raise some limitations of the study. Limitations will be grouped into sections pertaining to quantitative and then qualitative analyses. Suggestion for bolstering the model of intercultural contact will be made at the end of each section.  195  6.2.1 Limitations of the Quantitative Analysis . Sojourn researchers are faced with the issue of whether to use cross-sectional or longitudinal data collection techniques. Each approach has its strengths and limitations. The current study gathered cross-sectional data in order to assess students at one moment in their sojourn experience. Collectively, this meant a sample that included students from early and later parts of their experience. When sojourners drop out of programs, they are lost to the analysis of a longitudinal design, leaving the researcher to deal with a sample weighted in favour of successful sojourners. As the experiences of the dropout sojourners may offer a great deal of insight into the difficulties sojourners face during a stay in a host environment, it was hoped the use of a cross-sectional design in the current study would include these stories in the analyses. The cross-sectional design of the study did not allow, however, for inclusion of student experiences from earlier or later parts of their stay. This was offset to some degree by the interview data, which gave students the opportunity to express impressions of earlier parts of their stay, as well as to talk about their hopes for the remainder of the sojourn. The study would, however, have been improved with the inclusion of these types of impressions in the questionnaire data as well. In future research efforts, it would be helpful to add this component to a cross-sectional sojourner questionnaire, by including items that allow students to express their thoughts about earlier and later parts of a sojourn. Figure 6.1 offers an example of how this might be achieved.  196  1. In an average day, how  often do you speak English?  (Please choose: Never - Sometimes — Quite a bit — Always) a) (Before) When youfirstarrived? b) (Before) After vou had been here for a while? c) Now?  d) (Later)  For the rest of your stay  Figure 6.1 Questionnaire Example - reflection in a cross-sectional design  The solution offered in Figure 6.1 does not completely address the time component available with longitudinal designs, but it does offer a glimpse into student perceptions and how they relate to earlier or later portions of a sojourn experience. The second limitation of the quantitative program originates in the nature of analysis of variance. Differences in mean scores used within A N O V A and M A N O V A suggest relationships in establishing areas of significant difference between groups or variables being compared. They do not, however, evaluate variables that are not measured. The regression analysis in the current study added some discussion of the impact of unmeasured variables on the constructs under consideration. Yet, two methods for improving the quantitative design of the study do emerge. First, it would have been beneficial to carry out a more rigorous program to refine the questionnaire between pilot test administrations. For example, the variable used to measure previous intercultural experience (EXPERIENCE) would have been more useful to the analysis if it had been better defined before final administration of the  197  questionnaire. This would also have allowed for greater clarification of the key components of the design for use as predictor variables in the regression analyses. The rationale for using analyses of variance was to compare links drawn in the model with those found in the data. However, this brought on multicollinearity problems between language use, friendship patterns, and Contact Motivations in the regression analysis that were evident in the results of preliminary factor analyses. Language use and friendship patterns could not be used as predictor variables in the regression as they were insufficiently independent from Contact Motivation scores. This may have been an important factor in a modest percentage of variance being accounted for in the regression analyses. The independent variables defined for these aspects of the research design therefore needed to be refined further to allow for greater explanation of variance in scores of attitudes toward cultural diversity. Principle component factor analysis was used in the initial stages of the regression analyses, to select predictor variables. However, further effort was needed in the creation of the instruments to assure a greater variety of discrete variables were available for the analyses. A more rigorous factor analysis procedure during pilot test administrations would have produced strengthened definitions of these variables. Finally, it may be a more powerful methodology to conduct the analysis of interview transcripts before the quantitative analysis, rather than concurrently. This would allow the interview data to suggest areas where the instruments can be refined, and to point to new items that could be included. An example of how this would have enhanced the current study was offered above, in Figure 6.1 with students giving responses on their language use at different periods in their stay. This could enhance the  198  process described for adaptations to Contact Motivation. The impression-based items presented above in Figure 6.1 would have allowed students to present further evidence of adaptations to their Contact Motivation. In the current study, this was addressed in the interview transcripts; however, adding this to the questionnaire data could have provided a stronger characterization of reinforcement or adaptation of Contact Motivation patterns. The final limitation of the quantitative analysis concerns the relative simplicity of the research hypotheses it contained. To evaluate the connections drawn in the model it was necessary to ask hypotheses that may appear to be self-evident. For example, it follows that if a student speaks their LI more often, they would be likely to have higher levels of Ll-based friendships (Ll-USE to Ll-FR). Likewise, students with more positive attitudes toward culturally diversity in general would be expected to have a greater interest in furthering their intercultural connections within a particular host setting (ATCD to EXPLORE). Some observers may even suggest these are tautological certainties. However, three issues need to be raised in reiterating the context of the current study, and to therefore restate the purpose for asking what may appear to be simplistic hypotheses. First, the current study sought to evaluate commonly held assumptions in sojourner research that simply did not have substantial empirical research behind them. Links between language use and friendship patterns are a good example. While language use and friendship patterns should be related in a meaningful way, there is very little previous research to support this assumption, particularly in an international SLA sojourn situation. The four research hypotheses addressing these relationships in the current study afforded an empirical evaluation of just how strong the links are. Moreover, raising  199  these questions afforded a less straightforward connection of the interaction between LI and L2 use with friendship patterns in each language, which had not been clearly detailed in previous sojourner research. Secondly, in order to establish the links in the proposed model, it was necessary to consider research questions that appear simplistic outside of this context. This is especially true in the connections drawn between language use and friendship patterns. Despite the best intentions of language learners, opportunities abound in a sojourn setting for use of either the LI or L2, which make it quite possible for a continuum of language use to exist in this setting, from virtually complete use of the LI, to a very high level of L2 use. To address whether students were maintaining friendship patterns in the LI and L2 to a similar degree to the frequency they report for using each language, two hypotheses were evaluated that may seem be overly simplistic questions. If a student's reported frequency of language use did not reflect the friendship patterns they reported to be maintaining in a given language, a strong challenge would be raised to both the methodology used and the design of the model. Finally, while some of the questions taken in isolation appear to be simplistic, the overall suggestion they have produced is inclusive to a degree not often carried out in sojourner research. Sojourner research is typically focused on SLA and use, or psychological features of adaptation, but rarely embodies both approaches, as this study has attempted. The current study also sought to extend the field by including consideration of how SLA and acculturation are facilitated by, and relate to development of more tolerant attitudes toward cultural diversity. In so doing, it was necessary to link the separate spheres of previous research in a systematic way: language use to friendship  200  patterns, Contact Motivation to language use and friendship patterns, and then each of these related facets to student attitudes toward cultural diversity.  6.2.2 Limitations in the Qualitative Analysis There are two areas to be addressed in the limitations of the qualitative analysis: the researcher's role and impact on the findings, and the design of the interview protocol. As outlined in the qualitative methodology section of Chapter Three, the researcher was a member of the target language and cultural community. .The researcher's role in the findings from the interview sessions is a possible limitation to the generalizability of the qualitative results of the study. Students might not have felt comfortable giving negative attitudes toward using the L2 or interacting within a C2 context because of the presence of a member of these communities. Students may have given more favourable impressions of interaction experiences within the L2 and C2 than they actually held, in order to appear in a positive light to the researcher. It does not appear that either of these two tendencies was evident in responses from Betty or Olga. Neither appeared concerned with this, as they related intolerant attitudes toward people likely to be seen to be among the researcher's cultural community (those for whom the L2 is the medium of communication). Three other participants (Tadashi, Ana, and Mariana) gave quite positive impressions that also may have been affected to some extent by the researcher's background. However, the positive comments made by the three students are both descriptive and lengthy, which suggests they were honestly felt impressions, and not simply opinions expressed to put the participants in a socially appropriate light.  