Thrivers and Survivors during Study Abroad: The Individual Cases of Japanese Learners of English

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that this manuscript has the potential to make an important and interesting contribution to the current research on study abroad, pending the following revisions:

p. 2 – the acronym ILP is not defined

pp. 2-4 literature review – I find it strange that there is no mention of any of the research focused on social networks and SA since this research reveals important distinctions in learners’ experiences while abroad.

Here are some examples:

Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 464–486.

 

Hasegawa, A. (2019). The social lives of study abroad: Understanding second language learners' experiences through social network analysis and conversation analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429505829

 

Kennedy Terry, K. (2022). At the Intersection of SLA and Sociolinguistics: The Predictive Power of Social Networks during Study Abroad. The Modern Language Journal (early view).

 

McManus, K. (2019). Relationships between social networks and language development during study abroad. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(3), 270-284.

 

Pozzi, R. & Bayley, R. (2021). The development of a regional phonological feature during a semester abroad in Argentina. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(1), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000303

 

Shiri, S. (2015). The homestay in intensive language study abroad: Social networks, language socialization, and developing intercultural competence. Foreign Language Annals,48, 5–25.

 

Trentman, E. (2017). Oral fluency, sociolinguistic competence, and language contact: Arabic learners studying abroad in Egypt. System, 11, 54–64.

 

Zappa-Hollman, S. & Duff, P. A. (2015). Academic English socialization through individual networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 333-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.188

 

pp. 2-4 Also, the discussion of individual differences/variation seems to go on for too long and seems rather self-evident. I think it would be more meaningful if contrasted with some of the more general research on language acquisition during SA – at least the broad trends – to show how pragmatic development is highly sensitive to individual differences (vs. say narrative ability or oral fluency which, overall, tend to improve during SA).

See: Isabelli-Garcia et al., 2018 for a review

p. 5 – Just a quick note on Table 1. The wording for #3 and #5 should be changed to:

               3. Student requests worksheets from interlocutor after missed class.

               5. Student requests an extension from interlocutor for an assignment.

p. 5 – section 3.2 – typo in word suitable

p. 5 – I think it would be more appropriate to refer to non-targetlike features (#3/4) rather than non-L2-like features. This confused me at first (because I expected it to say non-L1 features, as in L1 English). I think it would be clearer if you just called them targetlike/non-targetlike features.

p. 6 – when you refer to Thrivers and Survivors, are these the same as high-achievers and low-achievers (from p. 4)? This was a bit confusing to me.

p. 6 – It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by “informal language learning” since this is different from classroom learning and time spent abroad. Also, how is this quantified/verified?

p. 7 – I would disagree with the statement on p. 7 that the LCP has been successfully used to track language acquisition during SA. Here is a list of studies where scores on the LCP did not predict acquisition. I think it is important to mention these here and perhaps note that in studies of pragmatics, the LCP has a higher success rate, if that is the case.

See: Isabelli-García, 2010; Magnan & Back, 2007; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004

p. 7 – I am not sure that “intensity” is the right word to describe the L2 contact as you are simply talking about the number of hours. Frequency seems like it would be a more apt label for this calculation. To me, intensity refers to the relationship that the learner has with the L2 speaker.

p. 7 – Does the L1 Japanese use include technology use (social media, facetime calls back home, etc…) or just face-to-face? This would be important to note.

p. 9 – remove “high-flyer” (replace with one of the terms used previously)

pp. 9-11 – I liked the detailed discussion of the linguistic changes to each of the Thrivers – the specific examples are very helpful (and allow the reader to visualize the evolution).

p. 14 – I think it would be interesting to investigate whether something specific happened to both of the survivors at the end of their sojourn (since they both showed declines at the end). Were they especially homesick? How did they refer to the host culture/target speakers (what were their attitudes like)?

p. 14 – I am not sure that you can say that “the data in this study empirically support interactive activities” since this data was not actually provided, or was only provided anecdotally. You would need to provide many more details from the LCP in order to support this statement.

Also, one of the major issues I would raise with this study is the lack of significance testing – you have only provided descriptive statistics from the LCP, but have not used inferential statistics/regression analysis to establish that the learner gains were not based on chance alone (or on another factor, such as time in the target-language environment). This would normally be expected if you are to make assertions about the cause of a particular change in language use.

p. 15 – I disagree with the statement in the second paragraph “the variables characterising the stay (types of L2 contact) are much more revealing than capturing intensity of contact and length of overall stay”. This statement needs to be revised and/or removed as the research on social networks (mentioned above) and much research on SA reflects the opposite – that intensity of contact (e.g., Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014; Kennedy Terry, 2022; Trentman, 2017) and length of stay (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015; Regan et al., 2009) are critical factors during SA.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I only had one comment and this is included in my review comments above.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a nice job of incorporating the suggested revisions. I noted one typo that still needs to be corrected. On pg. 3, the reference to McManus should be (2019) and not 2014 (It is correct in the references).

Author Response

Thank you again for the suggested ways to strengthen the article. The year of the McManus article has been amended