Most second language acquisition studies conducted to date have been associated with classroom learning. Recently, however, learning outside of the second language classroom has become an area of interest for researchers as evidenced by the publication of an edited volume of research articles on the subject (Benson & Reinders, 2011). The authors suggested that the growth of new environments for language learning indicates that research should extend outside of the classroom and that “out-of-class learning is beginning to rival classroom learning in importance” (Benson & Reinders, 2011, back cover). In light of a gap in the literature, language learning outside of the classroom would be an excellent topic of research for studies, theses, and dissertations.

Qualitative research conducted in 2010 at ELS Charlotte, which is affiliated with Queens University of Charlotte, reinforced the significance of out-of-classroom language learning (Murray, 2010). The idea for the research came through reading the ELS brochure, which at the time offered prospective students opportunities for full-time intensive English study as well as part-time opportunities. The semi-intensive option offered students morning study with afternoons off to “explore and use their improving English.” Exploring was clearly accessible but using English would necessarily require interaction with speakers of English, with the attendant question of how easy that would be for short-term visitors to effect. Even for native speakers moving to a new area, connection sometimes takes a while. Would characteristics as personality, first language or culture, age, gender, or English level also play into the equation? How would having this extra time enhance English language learning?

Using the paradigm of narrative inquiry, three pilot study and 10 main study participants were sampled, all of whom had selected the semi-intensive option at some time. We interviewed each participant individually, using the responses to co-construct a language-learning story of past and present experience. Subsequently, we checked with each participant to determine if the narratives were correct and to see if anything should be added. The narratives were cross-analyzed to discern commonalities.

All of the participants were from major cities in their countries and thus had access to English instruction with native speakers as well as considerable authentic materials. Most had, in fact, attended English language schools in their home countries. Why were they studying abroad if they could have achieved almost the same experience at home? All of the participants believed that simply living in an English-speaking country would enhance their language learning. All of them were incredibly motivated to learn English, believing that their future professional lives would be enhanced with a strong command of English.

We found that the extra hours offered by the semi-intensive option could not be directly tied to any enhancement in English proficiency. At the same time, all but one participant was happy with the semi-intensive choice. Most felt that 4 hours of language instruction was enough for one day and that the intensive option would require more homework and effort than they wanted to expend. Some participants spent the hours in the library, others in the gym; some just returned to their accommodations to relax. Only one participant regretted the selection. A South Korean, she switched from intensive to semi-intensive but found that she spent the extra hours just conversing with other Koreans. She said that she was ashamed at the waste of time and switched back to intensive in the following session.

Though the research questions were structured to determine if the extra hours were of value in English language learning, the data yielded some unexpected insight into language learning outside the classroom in general. We found that a good homestay (staying with a family) proved to be the most effective way for learners to interact with native speakers. A great homestay was the best, but even a mediocre one could be effective in providing opportunity for interaction. One host father would drive his students 45 minutes to class and pick them up. Then, as a former chef, he would have them help him with dinner. Dinner conversation lasted hours―all to the delight of the two participants. Conversely, a young Brazilian girl was disappointed with her elderly homestay family as they were not very active. She did interact daily with their granddaughter, however, and spoke a lot of English in that relationship. Other host families took the students to events and on trips.

Participants who chose not to be in homestay had to make their own opportunities for interaction; the success of such efforts depended on the participants themselves. One participant became an active member of a church young adult group and was constantly interacting. This participant also audited university courses and met students there. Some of the younger male participants made friends easily because of their outgoing personalities and good looks. One Turkish participant was disappointed with his lack of interaction with native speakers but was enjoying his English conversation with other ESL students from various countries. He was planning a trip with some ESL students, but he said that it would be an English-only trip.

Overall, we did not find that any particular characteristic made it more difficult for the participants to interact; sometimes it depended on the luck of the draw in having a good homestay or connecting with people via an activity, sometimes on initiative. Those participants who felt good about the interactions they had experienced felt positively about their English language learning. Most participants seemed to view the classroom component as a means to be in the country rather than the focus of their English language learning. They saw the classroom as a resource for providing answers to what they didn’t understand outside of the classroom. All of the participants took responsibility for their own language learning, acknowledging that the out-of-class component depended on their own initiative or responsiveness to overtures.

In that the outside-the-classroom learning component was clearly of major importance to the participants in this study, it follows that an instructor will want to find ways to encourage outside-of-class learning and to connect it with the classroom component. Jessica assigned her class to speak with native speakers on a daily basis and began each day with the students relating the encounters they had had. Knowing they had to report on interactions seemed to be the push that students needed to effect such interaction. The morning warm-up activity got the class engaged; hearing how other students had connected with native speakers gave the learners incentive to work at their own connections and ideas on how to connect. Other ELS instructors encouraged volunteer activity to put the learners among native speakers. Another idea would be entering teams in walks for the cure or other local endeavors.

Ideas for connecting outside of class learning to the classroom component can come from a number of places. Benson and Reinders (2011) shared many thoughts as they looked at language learning outside the classroom (primarily English language learning) occurring worldwide. The December 2011 issue of this newsletter addressed using student assistants in the classroom (Judy Bonifield) and initiating a project conducted outside the classroom (Natalie Dielman), both of which could result in increased interaction with native speakers. Instructors could share their ideas for making the connection through this newsletter or at conferences. Researchers could expand on this and other studies to bring language learning outside the classroom into greater focus.

REFERENCES

Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Murray, C. (2010). Language learning outside of the classroom: A reflection on language learner complexity (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest . (UMI No. 3422367)

Cheryl Murray is an adjunct professor of English and linguistics at Queens University of Charlotte. She received an MA in linguistics from the University of South Carolina in 2004 and a PhD from Walden University in 2010.

Jessica Nattaradol is currently an instructor with ELS Language Center, Charlotte. With over 14 years of experience teaching English both in the United States and in Thailand, she holds an MEd in TESOL from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.