201  Jack is one student who may have modified his views because of the researcher's cultural background. Jack expressed more forceful impressions against students from East Asian backgrounds during his interview than one would expect, given his moderately positive score on the ATCD scale on the questionnaire (61 percentile), st  which suggests relatively tolerant attitudes toward cultural diversity. During his interview, Jack gave a number of responses in evidence of a growing level of discomfort working with culturally different others at school, in particular students from East Asian backgrounds (Jack-14, 19, 20). Jack may have felt the researcher's background afforded him a cultural proximity, which made comments against people from East Asian backgrounds somewhat more appropriate. It is possible that Jack perceived the researcher to be from a more similar cultural background to himself, as a fellow Caucasian appearing to be of European descent, than the Asian background students of whom he spoke. He commented that the Asian immigrants he saw on the streets in Vancouver were not really "Canadians" (Jack-19, 20). A number of studies have found interview participants may alter their responses on socially sensitive issues in accordance with the background of a researcher (Ady, 1995; Culhane, 1995; McGregor, 1993). In future studies, it would be helpful to employ a contrast of student responses given during interviews with researchers from disparate cultural, gender, and other possible backgrounds to delve into the impact these have on the interviews. A variety of techniques can be used to extend the generalizability of qualitative findings with these types of enhancements. One way would be to use multiple interviews featuring different interviewers from distinct cultural backgrounds. This would allow for a contrast of the different transcripts. In a SLA sojourn setting, it would be particularly  202 effective to have the interviews conducted in the L2 with one researcher from the C2 group, while a second interview is conducted in the LI, with a member of the participant's language and cultural background groups. An intriguing comparison of the two transcripts could be made. The second limitation of the qualitative analysis concerns the questions in the interview protocol. The design of the protocol may not have been tied closely enough to the purposes of the study. Although the interview data complemented the questionnaire results, it might have provided a more effective contrast if the questions asked were more similar to those on the questionnaire. This would not have substantively limited the interview, but would have allowed for a more systematic comparison of both analyses. It may also have made it less likely that a particular transcript would have insufficient information to answer important questions (as was the case with some elements of Jack's transcript).  6.3 Enhancing the Model of Intercultural Contact As previously outlined, suggestions for bolstering the model of intercultural contact arise from both the quantitative and qualitative findings. Thefirststep in producing an updated version of the model is to consider the general pattern described in the model, linking language use with friendship levels, motivation for interaction in the host setting, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. Thefindingsfrom the analyses of variance supported these. However, results from the regression analysis suggest a number of unmeasured variables accounted for a large proportion of the variance in A T C D scores.  203 It is not difficult to speculate where these unmeasured variables may lie. First, there are aspects of a student's psychological reaction to acculturation that are not included in the design of the current study, such as a student's relative ability to cope with the demands of acculturation (See: Furnham & Bochner, 1982,1986; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988), and overall intercultural adaptability (See: Ward, 1999; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). A number of motivational aspects of SLA might also be added to an enhanced model, such as a learner's degree of anomie (dissatisfaction with ones place • and role in society) and the extent to which the first culture (CI) is preferred over the second (C2) in an SLA situation (See: Gardner, 1979, 1985, 1988; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). Each of these are likely to impact on a student's A T C D score within the context of a study-abroad setting. Unfortunately, these considerations are only in hindsight. Future research could help to determine if some of these variables should be added to the model, in a more complete determination of a student's Contact Motivation. The current study found the model used to be effective in describing the patterns of relationships found in both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The purpose here will be to afford improvements of the model resulting from the findings of the current study; additional discussion of how the model can be enhanced by other studies are made in the upcoming section on implications for future research. Some if the findings of the study offer immediate methods for enhancing the proposed model of intercultural contact. Thefirstof these is the need to include a greater role for a student's background at the outset of a sojourn. A sojourner's background should be further clarified by defining two areas that affect an Initial Contact Motivation:  204 previous intercultural experience and predisposition toward interacting with people from different cultures. Secondly, participants in the interview sessions described another feature of their sojourn experience missing from the model: difficult lessons garnered from previous sojourns. They suggested these were having an effect on how they behaved during the current sojourn. While the model begins with a student's initial disposition toward interacting within the sojourn setting (depicted as their Contact Motivation), it does not focus on how these impressions might be a continued presence in student interaction experiences. A number of students (Ana and Mariana in particular) suggested their previous experiences were directly affecting their interactions on an ongoing basis. For example, Ana was not pleased with maintaining strong LI friendship patterns during a . previous sojourn in France. During her interview, she described conscious steps she was taking to ensure this did not occur during the current sojourn. Interview participants also described an awareness of how their current experiences might be perceived after the sojourn was over. The model of intercultural contact can therefore be improved in the following ways: by delineating two background features of previous experience and disposition to a sojourner's initial pattern of Contact Motivation, by adding student reflection on pre-sojourn goals during their stay, and finally by including a facet of imagined post-sojourn perceptions impacting on adaptation or reinforcement of Contact Motivation. A final feature to be added to the improved model originates in student frustrations over failed efforts at making contact with members of the host culture and L2 community. Students spoke of being isolated from their hosts. This seemed to be an  205  important aspect in negative interaction experiences expressed by some students. Feelings of isolation can be added to the model to further illustrate how acculturation challenges resulting in feelings of frustration or isolation relate to adaptation of a student's Initial Contact Motivation. Acculturative difficulties may be based on problems with learning the L2, or on psychological and social aspects of acculturation, such as what may arise from failed interaction attempts with hosts. Two of the interviewees said they found the best way to deal with feeling isolated from the host society was to increase contact with others from the same country or LI background. This supports the general direction laid out in the model, whereby a reinforcement of Maintenance Motivation comes from negative contact experiences in the L2. What is needed to connect these features to the model in a more direct sense is to show how negative impressions of contact experiences that result from a sense of isolation or frustration may play a role in adaptation or reinforcement of Contact Motivations. The improved model of intercultural contact, hereafter called the Intercultural Contact Model, is presented on the following page in Figure 6.2. The features added to the model are: pre-sojourn experiences and disposition, adaptation of motivation patterns due to feelings of frustration and isolation, and influences of imagined post-sojourn perceptions. In the Intercultural Contact Model, a sojourner's Initial Contact Motivation is shown as resulting from a combination of previous intercultural experience and their disposition toward cultural diversity. Initial Contact Motivations, expected to favour Exploration or Maintenance to some extent, are linked to early contact experiences, and then to either an adaptation or reinforcement of the initial pattern.  \  /  >  CS  -a  \  7  § CJ  03  •2 "S  «  a g o  „ § .2, .2  -C  AH  U P  >  u  o  a  Favou ring 'lainieinance  CO  •o  207  Mounting frustration over failed contact experiences, reflections on original goals for a sojourn, or perceptions of how a current sojourn may be evaluated after if was over, are then suggested to lead to further reinforcement or adaptation of a sojourner's Contact Motivation during ongoing contact experiences. The final position of the model remains one of two Enhanced Contact Motivations. Each of these is suggested to relate to predominant patterns of language use, friendship, and interaction in the host setting and to be associated with greater or lesser development of more tolerant attitudes toward cultural diversity.  6.4 Implications of the Study Two separate issues will be addressed in discussing the educational implication of the current study. The initial task will be to consider implications of the overall findings emerging from the study. This will be followed by suggestions of how the Intercultural Contact Model can be utilized in sojourner and SLA settings.  6.4.1 Implications of the Findings for Educational Practice The primary implication of the findings for educators and sojourners alike point to the importance of limiting the impact of LI networks through enhancing opportunities for contact within the L2 and host cultural communities. Doing so would not only assist students in building skills in the L2 and acquiring the C2, but also would appear to keep the inverse from taking place, whereby they become entrenched in LI networks, and basically immune to the influence of L2 networks. The findings of the study suggest an over-reliance on LI friendships or language use impacts negatively on the frequency of  208  student L2 use and level of L2-based friendship maintained, limiting opportunities for acquiring the L2 and C2. If students are entering an L2 environment with aspirations of learning an L2 and C2, there seems to be an imperative for them to manage their interaction patterns. SLA interaction literature has found learners cannot make substantive progress in acquiring an L2 without meaningful interaction in this language (Berwick, 2000; Kramsch, 1986, 1998; Long, 1985). The results here support a furthering of this contention into C2 acquisition. Advanced culture learning thereby necessitates a similar degree of interaction with others who are more fluent in the C2. The experiences of the students in this study show meaningful interaction in the L2 and C2 are unlikely to a significant degree for many students without support given in educational and residential settings. The goals of enhancing L2 and thereby C2 contact opportunities need to be shared throughout a learners educational and residential environments, as well as by members of their social network. Each of the students in the interviews spoke of entering their experience with a desire to integrate to some extent into the host community. Yet, they also admitted that this was proving to be more difficult than expected. This supports previous findings (See: Berwick, 1999; Segawa, 1998), and reiterates a role for educational programs in assisting students in their efforts to form bonds with speakers of the L2, both in and outside of the formal educational setting. The educational implication is to consider where educators can play a facilitating role in increasing meaningful interaction opportunities for language and culture learners. Students are likely to benefit from an awareness of how interaction patterns may equate to L2 acquisition during a sojourn. Two participants in the interviews (Ana and  209  Mariana) spoke of this important relationship. Giving students models of successful adaptation, such as relating the experiences of students like Ana or Mariana, could provide a reference point for their own experiences. The purpose would not only be to discourage students from relying too heavily on Ll-based friendship and interaction, but also to assist them in creating L2-based interaction opportunities in order to increase the likelihood of them forming significant bonds within the L2 and C2 community. Some students in the interview sessions had a lack of familiarity with working in a culturally diverse setting. These students reacted in very different ways to the challenges this imposed than those with more experience in an intercultural environment. The students who expressed the most difficulties with intercultural interactions, Betty, Jack, and Olga, focused for the most part on interactions inside the educational setting. As interactions between students from differing cultural backgrounds appeared to be an important factor in how students reacted to the need for adapting to the host culture and use of the L2, students in an international SLA context may benefit from a curricular focus on methods for acculturating into this unique situation. Students could get valuable assistance in their adaptation efforts by having a deeper understanding of the process they are undergoing. It was evident in the interview sessions that a simple lack of opportunity for L2 contact outside of the school setting was a problem. Many students were living in apartments in predominantly LI environments. Others were in homestays without people of an appropriate age for friendships to occur naturally. If, for any number of reasons, residential settings cannot provide extensive language learning opportunities, it increases the importance of providing opportunities for intercultural, L2-based interactions in the  210  educational setting. This means not only extra curricular activities, such as clubs or special outings, but activities within course curricula involving native speakers of the target language, or programs where a significant proportion of students are from the host community. It should be considered how best to pair classes studying the L2, with students taking complimentary courses in different areas or at other schools. Some of the possible pairings might be with groups of L2 learners studying a language that is the LI for a significant portion of the class, or with learners in a variety of courses where intercultural interaction is an objective. These could include: international communication, crossrcultural psychology, regional area studies (Latin American, Asian, or European studies), or other theme-based programs. Setting up regular opportunities for interaction within the curriculum of an SLA program affords a location for natural L2-based contacts to occur, and a growing likelihood of student-tostudent, intercultural bonds and friendship. Within these programs, the target language would be a medium for numerous possible activities. Paired groups benefit from increased intercultural understanding, L2 learning, and an overall growth in a student's ability to work in an intercultural context. Bringing students together for sport or recreational activities is a frequent aspect of international education programs; thus, the suggestion here it to move beyond treating these as unconventional and bringing them into the regular curriculum. Bonds with culturally different others should be consideredan educational objective, not a special event.  211  6.4.2 The Intercultural Contact Model in Educational Practice The Intercultural Contact Model can be applied to educational methodology prior to a sojourn, during the early stages of a stay in a host setting, and as an ongoing tool for counselling and support for sojourners throughout an experience. The first step is to consider a student's Initial Contact Motivation. The findings of the study support careful consideration of a prospective sojourner's attitudes toward acculturation and cultural diversity prior to commencement of a sojourn. Instruments like the A T C D scale can be used to assess a student's likelihood of succeeding in a sojourn program, particularly in one to a multicultural host community. This information can suggest how a prospective sojourner may react to the challenges of living in a more diverse cultural environment. Screening procedures can lead to more effective pre-departure preparation efforts by meeting the needs of a particular group of students. For example, in the current study it appears Betty, Jack, and Olga would all have benefited from a greater background to the society they were entering. Sojourners should be made aware of the difficulties they can encounter in moving to a new linguistic and cultural environment, but not equally so. Students with a great deal of previous experience likely require quite different preparation or orientation programs than others who are making theirfirstsojourn. Jack, Olga, and Betty all expressed shock in their interview sessions at an unexpected cultural diversity they faced in Vancouver. Students in similar scenarios would benefit from knowing more about the cultures and groups that make up the host society, and also about their role in this new environment. It is hard to imagine a student from Japan would inherently appreciate their role as a newcomer to a multicultural, immigrant society such as Canada to the extent someone from a country like Brazil that  212  shares many of these features with Canada. If a sojourner's Contact Motivation can be established prior to departure, it can be used to evaluate their likely success in a sojourn scenario, to more carefully craft pre-departure orientation efforts, or to assist them throughout their experience in the host culture in a very personalize way. The purpose in either selecting program participants through screening techniques or boosting orientation efforts is to have as many sojourners as possible arrive in the host setting with an Exploration based Contact Motivation. Students and organizers should be aware of how previous experiences may predispose sojourners toward one of the two  .  Contact Motivation patterns before the experience begins. As with most multicultural education intervention programs, the objective is to both select candidates who stand to gain the most from a well managed contact experience and also to select participants who appear motivated to meet the challenges they will face in adapting to life in a new language and cultural environment. The purpose is not to exclude, but rather to assist students with their journey. Students who have a strong Maintenance Motivation, as with Betty in the current study, can benefit from having a better understanding of the process of acculturation, and how it relates to the particular host society they are entering, before they start a sojourn. Once a group of students are experiencing interaction within an L2 in a host setting, the Intercultural Contact Model can be used as a tool for helping them to better understand their sojourn. Students should be given some form of ongoing counselling either within an SLA curriculum or as a separate element of a sojourn program. The experience of this group of students points to two uses of the model in this context. First, it can be used to connect behaviour in the host setting to possible outcomes. If students  213  are encouraged to write out their objectives at the outset of their sojourn, the can use these to reflect upon whether they are meeting their goals at later points in their stay, following the system in the updated model. Students are likely to get support from learning more about how others have overcome the very challenges of acculturation they are facing. Perhaps an effective method is to place imagined student experiences into the model to illustrate the progression of a variety of possible interaction patterns. At the very least, acculturation should be dealt with as a curricular focus in a sojourner SLA setting, and the use of the Intercultural Contact Model is one approach for doing so. Students are likely to benefit from any curriculum that closely reflects their personal experiences, which are the essence of this particular model. The second use of the Intercultural Contact Model during an ongoing sojourn is to intervene and assist students who are at risk of not meeting their earlier expressed goals for a sojourn, prematurely ending their stay, or even of doing themselves psychological or other personal injury. Anyone who has worked in a sojourner program knows extreme reactions are always a possibility. Program organizers, educators, fellow students and other members of a student's support system are likely to see the sense of isolation and frustration included in the model in the behaviour of a sojourner headed for a crisis. It is not suggested that the current design of the model is able to be used in predicting or even describing behaviours beyond its included variables, merely that it may help point out student interaction patterns reflective of feelings of isolation or frustration, typified in a pulling away from the L2 and C2. Changes in how a student interacts in the host setting may be one indication of mounting culture shock and a variety of psychological or social difficulties.  214  Finally, the Intercultural Contact Model could be used to counter one of the more prevalent misperceptions of sojourner experiences: that they are natural. They are not. It has been the contention of the current study that sojourners hold particular attitudes that relate to behaviours during their stay that impact on whether they meet objectives set for their period of residence. Theirs need not be a "Lysaardian U-shaped" whereby experiences are seen as merely happening to them according to a pre-determined system of acculturation. Rather, SLA is considered to be a conscious choice, within which students decide the frequency of L2 use and extent of interaction with others from the C2 they undertake during a sojourn. Where the Intercultural Contact Model can be instrumental is in suggesting how the interaction and language use patterns they adopt relate to whether sojourners achieve their own goals for an international language study program.  6.4.3 Implications of the Study for Future Research The current study sought to examine variables affecting SLA sojourner interaction, and how these relate to attitudes toward cultural diversity. A correlational design was used in the study, in order to carry out an assessment of the model it proposed. The findings here cannot be considered to imply a causal relationship, as the study did not utilize a true experimental design. Self-report data was given by students into their language use, friendship patterns, and attitudes toward both interaction and the cultural diversity in the host setting. However, there was no treatment program, nor control group with whom a contrast could be drawn. To fully implement the study's findings, an experimental design is required, evaluating a group of students who go  215  through a program involving features of the above suggestions for educational practice. Questionnaire results and interview data from this group could then be contrasted with a control group to evaluate causality of the linkages suggested in the Intercultural Contact Model. Extending the findings of the study in this area should be a key direction for future research efforts. Perhaps the most apparent method to add to the findings here is to carry out a longitudinal study, involving a series of quantitative and qualitative data collection <. •• techniques. Student attitudes toward various aspects of their acculturation experience could then be followed over an extended period, with a more detailed analysis of adaptation or reinforcement of their Contact Motivation into an enhanced pattern. A relatively small sample size was used in this study, particularly in the case of the qualitative analysis. This limited the generalizability of the study for other sojourner SLA settings. The study can therefore be extended by following a larger group of sojourners with qualitative and qualitative analyses through a period of acculturation in a longitudinal research approach. A wide variety of variables used in the current study were found to impact on Contact Motivation and ATCD. Further research efforts can improve techniques of assessing these variables, as well as their relationship to each construct. For example, unobtrusive measurement could be added to look at student interaction patterns at school in adding to the analysis details beyond a student's own description of these variables, as used in the current study. Anecdotal comments from teachers or other students, informal group discussions, or videotaping of interactions in school settings all offer some possibilities for this approach. It would also be useful to carry out a more culturally  216  focused study involving a closer examination of how students form linguistic, regional, or socio-economic sub-cultures in the educational or residential settings of a sojourn. This would afford a deeper understanding of the relationship between linguistic and cultural components of acculturation. Further investigation into each of the spheres of Contact Motivation (Exploration and Maintenance) is another possible area for research emerging from the findings presented here. A more direct connection between the acquisition of an L2 and C2 and each of the spheres of Contact Motivation would be a useful result. The current study has built on the work of others in creating a framework for evaluating acculturation of a new language and culture within two spheres of motivation for interaction in a host setting. Research efforts that apply the Intercultural Contact Model to other sojourner and SLA situations can build on the findings presented here to further assess this model and the construct of Contact Motivation it utilized. Another area of future research arising out of the current study concerns assessment of attitudes toward cultural diversity after a sojourn experience. Research detailing how different types of experiences relate to enhancement of more tolerant attitudes could offer a tangible contribution to evaluation of intercultural competence, which inherently includes a degree of tolerance for diversity of cultural expression and practice. The original design of the current study included an assessment of intercultural competence that was not part of its final design. Thus, the study ends at a point where this appears as a logical extension of the findings. Two approaches to an assessment of intercultural competence in particular appear well suited to the design of this study (See: Culhane, 2001 for a discussion of these). Contact Motivations and A T C D offer utility in  217  evaluating intercultural competence through either quantitative or qualitative methodology.  6.5 Conclusion The purpose of this research effort was to illuminate the process that impacts on development of more positive attitudes toward cultural diversity in a sojourner setting. A number of limitations raised in the study have outlined areas where others may extend this research. The findings have also afforded a series of recommendations for educational practice in sojourner programs in SLA study abroad contexts. If, at the same time, it has taken steps in advancing its model of how sojourners relate to intercultural interactions with others in a host setting, it will have fulfilled its second major objective.  218  REFERENCES Adam-Moodley, K. (1992). Ethnicity, Power, Politics, and Minority Education. In Moodley, K. (Ed.) Beyond Multicultural Education: International Perspectives (pp. 79-91). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, Adler, P.S. (1975). The Transitional Experience: An Alternative View of Culture Shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-23. Ady, J.C. (1995). Toward a Differential Demand Model of Sojourner Adjustment. In Wiseman, R.L. (Ed.) Intercultural Communication Theory (pp. 92-114). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. . . . Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, C. (1988). Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Balch, P. & Paulsen, K. (1978). Strategies for the Modification and Prevention of Racial Prejudice in Children. ERIC Document Service # 178805. Bandura, A. (1962). Social Learning Theory Through Imitation. In M.R. Jones, (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1962 (pp. 211-269). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. (1965). Influence of Models' Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589595. (1968a). Social Learning Theory of Identificatory Process. In D A . Goslin, (Ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory & Research (pp. 84-97). Chicago: Rand McNally. (1968b). Behaviour Modifications through Modelling Procedures. In L. Krasner & L.P. Ullmann (Eds.) Research in Behaviour Modification (pp. 18-37). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (1969). Principles of Behaviour Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Baxter, J. (1983). English for Intercultural Competence: an Approach to Intercultural Communication Training. In, Brislin R. & Landis, D. (Eds.,) Handbook of Intercultural Training Volume II: Issues in Training Methodology (pp. 182-203). Toronto: Pergamon Press.  219  Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation. Applied Psychiatry: An International Review. 46, 5-68. (1989). Psychology of Acculturation. In, J. Berman, (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Vol. 37 (pp. 201-234). Lincoln: University of Nebraska. (1979). Reciprocity of Inter-ethnic Attitudes in a Multicultural Society. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 3, 99-112. & Annis, R.C. (1974). Acculturative Stress. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 5, 382-406. & Kalin, R , & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. . , & Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M . and Bujaki, M . (1989). Acculturation Attitudes in Plural Societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185-206. & Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and Mental Health. In, P.R. Dasen, J.W. Berry, & N. Sarorius (Eds.), Health and Cross-Cultural Psychology: Toward Applications (pp. 207-236). Newbury Park, California: Sage. & Kim, U. Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987a). Comparative Studies of Acculturative Stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491-511. & Kim, U., Boski, P. (1987b). Psychological Acculturation of Immigrants. In, Young, Y.K, Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.,) Cross-cultural Adaptation: Current Theory and Research (pp-312-326). Newbury Park, Ca: Sage. & Sam, D.L. (1997). Acculturation and Adaptation. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall, & C. Kagicibaci (Eds.,) Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Vol. 3E Social Behaviour and Application (pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. & Sommerlad, E. (1970). The role of ethnic identification in distinguishing between attitudes toward assimilation and integration. Human Relations, 23, 2329 & Trimble, J., and Olmeda, E. (1986). The Assessment of Acculturation. In, W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field Methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 82104). London: Sage. .Berwick, R. (1999). Acquiring a Second Culture through Discourse in a Second Language. Polyglossia, 1, 15-24.  220  & Carey, S. (2000). The Interaction of Gender and Identity: A 6-year Perspective on Japanese Participants in an Academic Year Abroad. Polyglossia, 3, 39-52. & Whalley, T. (2000). Personal Dimensions of Globalisation through Study Abroad: A 10-year Perspective. Journal ofIntercultural Studies, 10, 1, 143-158. Bibby, R.W. (1987). Bilingualism and Multiculturalism: A National Reading. In, L. Driedger (Ed.) Ethnic Canada: Identities and Inequities (pp. 158-169). Toronto: Copp, Clark, Pittman. Bochner, S. & Lin, A. (1984). Cross-cultural Contact and the Development of an International Perspective. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 29-41. Breckheimer, S.E. & Nelson, R.O (1976). Group Methods for Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Psychological Reports, 39, 3, 1258-1269. Brislin, R.W. (1997). Face to Face: Learning 'Language and Culture' through Visits and Exchanges. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. (1993). Language, Culture, and Curriculum: Culture and Language Learning Learning in Higher Education Special Issue, Vol. 6, No. 1. London: Multilingual Matters. & Landis D. (1993). Handbook of Intercultural Training Volume II: Issues in Training Methodology. Toronto: Pergamon Press. & Yoshida, T. (1994). The Context of Cross-Cultural Training: An Introduction. In, R.W. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.) Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-cultural Training Programs (pp. 1-14). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Brody, E.B. (1970). Migration and Adaptation: the Nature of the Problem. In, E.B. Brody (Ed.), Behaviour in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations (pp. 13-21). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Butt, R. (1986). Appropriate Multicultural Pedagogy, and its Implementation in the High School. In, R.J. Samuda, & S.L. Kongs (Eds.) Multicultural Education: Programs and Methods (pp. 147-158). Kingston, Ontario: Intercultural Social Science Publications. Byram, M . (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. & Fleming, M . (1998). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge  221  University Press. & Zagrate, G. (1994). Definitions, Objectives, and Assessment of Socio-cultural Competence. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. & Buttjes, D. (1991). (Eds.,) Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards and Intercultural Theory ofLanguage Learning. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters & Escarte-Sarries, V. (1991). Investigating Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. & Escarte-Sarries, V., Taylor, S. & Allatt, P. (1990). Young People's Perceptions of other Cultures: the Role of Foreign Language Teaching. In, M . Byram & D. Buttjes, D. (Eds.,) Meditating Languages and Cultures: Toward an Intercultural Theory ofLanguage Learning (pp. 234-263). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Canada (1994). Canada's Changing Immigrant Population. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. (1990). Department of Citizenship and Immigration Facts and Figures: Overview of Immigration. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. (1989). Department ofEmployment and Immigration - Immigration to Canada: A Statistical Overview. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada. Canale, M . (1983). From Communicative Competence to Language Pedagogy. In, J. Richards & J. Schmidt (Eds.,) Language and Communication (pp. 173-193). London: Longman. & Swain, M . (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 11, 1-47. CCMIE (1992). Education in Canada's Provinces and Territories. Scarborough, Ontario: Canadian Council for Multicultural and International Education. Church, A.T. (1982). Sojourner Adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540-572. Collier, M.J. & Thomas, M . (1988). Cultural Identity: An Interpretive Perspective. In, K. Gudykunst, (Ed.) Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 99-123). New York: Sage. Coon, C S . (1954). The Story of Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Cross, S.E. (1992). Cultural Adaptation and the Self: Self-Construal, Coping, and Stress, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Texas. Cuellar, I., Harris, L.C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An Acculturation Scale for Mexican  222 American Normal and Clinical Populations. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioural Science, 2, 3, 199-217. Culbertson, M . (1957). Modification of an Emotionally Held Attitude through RolePlaying. Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology, 54, 230-233. Culhane, S.F. (1995). Responding to Racism: Measuring the Effectiveness of an AntiRacism Program for Secondary Schools. Masters' Thesis, University of British Columbia Special Collections. (2001). Assessing Intercultural Competence in Second Language Learners. Polyglossia, 4, 13-24. & Kehoe, J. (2000). The Effects of an Anti-Racist Role-Play Program. Polyglossia, 3, 1-8. Cushner, K. (1994). Cross-Cultural Training for Adolescents and Professionals. In, R.W. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.,) Improving Intercultural Interaction Modules For Cross-Cultural Training Programs (pp. 91-108). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. & Brislin, R.W. (1997). Improving Intercultural Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA. & Nieman, C. (1997). Managing International and Intercultural Programs. In, K. Cushner & R.W. Brislin (Eds., ) Improving Intercultural Interactions (pp. 129145). Thousand Oaks, CA. Dorotitch, D. & Stephan, W. (1984). Multicultural Education and Society in Canada and Yugoslavia. In Corner, T. (Ed.) Education in Multicultural Societies (pp. 23-47). London: St. Martin's Press. Dressier, D. & Willis, W. Jr. (1976). Sociology: The Study ofHuman Interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Duthie, M . (1995). Intercultural Peers: Perception of the Host National Peers in a Program Designed to Aid the Adjustment of International Students. Masters' Thesis, University of British Columbia Special Collections. Echols, F. & Fisher, D. (1989). An Evaluation of the Vancouver School Board's Race Relations Policy. In, Adam-Moodley, K. Ethnicity, Power, Politics, and Minority Education (pp. 41-58). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises. Elliott, J.L. (1990). Immigration and the Canadian Ethnic Mosaic. In, P.S. Li (Ed.) Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada (pp. 51-76). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.  223 Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliston, I. (1996). Reforming Education for Diversity. In, K.A. McLeod, (Ed.) Multicultural Education: the Challenges and the Future (pp. 1-7). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Fleras, A. & Elliott, J.L. (1991). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race and Ethnic Dynamics in Canada. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada. (1992). Multiculturalism in Canada: The Challenge ofDiversity. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson. Fletcher, J. F. & Stren, R.E. (1992). Language Skills and Adaptation: A Study of Foreign Students in a Canadian University. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 3, 293-308. Furnham, A. (1987). The Adjustment of Sojourners. In Kim, Y.Y. & Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Adaptation (pp. 42-61). Beverly Hills, California: Sage. & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture Shock: Psychological Reactions to Unfamiliar Environments. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon. (1982) . Social Difficulty in a Foreign Culture: an Empirical Analysis of Cultural Shock. In, Furnham, A. & Bochner, S., (Eds.,) Cultures in Contact (pp. 161-198). Elmsford, New York: Pergamon. Gardner, R.C. (1988). The sorio-educational model of Second Language Learning: Assumptions,findingsand issues. Language Learning, 38, 101-126. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role ofAttitude and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishing. (1983) . Learning Another Language: a true social psychological experiment. Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology, 2, 219-240. (1980). On the validity of affective variables in second language acquisition: conceptual, contextual, and statistical considerations. Language Learning, 30, 255-270. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In, H. Giles and R. St.Clair, (Eds.,) Language and Social Psychology (pp. 287-301). Oxford: Blackwell Press. & Lalonde R., & Rielson, R. (1983). The Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition: an Investigation Using LISREL Causal Modelling. Journal ofLanguage & Social Psychology, 2, 1-15.  224 & Lambert, W. (1959). Motivational Variables in Second Language Acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. & Maclntyre, P. (1991). An Instrumental Motivation in Language Study: Who Says It Isn't Effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 13, 211-220. & Clement, R. (1990). Social Psychological Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. In, H. Giles & W. Robinson (Eds.,) Handbook ofLanguage and Social Psychology (pp. 218-243). Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons. & Tremblay, P. & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a Full Model of Second Language Learning: an Empirical Investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362. Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. & Mackey, A. & Pica, T. (1998). The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-305. Gonzales, R. & Roll, S. (1985). The Relationship Between Acculturation, Cognitive Style, and Intelligence: a Cross-sectional Study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 2, 190-205. Gudykunst, W.B. & Hammer, M.R. (1988). Stranger and Hosts: An Uncertain Reduction Based on the Theory of Intercultural Adaptation. In, Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst, (Eds.) Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 106-139). Newbury Park, California: Sage. Hammersley, M . & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. New York: Rutledge. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. Hazuda, H. P., Stern, M.P. & Haffner, S. M . (1988). Acculturation and Assimilation Among Mexican Americans: Scales and Population-based Data. Social Science Quarterly, 69, 3, 687-706. Hull, W.F. (1981). A Modified Culture Contact Hypothesis and the Adaptation of Foreign Students in Cross-Cultural Settings. In, S.C. Dunnett (Ed.), Factors Effecting the Adaptation of Foreign Students in Cross-Cultural Settings (pp. 1623). New York: State University of New York.  225  Humber, W. (1985). Attitudes and Adjustment in Cross-Cultural Contact. The Sojourner, Nov. 1985, 8-27. Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1991). The Harper Collins Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Harper. Kato, Y. (1992). Gendai Ryugaku Jijou. Tokyo: Maruzen. Kehoe, J. (1994). Anti-Racist Teaching and Multicultural Teaching About Native Indians - the Effects. The Journal of Social Studies, 18, 2, 22-26. (1984). Achieving Cultural Diversity in Canadian Schools. Cornwall, Ontario: Vesta Publications. (1981). Effective Tools for Combating Racism in the Schools. Multiculturalism, 4, 3, 3-10. & Segawa, M . (1995). The Effects of Anti-Racist and Multicultural Curricula on Beliefs About First Nations' People, hi K. McLeod (Ed.), Multicultural Education: The State of the Art. Studies of Canadian Heritage (pp. 55-63). Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. & Echols, F. (1983).,The Effects of Reading Historical and Contemporary Cases of Discrimination on Attitudes Towards Selected Minority Groups. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 15, 2, 99-106. & Rogers T.W. (1978). The Effects of Principle Testing Discussion on Student Attitudes Toward Selected Groups Subjected to Discrimination. Canadian Journal of Education, 3, 4, 73-80. Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M . (1986). Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Kim, Y.Y. (1988). Communication and Cross-cultural Adaptation. Clevendum: Multicultural Matters. Klineberg, O. & Hull, W.F. (1979). At a Foreign University: an International Study of Adaptation and Coping. New York: Praeger. Kramsch, C. (1998). The Privilege of the Intercultural Speaker. In, M . Byram & M . Fleming (Eds.,) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1996). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2, 61-78.  226 Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Lam, T.C. (1995). A Review of Conceptualisation and Measurement of Acculturation. In, K. McLeod (Ed.), Multicultural Education: The State of the Art. Studies of Canadian Heritage (pp. 128-143). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. Le Compte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, Social Structure, and Second Language Use: a Response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 177-193. Long, M.H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In, W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.,) Handbook ofLanguage Acquisition, Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. (1985). Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition Theory. In, S.M. Gass & L. Madden (Eds.,) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 125-146). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. (1983). Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-native Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 2, 177-193. & Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Second Language Acquisition: Models and Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371. Lynch, J. (1989). Multicultural Education in a Global Society. New York: Falmer Press. Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 1, 45-51. Maclntyre, P.D. (1995). How Does Anxiety Affect Second Language Learning? A Reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 90-99. & Gardner, R.C. (1991). Language Anxiety: its Relation to other Anxieties and to Processing in Native and Second Languages. Language Learning, 41, 513-534. (1989). Anxiety and L2-Learning: Toward a Theoretical Classification.  227  Language Learning, 39,251-275. Masuda, M . Matsumoto, G., and Meredith, G.M. (1970). Ethnic Identity in Three Generations of Japanese Americans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 81, 99-207. Mallea, J. R. (1984). Culture, Schooling, and Resistance in Plural Canada. In Young, J. (Ed.) Breaking the Mosaic: Ethnic Identities in Canadian Schooling (pp. 147162). Toronto: Garamond Press. McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of Role Playing, and Anti-Racist Teaching in Reducing Student Prejudice. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 4, 215-226. & Ungerleider, C S . (1990). Multicultural and Racism Awareness Programs for Teachers: A Meta-analysis of the Research. Unpublished Manuscript, University of British Columbia. Mercer, J.R. (1973J. Labelling the Mentally Retarded. Berkley, University of California Press. Miller, H. (1969). The Effectiveness of Teaching Techniques for Reducing Colour Prejudice in Children. Liberal Education, 16, 25-31. Mojica, Y. (1992). Acculturation ofLimited English and Bilingual Mexican American High School Students: A Validation of the Dual Acculturation Scale - Spanish Version. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association Conference Proceedings. Oberg, K. (1960). Culture Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182. Parekh, B. (1986). The Concept of Multicultural Education. In S. Modgil, G. Verma, and K. Mallick, (Eds.) Multicultural Education: the Interminable Debate (pp. 211-231). Brighton, England: Falmer Press. Passaris, C. (1996). Multiculturalism and Human Rights Education. In, K.A. McLeod, (Ed.,) Multicultural Education: the Challenges and the Future (pp. 12-21). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Polyzoi, E. (1985). Reflective Phenomenology: An Alternative Approach to the Study of the Immigrant Experience. Journal ofPhenomenological Psychology, 16, 2, 4752. Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.  228  Ramirez, A.G. & Cousins, J.H., Santos, Y , & Supik, J.D. (1984). Biculturalism and Multiculturalism Experience Inventory: A Media-Based Acculturation Scale for Mexican-Americans: Application to Public Health Education Programs. Family Community Health, 9, 3, 63-71. Ramirez, M . Castamedia, A., and Herold, A.L. (1974). The Relationship of Acculturation to Cognitive Style Among Mexican-Americans. Journal of CrossCulturalPsychology, 5,424-433. Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the Subject, Racism, Culture, and Education. In, J. Donald & A. Rattansi, Race, Culture, and Difference (pp. 11-43). London: Sage. • Ritsumeikan University & University of British Columbia (1992). 100-nin no Kanada Ryugakki: Ritsumeikan UBC-Joint Program Report. Kyoto: Ritsumeikan University. . Rokeach, M . (1971). Long-Range Experimental Modification of Values, Attitudes, and Behaviour. American Psychologist, 26, 345-549. Rosenberg, M.M., Shaffir, W.B, Turowatz, A., & Weinfeld, M . (1987). Sociology. Toronto: Methuen. Schumacher, S. & McMillan, J.H. (1993). Research in Education: A Conceptual Framework. Third Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publications. Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the Acculturation Model for Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development, 7, 5, 379392. (1978). Social and Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition. In, J. C. Richards (Ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches (pp. 163-178). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. Seelye, H. N. (1994). Teaching Culture, Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC. Segawa, M . (1998). The Cultural Adaptation ofJapanese College Students in a Study Abroad Context: an Ethnographic Study. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia Special Collections. Silver, R.L. & Wormian, C.B. (1980). Coping with Undesirable Events. In, J. Garber & M.E.P. Seligman, (Eds.) Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications (pp. 218239). New York: Academic Press. Smalley, W.A. (1963). Culture Shock, Language Shock, and the Shock of Self-  229  Discovery. Practical Anthropology, 10, 1,49-56. Swain, M . (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In, G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds., ) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In, S.M. Gass & L. Madden (Eds.,) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 82-118). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two • Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W.M. & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural Involvement and Adjustment in Hispanic American Youths. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 4, 353-365. Tabachnick B. & Fidell, L. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. (Third Edition) New York: Harper Collins. Takashima, H. (1987). Acculturation and Social Language Learning: Use of Comics to Measure the Degree of Acculturation. IRAL, 25, 25-40. Taylor, C. (1992). (Ed.) Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Teske, R.H. and Nelson, B.H. (1974). Acculturation and Assimilation: a Clarification. American Ethnologist, 1,351-367. Torres-Matrullo, C. (1987). Acculturation and Psychopathology Among Puerto Rican Women in Mainland United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 4, 710-719. Triandis, H.S. (1975). Culture Training, Cognitive Complexity, and Interpersonal Attitudes. In, R.W. Brislin, S. Bochner, and W.J. Lonner (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Learning (pp. 57-83). New York: John Wiley and Sons. & Hui, H. (1992). Cross-cultural Training Across the Individual - Collectivism Divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269-289. Tyler, E.G. (1871). Primitive Culture. London: John Murray Publishing. Verma, G.K. & Bagley, C. (1981). Teaching Race in Schools: Some Effects on the  230  Attitudinal and Sociometric Patterns. International Journal ofPsychology, 5, 2, 62-66. (1979). Measured Change in Racial Attitudes Following the Use of Three Different Teaching Methods. In, G.K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.) Race, Education and Identity (pp. 133-143). London: Macmillan. (1973). Changing Racial Attitudes in Adolescents: An Experimental English Study. International Journals of Psychology, 8, 1, 55-58. Ward, C. (1999). Acculturation and Adaptation Revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 4, 422-442. (1996). Acculturation. In, D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (pp. 124-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation Strategies, Psychological Adjustment, and Sociocultural Competence during Cross-cultural Transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329-343. (1993). Where's the Culture in Cross-Cultural Transition? Journal of CrossCultural Adaptation, 4, 221 -249. Wagner-Gough, J. & Hatch, E. (1975). The Importance of Input Data in Second Language Acquisition Studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-307.  231  APPENDICES Appendix A  Documents  A.l Guidelines for Participants Intercultural Questionnaire University ofBritish Columbia Department ofLanguage Education Letterhead  (Day/Month/Year) Dear Student: Thank you for agreeing to write the Intercultural Questionnaire. It should take about 30-minutes to complete the questionnaire. Please complete the questionnaire and place it in the box at thefrontof the YMCA International College marked "Questionnaires." DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. All information will be kept confidential. Completing the questionnaire will be seen as consent for the information to be used in the study. Our study, Intercultural Adaptation of post-secondary students of English as a Second Language, seeks to learn about your experiences living in Vancouver. We hope to  learn  more about the type of intercultural skills and knowledge you gain from living in the multicultural environment of Vancouver. This information can help the YMCA and other Language programs to assist students with their stay in Canada. As part of my data collection, I would like to interview a group of students about your experiences in Vancouver. There will be a sign posted asked for volunteers to participate in the interview at a later date. Please be aware that you have the right to refuse to complete the questionnaire. If you have any questions about the research project or the questionnaire, please contact myself or the Principal Investigator at the locations below. Thank you,  Stephen Culhane Ph.D. Student, Language Education University of British Columbia (phone number) (e-mail address)  Principal Investigator and Faculty Advisor: Dr. Stephen Carey, Associate Professor, Department of Language Education, University of British Columbia Phone: (phone number)  *If you have any concerns about your rights or treatment as a research subject, you may contact Dr. Richard Spratley at the U B C Office of Research and Administration, at ***.****  232  A.2 Guidelines for Participants - Interviews University of British Columbia Department ofLanguage Education Letterhead (Day/Month/Year), Dear: (first name) Thank you for volunteering to take part in my research project: Intercultural Adaptation of post-secondary students of English as a Second Language. As part of my data collection, I would like to interview you about your experiences in Vancouver, and studying at the Y M C A English Language Institute. In particular, I am interested in how your experience has changed your attitudes toward culturally different people, and living within a multicultural society. The interview will take about 30-minutes, and will be tape-recorded. You will be able to review any data that I collect, and select a different name so that you will not be identified. The data from this interview will be categorized and analyzed to help develop a portrait of the multicultural and intercultural components of your experience at the Y M C A English Language Institute. Please note that you have the right to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the interview at any time. I am available to answer any questions you may have about my research project, or you may contact my Faculty Advisor directly. Thank you, Stephen Culhane Ph.D. Student, Language Education University of British Columbia (phone) (e-mail address)  Principal Investigator and Faculty Advisor: Dr. Stephen Carey, Associate Professor, Department of Language Education, University of British Columbia (phone)  Consent: I have read the above letter and give my consent to participate in this research project. I have received a copy of this consent for my personal records. Signed by: day of  , 1999.  at  this  If you have any concerns about your rights or treatment as a research subject, you may contact Dr. Richard Spratley at the UBC Office of Research and Administration, at **•.****,  233  Appendix B  B.l •  Instruments  Intercultural Questionnaire Please note: some sections of the questionnaire have been condensed for presentation here. Space between questions has been reduced.  Intercultural Questionnaire (September 1999) Directions: •  Please take this questionnaire home and work on it alone. It should take about 30-minutes to complete. Please use a dictionary wherever necessary. •  Please answer every question. Please be as honest as you can. The more honest you are, the better the information we get. A L L ANSWERS ARE COMPLETELY PRIVATE.  •  The information will not have any names on it. No-one at the YMCA, including your teacher, will know who wrote each questionnaire. This questionnaire can really help us learn more about your experience in Vancouver and at the YMCA International College.  There are three ways of answering questions : 1.  On many questions you will be asked to make a Check (D) mark or write in a short answer.  2.  Sometimes you will show if you Agree or Disagree (do not agree). •  3.  You can choose Agree Strongly, Agree, Disagree, or Disagree Strongly.  One section asks you to tell how often you do something. • •  You can answer: Never, Rarely; Occasionally, Most of the Time, or All of the time. Here are some percentages to show what is meant by each of these words: Never (0%) => (15%) Rarely (15%) => (35%) Occasionally (35%) => (50%) Most of the Time (50%) => (80%) Allofthetime(80%)=>(100%)  *** Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible to the box marked QUESTIONAIRES on the front counter at the YMCA International College.  Section A A.l A.2 A.3  What is your home country? What is yourfirstlanguage? Are you from an ethnic minority in your home country? 3. b If yes, please name it (Please use English)  234  A.4 A.5 A. 6  How old are you? Sex: Male Female What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Circle One)  High School A. 7  1 Year College  2 Years College  Some University  Other:  How many classes have you taken at the YMCA International College? This includes the class you are in now.  Section B B. 1 B.2  When did you come to Canada? (Year & Month) Please list any countries you lived in for more than one month.  B.3  Why did you come to Canada? Please show the reasonsfromMost Important (1) to Least Important (5)  To learn English To live in a new place To meet new people To have an interesting experience Togetabetterjobwhenlgobackhome B. 4  Before coming to Canada, how much did you know about Canada? (Please circle) Nothing Almost nothing Some A lot  Section C When you are not in school, what helps you to learn English?  C. 1  Not At All  A little  A lot  Television English speaking friends Homestay family Radio Movies or Videos Newspapers or magazines Friends from home country  Books The Internet C.l  In the last week, how often have you spoken English? (Please Circle)  Never C.3  Sometimes  All of the time  In the last week, how often have you spoken yourfirstlanguage? (Please Circle)  Never C.4  Most of the Time  Sometimes  Most of the Time  All of the time  In the past week, which language have you used for these things? Please answer for the time you are not at school. Put in a number (1- a bit => 5 - a lot). In English  Television  In M y First Language  235  Rented Vjdeo(s) Telephone Radio Newspapers Magazines Books Writing a letter Music The Internet C.5  Please think about your best friends here in Canada. a) How many of these friends come from your home country? b) How many of these friends speak yourfirstlanguage? c) How many of these friends are from Canada?  C.6  Have you had a boyfriend or girlfriend in Canada? This is not just a friend, but someone you had a date with, or had a longer relationship with. No . b.  C. 7  Have you known someone in Canada you would say is a very good friend? No . b.  C.8  If yes, what country do they come from?  If yes, what country did/does he or she come from?  Where are you living now? Homestay  Apartment  Other: (Please describe) b.  Have you lived in more than one place while in Canada?  c.  Please show how many months you have lived in each place:  Homestay C. 9  .  Apartment  Other  How many people do you live with? b. c.  How many of these people speak your first language? How many of these people come from your home country?  SectionD Please give your opinion about these statements. (Please Circle) D. l I strongly  D.2  I want to have more Canadian friends. disagree  agree  I agree  I strongly  agree  I want to have more chances to make Canadian friends.  (Answering Choices the same answering  D.3  I don't  have been removed for presentation scheme is used for all Questions  All of my friends are from my own country.  here. However, in Section D)  236 D.4  Most Canadians are friendly.  D.5  I like to talk to Canadians.  D.6  My English is not very good, so I don't talk to Canadians.  D.7  I speak my first language with my friends.  D.8  I speak English with my friends, even if they can speak myfirstlanguage.  D.9  Canadians speak too fast. I can't understand them.  D. 10  I don't eat Canadian food.  D.ll  Nobody in Canada understands who I am.  D. 12  I don't like to be around people from different countries.  D. 13  I eat food from my home country, and Canadian food.  D.14  I think I would be able to live in Canada for many years, if I wanted to.  D. 15  I sleep more in Canada than I did at home.  D. 16  I go out and do many things here in Canada.  D.17  I want to go out, but I don't have any friends, so I stay home.  D. 18  Because I live in Canada now, I try hard to speak English.  D.l 9  I am living in Canada, but it doesn't matter if I speak English with my friends or not.  D.20  Most people in Vancouver seem to have two cultures, Canadian and something else.  D.ll  There are too many students at the YMCA - English Language College from my home country.  D.ll  I am learning a lot about Canadian culture.  D.13  I like to teach Canadians about my country and language.  D.14  I like to be around Canadians.  D.15  Most of my friends are from my home country, and this makes it harder to learn English. •  D.l6  My friends and I try to speak English sometimes, but most of the time we speak our first language.  D.17  It is hard to speak English because my friends always want to speak ourfirstlanguage.  D.l8  I think I can look at things from different ways of thinking, because I know people from different cultures.  D.19  I am getting really good at working in school and living with people from difference countries.  237  Section E Please make a check mark (•) on the line to show your opinion. For example: "I know how to fill out the form."  1....2....3....4....5....6.. D ..7 (Agree Less Agree More)  E.l  My ability to understand Canadian culture is getting better.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.2  I am learning about Canadian culture by talking with Canadians.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.3  I am learning about many cultures while living in Canada.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.4  I like the sound of different languages.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.5  If you want to learn how to speak a new language, you also have to learn about a new culture.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.6  People from different countries are very different.  1....2....3. ...4....5. ...6....7  E.l  I like to be around people who are different from me.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.8  When you talk to someone from a different culture, you should act like they do.  1....2. ...3....4. ...5....6....7  E.9  A country with people from many different countries, like Canada, is an interesting place to live.  1....2....3. ...4....5....6. ...7  E.10  I learn a lot by having friends who are different from me.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.ll  I think Canadian people can accept different ideas, because there are many people from different places living here.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.l2  I think I have a more "international" way of thinking because I am living in Canada.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.13  My home country will seem different when I go home, because I have lived here.  1....2. ...3. ...4....5. ...6. ...7  E.l4  Learning about a new language helps me to understand people from other countries.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.l5  Learning about a new language helps me to understand international events.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.16  My understanding of other cultures is getting better.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  238  E.17  My language and culture influence what I think about the world.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.18  Every person is unique, even if they are from the same culture.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.19  It's hard to have good friends from different cultures.  1....2. ...3....4....5. ...6. ...7  E.20  Cultural differences shouldnot stop people from being friends.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.21  My ability to see people from different cultures as equals is getting better.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.22  People from different countries can still have the same ideas about the world.  1....2. ...3....4. ...5. ...6. ...7  E.23  My own culture tells me how I should think about people from different cultures.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.24  I enjoy living in a city with many cultures.  1....2. ...3. ...4....5. ...6. ...7  E.25  I can work well with people from different countries.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  E.26  A country where people are very similar is the best place to live.  1....2....3....4....5....6....7  239  B.2  Intercultural Interview Protocol Intercultural Interview Protocol • • • • •  •  Student is given Consent form in English. Any questions about the interview process are answered. Signed Consent form is put aside to be attached with this question sheet after the completion of the interview. Student is thanked for participating, and told that the interview will take about 30-minutes to complete. They are encouraged to feel free to ask questions at any point. Students are encouraged to be as honest as they can, and are explained about the procedures to keep their answers strictly confidential, as well as the use of pseudonyms.  Tape Recorder is turned on.  Background Information •  - answers are written in during interview  Record is made of Interview Date, Time, Student's pseudonym, age, and gender on subject record sheet.  A.l  How many classes have you taken at the Y M C A International College?  A.2  When did you come to Canada? (Year & Month)  A.3  Please tell me about your past experience in different countries. Have you lived in any other countries besides your home country for more than one month?  A. 4  Why did you come to Canada? Can you give me five reasons, please?  School Experience  -questions regarding school experiences  • . Follow-up questions will be added, depending on the answers given. These will be used to help the researcher more clearly understand the responses given. B. l  What have been the most difficult parts about going to school at the Y M C A International College?  B.2  What have been the easiest parts about going to school at the Y M C A ?  B.3  What have been the easiest things about living in Vancouver?  B.4  What have been the hardest things about living in Vancouver?  B.5  What have been the most interesting things about living and working with people from so many different countries?  B.6  How has living in Vancouver been different than you expected?  240  B.7  If you were to talk to a friend from Japan who is coming to Vancouver to study at the Y M C A , what would you tell them?  B. 8  Most people say they try to speak English all of the time while they are studying at the Y M C A , and living in Vancouver. What has your experience been? Have you seen other people doing this, or are they really just talking their first language most of the time outside of class?  Intercultural Experience  - questionings regarding friendships, and experiences dealing with other cultures.  C. l  Have you been living in a homestay, or an apartment while studying at the YMCA?  C.2  What kind of friends have you made while in Canada? What languages do they speak, where do they come from?  C.3  What would you say are the major differences between Japan and Canada?  •  Follow-up questions will be given. Again, these will depend on the answers given to these questions. All questions will be on the topic of living among different cultures and the challenges or opportunities it has created.  •  Tape Recorder is turned off.  •  Student is again thanked for their contribution, and reminded that all information will be kept confidential. As well, they are reminded that their accounts will be under the pseudonym they gave at the start of the interview.  241  Appendix C  Quantitative Data Tables  C.l Descriptive Statistics Table 7.1 Demographic Profiles - Questionnaire Participants Std. Deviation Variance  Background Item  N  Range  Mean  Home Country  134  1.00-7.00  4.31  2.023  4.09  LI  129  1.00-4.00  2.74  .915  .836  Age  130  16.00-41.00  24.82  4.99  24.86  Gender  134  1.00-2.00  1.57  .496  .246  EDUCATION  134  1.00-6.00  3.44  1.39  1.95  CLASSES  134  1.00-20.00  3.69  2.89  8.39  LR (Months)  134  1.00-21.00  5.06  3.61  13.02  EXPERIENCE = None, 1 =L1,2 = L2) (0  134  0-.2.00  .619  .899  .809  KNOWLEDGE (1-=none, 2=some, 3=a lot)  134  1.00-4.00  2.62  .734  .538  Homestay Months  134  0-11.00  1.99  2.18  4.74  Apartment Months  134  0-19.00  2.89  3.42  11.75  # of LI living with  134  0-5.00  1.22  1.36  1.84  242  Table 7.2 Independent Variables in the Research Hypotheses EXPER  EXPLORE Level  MAINTAIN Level  Ll-FR  L2-FR  LR  134  134  134  134  134  134  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  2.38  2.67  .336  1.806  2.25  1.98  1.84  5.06  Std. Deviation  .487  .598  .474  .854  .811  .677  .848  3.61  Variance  .238  .358  .225  .729  .657  .458  .720  10.01  Skewness  .297  .271  .394  .385  -.497  .027  .306  .468  Kurtosis  -.179  -.329  .209  -.525  -.303  -.486  .347  .429  LI USE  L2 USE  N Valid  134  134  N Missing  0  Mean  .  IENCE  Table 7.3 Dependent Variables used in the Analyses of Variance EXPLORE Score  MAINTAIN Score  A T C D Score  N Valid  134  134  133  N Missing  0  0  1  Mean  1.8060  2.2537  98.5669  Std. Deviation  .8538  .8105  13.8169  Variance  .7290  .6569  90.9057  Skewness  .385  -.497  -.521  Kurtosis  -.525  -.303  .376  243  C.2 Tables of Significant and Non-significant Findings Table 7.4 Significant Differences in the Research Hypotheses (MANOVA/ANOVA)  Independent Variable  Dependent Variable  Type III Sum of Squares  df  F  Sig.  Ll-FR  Ll-USE  7.721  2  14.66  .001  L2-USE  4.347  2  6.39  .002  Ll-USE  3.517  2  6.68  .002  L2-USE  2.129  2  5.66  .028  Ll-FR  MAINTAIN Score  271.661  2  7.23  .001  L2-FR  MAINTAIN Score  145.368  2  3.87  .023  EXPLORE Score  120.130  2  5.43  .005  MAINTAIN Level  Ll-USE (Frequency)  5.361  2  13.46  .001  EXPLORE Level  L2-USE  11.592  2  23.76  .001  MAINTAIN Level  ATCD Score  4.198  2  3.85  .042  EXPLORE Level  ATCD Score  6.813  2  5.12  .007  L2-FR  244  Table 7.5 Table of Nonsignificant values (ANOVA/MANOVA) Independent Variable  Dependent Variable  TypeUI Sum of Squares  df  F  Sig.  EXPERIENCE  Ll-USE  .303  2  .652  .523  EXPERIENCE  L2-USE  5.45  2  .117  .889  EXPERIENCE  Ll-FR  1.144  2  2.567  .082  EXPERIENCE  L2-FR  1.014  2  2.276  .108  Ll-FR  EXPLORE Score  18.841  2  .852  .429  MAINTAIN Level  L2-USE  9.11  2  .229  .796  EXPLORE Level  Ll-USE (Frequency)  .653  2  1.338  .266  C.3 Tests of Homogeneity of Variance Table 7.6 Ll-USE / L2-USE by Friendship Levels Levene's Test of Error Variances  Ll-USE L2-USE  F 1.368 1.637  dfl 8 8  df2 125 125  Sig. .182 .121  Table 7.7 Ll-FR / L2-FR by Contact Motivations Levene's Test of Error Variances  Ll-FR L2-FR  F .739 .692  dfl 8 8  df2 125 125  Sig. .657 .568  245  Table 7.8 Ll-FR /L2-FR by EXPERIENCE Levene's Test of Error Variances  Ll-FR L2-FR  F 2.135 3.209  df2 125 125  dfl 8 8  Sig. .186 .102  Table 7.9 L2-USE by EXPERIENCE Levene's Test of Error Variances F L2-USE  dfl 2  .739  df2  Sig.  131  .657  Table 7.10 Ll-USE / L2-USE by Contact Motivation Levene's Test of Error Variances  Ll-USE L2-USE  F .815 1.509  dfl 8 8  df2 125 125  Sig. .567 .161  Table 7.11 ATCD Scores by Contact Motivation Levene's Test of Error Variances F  dfl  df2  Sig.  .545  8  124  .821  246 Appendix D  Reliability Estimates - Pilot Test Results  D.l Pilot Test - Intercultural Questionnaire Table 7.12 Reliability Analysis - Pilot Test - ATCD Scale  122.1034 123.5690 122.3103 122.6207 121.9655 122.5517 122.1552 124.0517 121.6034 122.0517 122.7586 123.1552 122.0517 121.5862 121.7759 121.6897 122.1552 121.8621 124.1379 123.3276 121.8103 122.0690 122.6897  Scale Mean if item deleted 261.846 255.459 252.811 250.297 245.427 259.345 243.126 257.202 256.971 247.488 245.886 245.841 260.631 251.251 250.671 251.150 255.912 249.855 259.676 270.469 252.615 261.870 257.579  Scale Variance if item deleted .3769 .3251 .5086 .3629 .5287 .2870 .6481 .2758 .4972 .4326 .5309 .4595 .3177 .5302 .4585 .5418 .4284 .6609 .2634 .6349 .6066 .3746 .2418  1.242  121.8103  255.722  .4325  1.267  122.1379  264.820  .1945  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  53 5.3966 54 3.9310 5.1897 55 56 4.8793 57 5.5345 58 4.9483 59 . 5.3448 60 3.4483 61 5.4483 62 5.8966 5.4483 63 64 4.7414 4.3448 65 5.9138 66 5.7241 67 5.8103 68 5.3448 69 5.6379 70 3.3621 71 72 4.1724 73 5.6897 74 5.4310 4.8103 75  1.957 1.585 1.242 1.815 1.597 1.416 1.446 1.644 1.205 1.029 1.754 1.567 1.768 1.282 1.485 1.263 1.240 1.117 1.481 2.019 1.072 .9611 1.769  76  Var Mean  #  77  5.6897 5.3621  Reliability Coefficients:  Corrected total Corr.  Squared multiple Corr.  Cases  .8208 .8937 .8865 .9246 .8223 .9315 .8355 .7532 .9117 .8684 .7828 .7836 .9066 .9599 .9104 .9710 .7775 .8795 .8668 .8159 .8663 .9321 .8618  .8413 .8427 .8366 .8419 .8347 .8437 .8307 .8449 .8380 .8387 .8347 .8375 .8425 .8358 .8376 .8355 .8391 .8330 .8447 .8599 .8348 .8413 .8469  29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0  .9031 .9061  .8390  29.0  .8463  29.0  Alpha = .8456; Standardized item alpha = .8616  247 Table 7.13 Reliability Analysis - Pilot Test - Exploration Motivation Scale  Var.  Mean  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  Scale Mean . if item deleted  4.3929 3.6071 2.4643 3.5000 2.5357 3.3400 4.0340 2.1429 3.5714 3.8214 3.1429 2.7500 3.3214 3.2500 3.8929 3.8929  .6853 1.1333 •1.1380 1.0100 1.1380 1.1547 1.1222 1.2387 1.0690 1.0905 1.4067 1.1097 1.0905 1.1097 .7860 .5669  48.8929 49.6786 50.8214 49.7857 50.7500 50.2857 49.2857 51.1429 49.7143 49.4643 50.1429 50.5357 49.9643 50.0357 49.3929 49.3929  54.1733 48.4484 48.0780 47.1376 48.6389 47.5450 44.4339 51.4603 45.3228 44.8505 46.2011 48.9246 56.0357 54.1098 55.8029 54.8399  # 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  Scale Variance if item deleted .0894 .3684 .3911 .5395 .3535 .4187 .6585 .1435 .6308 .6508 .3851 .3471 -.1029 .0125 -.0746 .0457  Corrected total correlation  Squared multiple correlation  Cases  .7061 .6247 .7618 .7039 .6917 .7477 .7484 .6834 .8036 .6991 .5376 .5304 .6556 .7457 .6763 .3694  .7173 .6935 .6908 .6765 .6952 .6874 .6588 .7208 .6641 .6609 .6912 .6960 .7429 . .7320 .7305 .7187  28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0  Reliability Coefficients: Alpha = .7138; Standardized item alpha = .6936  Table 7.14 Reliability Analysis - Pilot Test - Maintenance Motivation Scale  Var.  #  Mean  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  Scale Mean if item deleted  .5570 .5379 .6733 .6730 .6840 .7496 .7127 .7907 .6596 .7343 .5713 .6347  12.3650 12.4672 12.6934 13.1095 12.8102 12.4526 11.8978 13.0631 12.6382 11.0858 12.4964 12.1095  .5303 57 3.4964 .6682 58 3.3942 .5632 59 3.1679 .7552 60 2.7518 3.0511 .6678 61 62 2.1752 .7755 .8225 63 2.6277 64 2.1533 .7465 .7965 65 2.7956 .8669 66 2.5182 .8044 67 2.0000 .6886 68 2.3869 (Continued on Next Page)  Scale Variance if item deleted 3.0570 2.7066 3.5230 3.0100 3.3167 5.9836 5.4667 6.5451 5.1188 5.4968 5.7224 6.7306  Corrected total correlation  Squared multiple correlation  Cases  .6359 .6206 .3203 .3576 .3103 .4951 .6032 .3563 .7519 .5449 .5273 .3342  .4979 .5038 .1414 .1666 .1364 .2688 .4664 .1371 .6071 .3672 .3113 .1939  28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28  248  (Continued) 69 70 71  1.8175 2.0438 1.6204  Alpha = .7743  D.2  .5586 .7161 .7188  .6413 .6163 .6382  12.4672 12.6788 12.8759  6.6625 6.8520 6.6830  .1498 .2330 .1294  28 28 28  Corrected total Corr.  Squared Multiple Corr.  Cases  .4311 .2611 .4201 .2610 .4601 .2859 .4496 .4623 .3957 .5041 .4451 .4912 .5695 .3351 .6198 .6173 .3822 .4507 .5531  .8585 .8625 .8563 .8617 .8504 .8586 .8510 .8537 .8656 .8504 .8550 .8520 .8509 .8590 .8520 .8483 .8573 .8510 .8501  133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 136 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133  .3136 .4223 .3227  Standardized item alpha = .7723  Reliability Analysis - Final Questionnaire Administration  Table 7.15 Reliability Analysis — Final Administration - A TCD Scale  Var.  # 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104  Mean  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  5.3162 4.2574 5.2904 4.8051 5.3162 5.4559 5.2868 3.3603 5.4301 5.5956 5.0625 4.9559 4.4632 5.6434 5.5404 5.5044 5.2978 5.9118 3.4449  1.0070 1.6307 1.3697 1.7258 1.4540 1.2405 1.2212 1.5924 1.2385 1.1181 1.4713 1.3574 1.8435 1.2966 1.2188 1.0872 1.4121 1.1673 1.7199  93.2549 94.3977 93.3338 93.7925 93.2699 93.1271 93.3150 93.1684 94.1195 92.9917 93.5293 93.6383 92.9504 93.4391 93.0481 93.0925 93.2789 93.1797 93.2774  Reliability Coefficients:  Scale Mean if item deleted 180.0084 174.9963 173.5157 172.7096 167.5179 177.3894 170.7466 173.2252 173.4875 171.8594 170.9116 170.2269 170.0430 176.0345 171.4765 170.3852 173.9694 172.0610 169.9137  Scale Variance if item deleted .3634 .3090 .4271 .3396 .5665 .3637 .5700 .4976 .2870 .6055 .4609 .5333 .5664 .3602 .5412 .6766 .4052 .5832 .5915  Alpha = .8723; Standardized item alpha = .8524  249  Table 7.16 Reliability Analysis - Final Administration - Exploration Scale  Var.  # 57 58 59 61 74 77 79 82 83 84  Mean  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  3.5075 3.4179 2.1940 3.1567 3.0224 2.7761 3.0448 2.6194 2.5373 3.1418  .5309 .6523 .7705 .5600 .6769 .7321 .6702 .7928 .8554 .5079  .6461 .6497 .6821 .6869 .7241 .6756 .6633 .6738 .6948 .6602  Alpha = .7483  Scale Mean if item deleted 25.9104 26.0200 27.2239 26.2612 26.3955 26.3731 26.7985 26.8806 26.2761 26.6418  Scale Variance if item deleted 10.3227 10.0602 10.3706 11.2019 11.8349 10.5815 9.8614 9.8353 11.5548 10.0211  Corrected total correlation  Squared multiple correlation  Cases  .5910 .5160 .3339 .2949 .0704 .3648 .4280 .3829 .2341 .4453  .5258 .5043 .2292 .2504 .1405 .2203 .4413 .4160 .1231 .2520  133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133  Standardized item alpha = .7418  Table 7.17 Reliability Analysis - Final Administration - Maintenance Scale Var.  # 62 64 65 66 67 68 70 72 73 80 81 85  Mean  Std Dev  Alpha if item deleted  2.0149 2.4851 2.4104 2.0299 1.8284 1.5821 2.1045 2.2090 2.0672 1.8433 2.6194 2.0746  .8040 .7730 .6740 .7352 .5556 .6289 .7586 .7567 .7066 .5733 .7928 .5833  .6911 .7170 .7164 .7222 .7017 .6944 .7172 .7044 .7038 .7208 .7115 .7074  Alpha = .7268  Scale Mean if item deleted 23.2537 22.7836 22.8582 23.2388 23.4403 23.6866 23.1642 23.0597 23.2015 23.4254 22.6493 23.1940  Scale Variance if item deleted 14.1005 15.1934 15.5812 15.5666 15.4062 14.8935 15.2661 14.7784 14.9591 16.1260 14.8911 15.5410  Corrected total correlation  Squared multiple correlation  Cases  .4794 .3071 .3018 .2645 .4418 .4847 .3037 .3937 .3995 .2578 .3468 .3827  .3119 .1911 .2438 .1777 .2748 .2868 .3087 .3557 .4611 .3103 .3038 .3057  133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133  Standardized item alpha = .7319  250  D.3 Validity Analysis: Expert Rating Scales Table 7.18 CVI - Maintenance Motivation Scale Item  DI  D2  D23  D24  D4  D5  D14  D18  D19  D8  N  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  Mean  3.57  3.71  3.86  3.14  2.86  3.71  3.29  2.57  3.71  3.14  Std. Devia tion  .535  .488  .378  .898  .899  .488  1.11  1.13  .488  1.07  Table 7.19 OT- Exploration Motivation Scale Item  D9  D3  D26  D27  D25  D21  D7  D10  Dll  D12  D13  N  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  Mean  3.14  2.86  2.87  2.85  2.86  3.14  3.14  1.71  2.71  3.71  1.44  Std. Dev.  .899  1.35  .691  1.07  1.07  .378  1.07  .951  1.25  .488  .534  Table 7.20 CVI- ATCD Scale El  E2  E3  E4  E5  E6  E7  E8  E9  E10  Ell  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  Mean  3.57  3.44  3.71  3.71  3.71  2.86  4.00  2.14  4.00  3.71  3.29  Std. Dev.  .535  .534  .488  .488  .488  .899  .000  .899  .00  .488'  .488  Item  E12  E13  E14  E15  E16  E17  E18  E19  E20  E21  E22  N  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  Mean  3.57  3.43  3.57  3.00  3.57  3.00  3.14  3.29  4.00  3.86  3.71  Std. Dev.  .535  .786  .534  .577  .786  1.00  1.09  .755  .000  .378  .488  Item N  .  (Continued on next page)  251  (Continued) Item  E23  E24  E25  E26  N  7  7  7  7  Mean  3.00  3.57  3.86  3.00  Std. Dev.  1.00  .534  .378  1.29  Table 7.21 Interview Participant CVI Scores  Rater  Participant 1 (Betty)  Participant 2 (Ana)  Participant 3 (Tadashi)  Participant 4 (Jack)  Participant 5 (Olga)  Participant 6 (Mariana)  A  1.00  5.00  5.00  3.00  1.00  5.00  B  2.00  4.00  5.00  3.00  2.00  4.00  C  1.00  5.00  5.00  3.00  1.00  4.00  D  2.00  4.00  5.00  3.00  2.00  4.00  E  1.00  5.00  4.00  2.00  2.00  4.00  *(1 = Negative Attitudes; 2 = Somewhat Negative Attitudes; 3 = Unclear; 4 = Somewhat Positive Attitudes; 5 = Positive Attitudes) D.4  Interview Participant Data  Table 7.22 Interview Participants - Questionnaire Data - L1-L2-USE /FR Participant  Ll-USE  L2-USE  Ll-FR  L2-FR  Jack  Most of the time  Sometimes  High  Low  Betty  Most of the time  Sometimes  High  Low  Ana  Sometimes  Most of the time  Mod  High  Mariana  Sometimes  Most of the time  Low  High  Tadashi  Sometimes  Most of the time  Mod  High  Olga  Most of the time  Sometimes  High  Low  252  Table 7.23 Interview Participant - MAINTAIN, EXPLORE, ATCD Scores  Participant  MAINTAIN Score  Percentile  EXPLORE Score  Percentile  ATCD Score  Percentile  Betty  32.00  91.8  26.00  11.9  90.50  25.6  Jack  28.00  63.4  30.00  52.2  102.50  60.9  Olga  32.00  91.8  28.00  26.1  80.00  11.3  Ana  21.00  10.4  36.00  92.5  121.00  97.0  Tadashi  15.00  3.0  32.00  73.6  114.00  89.5  Mariana  16.00  4.5  38.00  100.00  115.00  91.0  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items